'3rd Rome' theory

[Edward Henderson]

"ORTHODOXOS TYPOS": Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew Denounces Moscow's "3rd Rome" Theory

According to the Athens newspaper To Vima of 8 July 2004, Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew responded to the "3rd Rome" theory of the
Patriarch of Moscow (which had been brought up for discussion during
the 8th International Assemblage of the Russian Orthodox Church) by
calling it "...foolish, hubristic, and blasphemous," because "...it
resounds with the spirit of caesarpapism and vaticanism; something
totally unacceptable to the Orthodox Church."

To Vima went on to report that the Ecumenical Patriarch replied
specifically to the positions and arguments posited by the attending
Church hierarchy and political representatives of Moscow by sending --
via the Secretary of the Assemblage -- letters pertaining to this
matter to the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexion; the President of External
Affairs for the Russian Church, Metropolitan of Smolensk, Cyril; as
well as to some of the politicians in attendance. Along with other
matters, the letter contained the following:

To the representatives of the Russian government, Patriarch Bartholomew stated: "The gathering together of Orthodox faithful into one flock under the leadership of a single powerful leader, who would be carrying out the agenda of a particular government, will unavoidably lead the Church into becoming nothing more than an organ of that government, and not the means by which mankind achieves salvation."

To the Minister of the Exterior, Ivanoff, he stated the following: "The
involvement of government into the decision-making process of the
Church smacks of unacceptable caesarpapism. During the communist era
there occurred an intolerable politicization of the Russian Church. ...
We hoped that things would be different after the fall of that
monstrous system. However, to our dismay, we see that the current
Russian government continues to unhesitatingly interfere, and, indeed,
to even 'make policy' concerning matters that are strictly
ecclesiastical."

The Patriarch went on to ask the following question of the Metropolitan
of Smolensk: "Are you telling us that the unity of Orthodoxy is a
question of numbers, political strength, secular and diplomatic power?"
According to the article in To Vima, the Ecumenical Patriarch went on
to declare: "What we have heard regarding the unity of the Church is,
in its entirety, an unfortunate echoing of the spirit of vaticanism,
which construes unity as a single organizational structure, as opposed
to the unity of the spirit and of the heart, which has been the way it
has always been construed in the Orthodox Church."

To the Vice President of the Parliamentary Committee, the Ecumenical
Patriarch emphasized the following: "The foolish theory pertaining to a
'3rd Rome' is hubristic (in accordance with the ancient Greek
definition of this word [having to do with overweening arrogance] ),
and blasphemous. New Rome may be the first among equal Patriarchates, but she has never sought to dominate and exercise power over the other Orthodox Churches. We recognize her primacy in the stewardship of our unity, and she has performed this function humbly and absent any exercise of power."

Finally, as reported in the To Vima article, the Ecumenical Patriarch,
wanting to send a clear and unambiguous message to all Orthodox
faithful everywhere, stated: "Those who speak of a 3rd Rome are totally
unsuited to hold leadership positions in the Orthodox Church, because
they will play a role in transforming her from a Christ-worshipping
faith to a feudalistic organization based upon the exercise of raw
power."

On the other side of this issue, the official representative of the
Russian government, Vladimir Zorin, spoke of the need to unite all of
the Orthodox nations "...under the banner of the Russian Church, which
is the largest, and, as such, holds the leadership position among the
Orthodox Churches."

Russian Minister of the Exterior, Igor Ivanoff, stated: "Our diplomatic
service cooperates and works with the Russian Orthodox Church, which
represents the connecting link between all of the Slavic Orthodox
Churches."

The Metropolitan of Smolensk, Cyril, stated unequivocally that: "The
Russian Orthodox Church holds the de facto first place among all of the
other Orthodox Churches because of her great spirituality, her ethics
and virtues, her tradition, and her political influence; as such, she
speaks for the over 350 million Russians throughout the world.
Moreover, she exercises influence in all of the Orthodox Churches of
the Balkans, as well as in those countries where the Orthodox faithful
represent a minority. We are the rightful spiritual heirs of
Byzantium."

The Vice-President of the Parliamentary Committee declared that the
Russian Orthodox Church was "...the only one able to lead a
Pan-Orthodox unity of a multinational character. For that reason, the
3rd Orthodox Capital prophesied by Saint Seraphim of Sarof is needed.
We must adhere to the historical necessity of founding a '3rd Rome.' "
The Metropolitan of Minsk, Philaretos, argued that: "The Church of
Constantinople was the Church of the Byzantine Empire, and her role
within Orthodoxy has diminished as a result of the termination of that
Empire; this has resulted in the Ecumenical Patriarchate becoming
increasingly animated by papist tendencies."

