Friday, January 17, 2014

Controversy in Boston


Near the end of an ecumenical service at Sudbury United Methodist Church Sunday, Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston, dipped his thumb into a glass bowl of consecrated water and made the sign of the cross on the forehead of the Rev. Anne Robertson, a United Methodist minister who was about to offer the same gesture to the overflow crowd in the church hall.
And then O’Malley asked Robertson to do the same for him...

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

First Without Equals: A Response to the Text on Primacy of the Moscow Patriarchate


Constantinople responds to Moscow...


Elpidophoros Lambriniadis
Metropolitan of Bursa
Professor of Theology, University of Thessaloniki


First, its desire to undermine the text of Ravenna,[3] by invoking seemingly theological reasons in order to justify the absence of its delegation from the plenary meeting of the joint commission (an absence dictated, as everyone knows, by other reasons[4]); and

Second, to challenge in the most open and formal manner (namely, by synodal decree) the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate within the Orthodox world, observing that the text of Ravenna, on which all the Orthodox Churches agreed (with the exception, of course, of the Church of Russia), determines the primacy of the bishop on the three levels of ecclesiological structure in the Church (local, provincial, universal) in a way that supports and ensures the primacy and first-throne Orthodox Church.

The text of the position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the "problem" (as they call it) of Primacy in the universal Church does not deny either the sense or the significance of primacy; and up to this point, it is correct. In addition, however, it endeavors to achieve (indeed, as we shall see, in an indirect way) the introduction of two distinctions related to the concept of primacy.

1. Separation between ecclesiological and theological primacy
The first differentiation contrasts primacy as it applies to the life of the Church (ecclesiology) and as understood in theology. Thus the text of the Moscow Patriarchate is forced to adopt the unprecedented distinction between, on the one hand, the 'primary' primacy of the Lord and, on the other hand, the 'secondary' primacies of bishops ("various forms of primacy ... are secondary"), although later in the same document it will be suggested that the bishop is the image of Christ (cf 2:1), which seems to imply that the two primacies are univocal or at least analogous and not merely equivocal. Even the scholastic formulation of such distinctions between 'primary' and 'secondary' primacies demonstrates the stealthy contradiction.

Moreover, the intended separation of ecclesiology from theology (or Christology) would have adverse consequences for both. If the Church is indeed the Body of Christ and the revelation of the Trinitarian life, then we cannot talk about differences and artificial distinctions that shatter the unity of the mystery of the Church, which encapsulates the theological (in the narrow sense of the word) and Christological formulations alike. Otherwise, church life is severed from theology and is reduced to a dry administrative institution, while on the other hand a theology without correspondence in the life and structure of the Church becomes a sterile academic preoccupation. According to Metropolitan John of Pergamon: “The separation of the administrative institutions of the Church from dogma is not simply unfortunate; it is even dangerous.”[5]

2. The separation of the different ecclesiological levels
The second differentiation which in our opinion is attempted by the text of the Moscow Patriarchate pertains to the three ecclesiological levels in the structure of the Church. It is here, it seems, that the entire weight of that text hangs. The text states that the primacy of the local diocese is understood and institutionalized in one way, while on the regional level of an “autocephalous archdiocese” (autocephalous eparchial synod) it is understood in another, and on the level of the universal church in yet another way (cf. 3: “Due to the fact that the nature of primacy, which exists at various levels of church order [diocesan, local and universal] vary, the functions of the primus on various levels are not identical and cannot be transferred from one level to another”).

As the Synodal decision claims, not only do these three primacies differ, but even their sources are different: the primacy of the local bishop stems from the apostolic succession (2:1), the primacy of the head of an autocephalous Church from his election by the synod (2:2), and the primacy of the head of the universal church from the rank attributed to him by the diptychs (3:3). Thus, as the text of the Moscow Patriarchate concludes, these three levels and their corresponding primacies are not commensurate, as the text of Ravenna takes them to be on the basis of the 34th Apostolic canon.
What is clearly apparent here is the agonizing effort in the present Synodal decision to render primacy as something external and therefore foreign to the person of the primate. This is what we consider to be the reason why the position of the Moscow Patriarchate insists so greatly on determining the sources of primacy, which always differ from the person of the primus, in such a way that the primate becomes the recipient, rather than the source of his primacy. Does perhaps this dependence also imply the autonomy of primacy? For the Church, an institution is always hypostasized in a person. We can never encounter an impersonal institution, as it would be if primacy were to be conceived independently of a primate. It should be clarified here that the primacy of the primus is also hypostasized by the specific place, the local Church, the geographical region over which the primate presides.[6] It is important at this point to observe the following logical and theological contradictions:

i) If the primus is a recipient of (his) primacy, then primacy exists without and regardless of him, which is impossible. This appears very clearly in the reasons proffered for the primacy on the regional and ecumenical levels. For the regional level, the source of the primacy is considered to be the eparchial synod; but can there be a synod without a primus? The dialectical relationship between the primate and his synod, as formulated by the 34th canon of the Apostles (as well as the 9th and 16th canons of Antioch, according to which a synod without a presiding hierarch is considered incomplete), is abrogated for the sake of a unilateral relationship where the many constitute the one, contradicting all reason that recognizes the one presiding hierarch both as the constitutive factor and guarantor of the unity of the many.[7] A second example of logical contradiction is presented by the appeal to the Diptychs. Here the symptom is taken to be the cause and the signified mistaken for the signifier. The Diptychs are not the source of primacy on the interprovincial level but rather its expression – indeed, only one of its expressions. Of themselves, the Diptychs are an expression of the order and hierarchy of the autocephalous churches, but such a hierarchy requires the presiding primus (and then a second, a third, and so on); they cannot in some retrospective way constitute the primacy on which they themselves are based.

In order to understand this innovations more clearly, let us look for a moment at what all this would mean if we related and applied them to the life of the Holy Trinity, the true source of all primacy ("Thus says God, the king of Israel, the God of Sabaoth who delivered him; I am the first" Is. 44:6).[8]

The Church has always and consistently understood the person of the Father as the first in the communion of persons of the Holy Trinity ("the monarchy of the Father")[9]. If we were to follow the logic of the text of the Synod of Russia, we would also have to claim that God the Father is not Himself the anarchic cause of the divinity and fatherhood (“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, after whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named.” Eph. 3.14-15), but becomes a recipient of his own "primacy.” Whence? From the other Persons of the Holy Trinity? Yet how can we suppose this without invalidating the order of theology, as St. Gregory the Theologian writes, or, even worse, without overturning – perhaps we should say “confusing” – the relations of the Persons of the Holy Trinity? Is it possible for the Son or the Holy Spirit to “precede” the Father?

ii) When the text of the Synod of Russia refuses to accept a "universal hierarch" under the pretext that the universality of such a hierarch “eliminates the sacramental equality of bishops” (3:3) it is merely formulating a sophism. As to their priesthood, of course, all bishops are equal, but they neither are nor can be equal as bishops of specific cities. The sacred canons (like the 3rd canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, the 28th of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and the 36th of the Quinisext Council) rank the cities, attributing to some the status of a Metropolitanate and to others the status of a Patriarchate. Among the latter, the further attribute to one primatial responsibility, to another secondary responsibility, and so on. Not all local Churches are equal, whether in order or in rank. Moreover, to the extent that a bishop is never a bishop without specific assignment but rather the presiding bishop of a local Church – that is to say, he is always the bishop of a specific city (which is an inseparable feature and condition of the episcopal ordination) – then bishops too are accordingly ranked (that is to say, the dignity of a Metropolis is different from that of a Patriarchate; and again, a different dignity is attributed to the ancient Patriarchates, as being endorsed by the Ecumenical Councils, and another is attributed to the modern Patriarchates). Thus, within such an order of rank, it is inconceivable that there should be no primus.[10] On the contrary, in recent times, we observe the application of a novel “primacy”, namely a “primacy of numbers”, which those who today find fault with the canonical universal primacy of the Mother Church dogmatize about a rank that is untestified in the tradition of the Church, but rather based on the principle ubi russicus ibi ecclesia russicae, that is to say “wherever there is a Russian, there too the jurisdiction of the Russian Church extends.”

In the long history of the Church, the presiding hierarch of the universal Church was the bishop of Rome. After Eucharistic communion with Rome was broken, canonically the presiding hierarch of the Orthodox Church is the archbishop of Constantinople. In the case of the archbishop of Constantinople, we observe the unique concomitance of all three levels of primacy, namely the local (as Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome), the regional (as Patriarch), and the universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch). This threefold primacy translates into specific privileges, such as the right of appeal and the right to grant or remove autocephaly (examples of the latter are the Archdioceses-Patriarchates of Ochrid, Pec and Turnavo, etc.), a privilege that the Ecumenical Patriarch exercised even in cases of some modern Patriarchates, not yet validated by decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the first of which is that of Moscow.
The primacy of the archbishop of Constantinople has nothing to do with the diptychs, which, as we have already said, merely express this hierarchical ranking (which, again in contradictory terms the text of the Moscow Patriarchate concedes implicitly but denies explicitly). If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of such primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one “among equals,” but as Archbishop of Constantinople, and thus as Ecumenical Patriarch is the first without equals (primus sine paribus).