Finally, the representative of the Metropolitan of Odessa, Milan
Gerkas, declared: "We are the leaders of Orthodoxy, and we have to
demonstrate that fact."

http://grecoreport.com/Bartholomew_Denounces.htm
Orthodoxos Typos. 16 July 2004. p. 6.
(Translation by GRECO REPORT staff.)

[Alec Lowly]

"ORTHODOXOS TYPOS": Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew Denounces Moscow's "3rd Rome" Theory

According to the Athens newspaper To Vima of 8 July 2004, Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew responded to the "3rd Rome" theory of the
Patriarch of Moscow (which had been brought up for discussion during
the 8th International Assemblage of the Russian Orthodox Church) by
calling it "...foolish, hubristic, and blasphemous," because "...it
resounds with the spirit of caesarpapism and vaticanism; something
totally unacceptable to the Orthodox Church."

The first thing that really needs to be said is that we have this report from only one source, and a secular source, at that. We should not jump to conclusions about what was actually said or that the quotations in this report are accurate, contextual translations.


To the Minister of the Exterior, Ivanoff, he stated the following: "The
involvement of government into the decision-making process of the
Church smacks of unacceptable caesarpapism. During the communist era
there occurred an intolerable politicization of the Russian Church. ...
We hoped that things would be different after the fall of that
monstrous system. However, to our dismay, we see that the current
Russian government continues to unhesitatingly interfere, and, indeed,
to even 'make policy' concerning matters that are strictly
ecclesiastical."

Does anybody know, specifically, what the Patriarch may be talking about here?


To the Vice President of the Parliamentary Committee, the Ecumenical
Patriarch emphasized the following: "The foolish theory pertaining to a
'3rd Rome' is hubristic (in accordance with the ancient Greek
definition of this word [having to do with overweening arrogance] ),
and blasphemous. New Rome may be the first among equal Patriarchates, but she has never sought to dominate and exercise power over the other Orthodox Churches. We recognize her primacy in the stewardship of our unity, and she has performed this function humbly and absent any exercise of power."

If the Patriach said this, one must hope that he knows that many faithful Orthodox would beg to differ.


The Metropolitan of Smolensk, Cyril, stated unequivocally that: "The
Russian Orthodox Church holds the de facto first place among all of the
other Orthodox Churches because of her great spirituality, her ethics
and virtues, her tradition, and her political influence; as such, she
speaks for the over 350 million Russians throughout the world.
Moreover, she exercises influence in all of the Orthodox Churches of
the Balkans, as well as in those countries where the Orthodox faithful
represent a minority. We are the rightful spiritual heirs of
Byzantium."

The key expression here is "de facto."


The Metropolitan of Minsk, Philaretos, argued that: "The Church of
Constantinople was the Church of the Byzantine Empire, and her role
within Orthodoxy has diminished as a result of the termination of that
Empire; this has resulted in the Ecumenical Patriarchate becoming
increasingly animated by papist tendencies."

Ouch.

[Olga]

Umm... perhaps the learned gentlemen in the above ecclesiastical stoush should note that Moscow proclaimed itself the Third Rome in, ah, the mid-fifteenth century, following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans.... ;)

[Kosta]

funny how the E.P is somewhat hypocritical on this, Ever since 1921 when the E.P. has gone into survival mode he has been promoting a type of papism. For his survival he is going overboard in ecumenist relations and even once claimed that all Orthodox christians in the diaspora should be under his jurisdiction. He has even appointed archbishops in the far east even though there are established orthodoxchurches (for decades) under russian missionaries. Some have even been proclaimed autocephalous years ago by moscow. The reason that he is threatened by the third rome theory is because it will usurp his own agenda. That agenda is the same reason he condemns third rome theory for.

[Athanasios Walter]

I am curious. As far as the canons are concerned, can a Patriarch extend outside his jurisdiction? And according to the canons, who for example could extend to the new world, here in the Americas, or anywhere outside all the juridistiction of all the Patriarch? Can any of the Patriarch legally, if that is a correct term, or canonically, go outside their jurisdiction and establish new Churches? What do the canons have to say about this?

[Kris]

I am curious. As far as the canons are concerned, can a Patriarch extend outside his jurisdiction? And according to the canons, who for example could extend to the new world, here in the Americas, or anywhere outside all the juridistiction of all the Patriarch? Can any of the Patriarch legally, if that is a correct term, or canonically, go outside their jurisdiction and establish new Churches? What do the canons have to say about this?