[1] Reading and citing from the English text, “Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church,” as published on the official website of the Patriarchate of Moscow: https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344/
[2] Characteristic examples of other instances of such isolation include the absence of the Patriarchate of Moscow from the Conference of European Churches, as well as the now established practice of the representatives of this Church to celebrate the Divine Liturgy separately from the other representatives of Orthodox Churches by enclosing themselves within the local Embassies of the Russian Federation whenever there is an opportunity for a Panorthodox Liturgy in various contexts.
[3] His Eminence Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia has dealt with this matter in a recent article published on December 30, 2013, on the website: http://www.romfea.gr/diafora-ekklisiastika/21337-2013-12-30-03-52-35.
[4] As for what exactly occurred in Ravenna in 2007, and the painful impressions recorded by Roman Catholic observers, see the analysis of Fr. Aidan Nichols in his book Rome and the Eastern Churches, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2nd edition, 2010, pp. 368-9: In October 2006 [sic], the commission resumed its discussions at Ravenna, though the event was marred by a ‘walkout’ on the part of the Moscow patriarchate’s representative. Bishop Hilarion’s protest was caused not for once by the wrongdoings, real or imagined, of the Catholic Church but by the presence of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox church, whose autocephaly (sic), underwritten by Constantinople, is still denied in Russia. His action demonstrated, of course, the need precisely for a strong universal primacy so as to balance synodality in the Church.” And he continues: “[t]he decision of the Moscow patriarchate in October 2007 to withdraw its representatives from the Ravenna meeting… was not only an irritating impediment to that dialogue; it was precisely the sort of happening that makes Catholics think the orthodox need the pope as much as the pope needs them.” (p. 369).
[5] “The Synodal Institution: Historical, Ecclesiological and Canonical Issues,” in Theologia 80 (2009), pp. 5-6. [In Greek]
[6] Thus, while the Patriarch of Antioch has for a long time resided in Damascus, he remains the Patriarch of Antioch since Damascus lies within the geographical jurisdiction of that church.
[7] Metropolitan John of Pergamon, “Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology,” in the volume edited by Walter Cardinal Kasper, The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue, New York: The Newman Press, 2006, pp. 231-248. Also see Metropolitan John of Pergamon, “Eucharistic Ecclesiology in the Orthodox Tradition,” Theologia 80 (2009), p. 23. [In Greek]
[8] I have personally dealt with this subject during a lecture at the Holy Cross School of Theology in Boston: “Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (‘Monarchy’ of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.” (http://www.ecclesia.gr/englishnews/default.asp?id=3986)
[9] In his 3rd Theological Oration, St. Gregory the Theologian writes: “As for us, we honor Him as the monarchy” (PG 36, 76). The concept of monarchy corresponds to “the order of theology“ (5th Theological Oration, PG 36, 164). The All-Holy Trinity does not comprise a federation of persons; So we should not be scandalized when the Theologian himself of the Fathers speaks of the monarchy and primacy of the divine Father.
[10] This argument has been clearly articulated in the article by Fr. John Panteleimon Manoussakis, entitled “Primacy and Ecclesiology: The State of the Question,” in the collective work entitled Orthodox Constructions of the West, edited by Aristotle Papanikolaou and George Demacopoulos, New York: Fordham University Press, 2013, p. 233.
- See more at: http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/first-without-equals-elpidophoros-lambriniadis#sthash.kf0Dlw0D.dpuf

'The Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Church'


Directed against the Patriarchate of Constantinople?...
The problem of primacy in the Universal Church has been repeatedly raised during the work of the Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. On March 27, 2007, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church instructed the Synodal Theological Commission to study this problem and draft an official position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem (Minutes, No. 26). Meanwhile, the Joint Commission at its meeting on October 13, 2007, in Ravenna, working in the absence of a delegation of the Russian Church and without consideration for her opinion, adopted a document on the Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Having studied the Ravenna document, the Russian Orthodox Church disagreed with it in the part that refers to synodality and primacy on the level of the Universal Church. Since the Ravenna document makes a distinction between three levels of church administration, namely, local, regional and universal, the following position taken by the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church deals with this problem on the three levels as well.