Hi,

I believe the Ecumenical Patriarchate bases his claim on a canon which states the Patriarch of Constantinople is to have jurisdiction over the "barbarian lands" or something to that effect. As such, he claims that he should have jurisdiction over all the lands that were outside the Empire, including America, Australia, the Far East, etc.

However, this interpretation of that canon is a completely new one; no one thought in these terms until the 20th century (when the Ecumenical Patriarch became a driving force for the Ecumenist movement).

With respect to the Orthodoxy in the Americas, it has its roots in Russian missionary activities in Alaska, which was at that time part of Russia (and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate). As such, I think Moscow clearly has rights over Constantinople in this area (although I think granting autocephaly to the OCA was premature).

Likewise, the churches in the Far East were also the product of the Russian Church, and they should therefore fall under the jurisdiction of Moscow. By saying Moscow has no rights to grant autocephaly to these churches, Constantinople is clearly acting outside its canonical boundaries.

In Australia, the Orthodox community is overwhelmingly Greek. The Church of Greece gave the Ecumenical Patriarch jurisdiction over all its churches in the diaspora. As such, the EP claim is legitimate in this case.

Of course, Constantinople's actions are understandable. The Orthodox community in Turkey is nearly extinct and faces great pressures from the Turkish government and people. If the Ecumenical Patriarchate wishes to survive, it seems he has to assert some form of authority elsewhere.

But, although understandable, I don't believe there is any canonical justification for the Patriarchate's actions; unless one subscribes to the innovative interpretation of the canon I mentioned previously.

In XC,
Kris

[Owen Jones]

The E.P. is at least half right-- the ROC is an arm of the state, which is probably the reason why Russia has the smallest percentage of church-goers in the "Christian" world. The only ecumenic empire in the world today is the U.S., so it would make sense for the Patriarchate to re-locate.

[Anthony]

Umm... perhaps the learned gentlemen in the above ecclesiastical stoush should note that Moscow proclaimed itself the Third Rome in, ah, the mid-fifteenth century, following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans.... ;)

True, but didn't it go back on this, or at least on the accompanying claim to hegemony over the Orthodox world, at the Nikonian council in the late 17th century?

(By the way I am not trying to take sides as between Greeks and Russians.)

[Alex Haig]

The orthodox way would be to call a Pan-Orthodox Synod of all the Bishops and for them to decide who should be responsible for each given area of the globe until such time as each country or region can be made into an autonomous or autocephalous church. However, given the papal tendancies of both the Ecumenical and Moscow Patriarchates such an agreement would be unlikely.

At this point I think it important to note that the Ecumenical Patriarch is really a locum primus inter pares: were the Pope of Rome to renounce the herasies of his church and join back with the Orthodox Church, he would rank as most senior Bishop of the Church.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Kris]

The orthodox way would be to call a Pan-Orthodox Synod of all the Bishops and for them to decide who should be responsible for each given area of the globe until such time as each country or region can be made into an autonomous or autocephalous church. However, given the papal tendancies of both the Ecumenical and Moscow Patriarchates such an agreement would be unlikely.

At this point I think it important to note that the Ecumenical Patriarch is really a locum primus inter pares: were the Pope of Rome to renounce the herasies of his church and join back with the Orthodox Church, he would rank as most senior Bishop of the Church.

With love in Christ

Alex

Hi,

Personally I don't see why such an arrangement is necessary. If Russian missionaries got to an area which was not presided over by any particular jurisdiction and established a Christian community there (naturally under its own care), that area will fall under the jurisdiction of that particular Patriarchate.

There is no need for Constantinople, or any other jurisdiction, to come and attempt to steal territory from another.

I guess one could say its "finders keepers."

The only problem arises when you have several different jurisdictions entering the same territory at once, which is the case in Western Europe for example. Here it is more complicated, and a council like the one you suggest might be useful (although SCOBA in the USA suggests that unless its done right it might be a waste of time, and something that compounds the problem).

But with respect to the Far Eastern churches, I don't see why Moscow's authority in these areas should even be questioned. And if Moscow grants them autonomy, she has the right to do so.

In XC,
Kris

[Scott Pierson]

renounce the herasies of his church and join back with the Orthodox Church, he would rank as most senior Bishop of the Church.


The idea that the Pope could just change a few of the doctrines of the Latin Church and would then magically be first among equals of all Orthodox Bishops is kinda scary. 1000 years of schism is a big deal the current Pope wasn’t even selected by Orthodox Bishops. I would hope the Church would strip the Pope of his office** if he wanted to join the Church and then appoint a Bishop with better Orthodox credentials. We could have a good Russian or Greek move to Rome and take up the Job as Patriarch of Rome :) .

** I guess he doesnt really have an office anyway because you have to be in the Church to be a Bishop. have him come in as a catechumen.

I have an odd question. If there are Orthodox in Rome (which I've been told is true because we even have Churches there. ) and they have a bishop, wouldn’t that person technically be the Bishop of Rome ?

[Kris]

The idea that the Pope could just change a few of the doctrines of the Latin Church and would then magically be first among equals of all Orthodox Bishops is kinda scary.


I don't think it would be quite that easy. Yes, if the Roman church renounced all of its heresies, admitted it had been in schism, etc. then the head of that church in Rome, following its reunion with the Church of Christ would become primus inter pares.

But its not like Pope Benedict could just wake up tomorrow and say "oh, by the way, I'm not infallible, the Immaculate conception is no longer a dogma, the Liturgy has been restored to its ancient form, etc." and all of a sudden find himself being the first Bishop within Orthodoxy.



I have an odd question. If there are Orthodox in Rome (which I've been told is true because we even have Churches there. ) and they have a bishop, wouldn’t that person technically be the Bishop of Rome ?

I would venture to guess that Orthodoxy in Rome is as diverse as it is in the reast of Europe, with Greeks, Russians, Serbians, Romanians, etc. all under different Bishops, based in London or Paris, or elsewhere.

In the GOC, Archbishop Gregorios of Thyatera and Great Britain is also the Bishop of all Western Europe, which I'm guessing would include Rome. But he could not be called the Bishop of Rome.

In XC,
Kris

[Alex Haig]

Ok, I wasn't suggesting it could be an overnight process (it would probably take centuries or even millenia), but the general principle is still the same: the Pope of Rome, were he in communion with the Church, would be the most senior Orthodox Bishop.

My point was that the Ecumenical Patriarch is not really the first among equals in theory but is in practice since the Pope of Rome is schismatic and a heretic.

In a sense, the idea of Moscow as being the Third Rome and so the Patriarch of Moscow being most senior Bishop doesn't really matter in practice as the position holds no power outside his own Patriarchate .

With love in Christ

Alex


I started the sentance with "In a sense" - of course it does matter but seeing that it is really an honourific position it would not change practices on the ground. However, as mentioned in my previous post, since the two Patriarchates (Ecumenical and Moscow) show papal tendancies they would both make more of this than they should.

[Peter Farrington]

Personally I think it wrong, and a form of ecclesio-archaeology to consider that Rome could have a primacy of honour simply because fifteen hundred years ago it had such a primacy.

It seems to me to completely ignore real life, in the same way that a fixation on the Old Calendar would lead to Christmas being celebrated at Mid-Summer.

This isn't a polemic against EOxy but it seems to find it much harder to cope with the modern world simply because since the abandonment of local Orthodox practice in the medieval period there seems to be a rejection of all variety as error.

We see this in the thread on god-parents where some EO seem most unhappy with the idea that there could be two valid traditions.

The fact is that there has been no Western Orthodoxy for 1000 years and Roman Catholicism is not in the same relation to either the EO or OO as the EO and OO are to each other. There are real doctrinal differences. Roman Catholicism has not been Orthodox, indeed I would doubt its Orthodoxy for much of the period that the EO were happy to be in communion with the West.

If Roman Catholicism became Orthodox then the Pope of Rome would not become first among equals, indeed there would surely need to be some conciliar activity to deal with a whole load of issues.

If we follow the ecclesio-archaeological view then all that is needed is for some local Orthodox community to establish a bishop of Rome and he would 'have to' become first among equals even if he were bishop of a couple of hundred people.

If the Roman Catholic Pope could so easily become first among equals then what justification is there for EO baptising Roman Catholics? If there is baptism then there is not a Church. If there is not a Church then the canons relating to Old Rome are not dormant but defunct.

In any case, the way so many EO speak about the EO first among equals, the EP, I would imagine that the Pope of Rome would be hesitant to take on the job. I don't think I can recall any EO that I have known speaking well of him?

:-)

Peter

[Owen Jones]

The last thing for Orthodoxy would be for Rome to renounce its heresies and unite with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy would be swallowed up by a Roman church that is very heterodox and very much at odds with Rome. Of course, it is all romanticism.

[Alex Haig]

Personally I think it wrong, and a form of ecclesio-archaeology to consider that Rome could have a primacy of honour simply because fifteen hundred years ago it had such a primacy.

It seems to me to completely ignore real life, in the same way that a fixation on the Old Calendar would lead to Christmas being celebrated at Mid-Summer.

Quite right - there's a lot of things that need to be sorted out. In my (not very humble) opinion the Canons are a mess - people quote them as fixed truths when it suits themselves but when they break them they say they don't apply in the "modern" period or that it is because there is an economy.


If Roman Catholicism became Orthodox then the Pope of Rome would not become first among equals, ...

Why not?


indeed there would surely need to be some conciliar activity to deal with a whole load of issues.

I think there would need to be more than "some".


If we follow the ecclesio-archaeological view then all that is needed is for some local Orthodox community to establish a bishop of Rome and he would 'have to' become first among equals ...

Not quite. Despite us not agreeing with much of modern Roman Catholicism I don't think any would suggest that they don't have historical lineage. It is an important principle that no Church can get involved in the internal workings of another Church. However, an Ecumenical Council (or something of an equal standing) could, I suppose, appoint a new Orthodox Pope of Rome.


... even if he were bishop of a couple of hundred people.

A bit like the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul :-).


If the Roman Catholic Pope could so easily become first among equals then what justification is there for EO baptising Roman Catholics?

None I suppose, save them making sure there is a baptism.


In any case, the way so many EO speak about the EO first among equals, the EP, I would imagine that the Pope of Rome would be hesitant to take on the job. I don't think I can recall any EO that I have known speaking well of him?

Quite: he's far too ecumenical :-p

With love in Christ

Alex

[Scott Pierson]

Not quite. Despite us not agreeing with much of modern Roman Catholicism I don't think any would suggest that they don't have historical lineage. It is an important principle that no Church can get involved in the internal workings of another Church.I think the latin communion is not a "Church" in the technical meaning of term . The sacraments of heretics are null and void and they (current Latin Bishops who did not recive a laying on hands from an EO Bishop but rather from a heretical "bishop".) therefore do not have a real apostolic succsesion. A heretical Bishop who is no longer in communion with the Church (the EO Church) losses the power to perform ordinations of other bishops**. Apostolic succsesion is not magic a mere effect of a physical action (like passing on a magical initatic power that is unconnected to the Church and the will of God) but requires the faith and power of the Church. I'm not saying the (lack of ) moral quality of a Bishop destroys his power to perform sacraments (that would be a heresy) but being in communion with the Church is certainly a requirment. I will post some statements of the fathers on this subject when I get the time. The book " Against False Union" by ( hmm I forget his name) the guy who wrote "the river of fire" article... talks about this issue.

Apostolic succession is more then the mere phyisical act of a person touching another person (back to the apostoles). Its a real charism and grace that can not be seperated from the faith of the Church. If a Bishop leaves the Church and goes to a heretical sect and lays hands on another person while outside the Church, God isnt bound to give that said person the Grace to be a bishop let alone when that second generation heretic "bishop" does the same to someone else. God gives that grace of "Bishophood" for the purpose of leading and building up the Church of God what possible reason would He give it to a heretical sect in oposition to the Church ? To strengthen the heretical sect so that it can overcome the Church and steal its members ? Some people act as if its a power outside Gods control.

** Certain EO Bishops may have accepted people into communion with the Church as Bishops who recieved a laying on of hands by a heretic but that would be under economy and would make up for the lack of grace the ritual of the heretics laying on hands possesed. The proper form was performed by the heretic and the Church added the necesary grace to whatever may have been lacking in the content ( I guess thats using Latin terminology but I think it might be close to the truth of it ) by having the person who had heretic hands laid on him reject his heresy and swearing an oath to the true Church..

[Peter Farrington]

** The Church may have accepted people into communion with the Church as Bishops who recieved a laying on of hands by a heretic but that would be under economy and would make up for the lack of grace the ritual of the heretics laying on hands possesed. The proper form was performed by the heretic and the Church added the necesary grace to whatever may have been lacking in the content ( I guess thats using Latin terminology but I think it might be close to the truth of it ) by having the person who had heretic hands laid on him reject his heresy and swearing an oath to the true Church..

Yes, this is the way that Chalcedonians have been historically received into the Oriental Orthodox communion, although as I have said elsewhere the Coptic Orthodox take a different view towards Roman Catholics at the moment.

The idea of rejecting heresy for those folk coming from the EO is less in the forefront now since it is not considered that the EO are heretics unless they personally express an heretical opinion. I think that the last EO priest to come over to the Oriental Orthodox was received just by con-celebration, and the last EO to join my own congregation was only received by communion.

Best wishes

Peter