  1. In the Holy Church of Christ, primacy belongs to her Head – our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man. According to St. Paul, the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence (Col. 1:18).
According to the apostolic teaching, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to thechurch,which is his body (Eph. 1:17-23).
The Church, which is on the earth, represents not only a community of those who believe in Christ but also a divine-human organism: Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular (1 Cor. 12:27).
Accordingly, various forms of primacy in the Church in her historical journey in this world are secondary versus the eternal primacy of Christ as Head of the Church by whom God the Father reconciles all things unto himself, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven (Col. 1:20). Primacy in the Church should be in the first place a ministry of reconciliation with the aim to build harmony, according to the apostle who calls to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).
  1. In the life of the Church of Christ, which lives in this age, primacy, along with synodality, is one of the fundamental principles of her order. On various levels of church life, the historically established primacy has a different nature and different sources. These levels are 1) the diocese (eparchy), 2) the autocephalous Local Church, and 3) Universal Church.
(1)               On the level of diocese, primacy belongs to the bishop. The bishop’s primacy in his diocese has solid theological and canonical foundations tracing back to the early Christian Church. According to the teaching of St. Paul, the Holy Ghost hath made [bishops] overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28). The source of the bishop’s primacy in his diocese is the apostolic succession handed down through episcopal consecration.[1]
The ministry of the bishop is an essential foundation of the Church: ‘The bishop is in the church and the church is in the bishop and that if somebody is not with the bishop, he is not in the church’ (St. Cyprian of Carthage[2]). St. Ignatius the God-Bearer compares the bishop’s primacy in his diocese to the supremacy of God: ‘Study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed’ (Letter to the Magenesians, 6).
In his church domain, the bishop has full power, sacramental, administrative and magisterial. St. Ignatius the God-Bearer teaches us: ‘Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the church. Let that Eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it… It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure’ (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7).
The bishop’s sacramental power is most fully expressed in the Eucharist. In celebrating it, the bishop represents the image of Christ, presenting the Church of the faithful in the face of God the Father, on one hand, and giving the faithful God’s blessing and nourishing them with the truly spiritual food and drink of the Eucharistic sacrament, on the other. As head of his diocese, the bishop leads the congregation’s divine worship, ordains clergy and assigns them to church parishes, authorizing them to celebrate the Eucharist and other sacraments and religious rites.
The bishop’s administrative power is expressed in that the clergy, monastics and laity of his diocese as well as parishes and monasteries, except for stauropegial ones, and various diocesan institutions (educational, charitable, etc.) obey him. The bishop administers justice in cases of ecclesial offences. The Apostolic Canons state: ‘Let not the presbyters or deacons do anything without the sanction of the bishop; for he it is who is entrusted with the people of the Lord and of whom will be required the account of their souls’ (Canon 39).
(2)               On the level of the autocephalous Local Church, primacy belongs to the bishop elected as Primate of the Local Church by a Council of her bishops.[3] Accordingly, the source of primacy on the level of the autocephalous Church is the election of the pre-eminent bishop by a Council (or a Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical power. This primacy is based on solid canonical foundations tracing back to the era of Ecumenical Councils.
The power of the Primate in an autocephalous Local Church is different from that of a bishop in his church domain: it is the power of the first among equal bishops. He fulfils his ministry of primacy in conformity with the church-wide canonical tradition expressed in Apostolic Canon 34: ‘It behoves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by his territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit’.
The powers of the Primate of an autocephalous Local Church are defined by a Council (Synod) and fixed in a statute. The Primate of an autocephalous Local Church acts as chairman of her Council (or Synod). Thus, the Primate does not have one-man power in an autocephalous Local Church but governs her in council, that is, in cooperation with other bishops.[4]

(3)       On the level of the Universal Church as a community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common confession of faith and living in sacramental communion with one another, primacy is determined in conformity with the tradition of sacred diptychs and represents primacy in honour. This tradition can be traced back to the canons of Ecumenical Councils (Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canon 36 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council) and has been reconfirmed throughout church history in the actions of Councils of individual Local Churches and in the practice of liturgical commemoration whereby the Primate of each Autocephalous Church mentions the names of those of other Local Churches in the order prescribed by the sacred diptychs.
The order in diptychs has been changing in history. In the first millennium of church history, the primacy of honour used to belong to the chair of Rome.[5] After the Eucharistic community between Rome and Constantinople was broken in the mid-11th century, primacy in the Orthodox Church went to the next chair in the diptych order, namely, to that of Constantinople. Since that time up to the present, the primacy of honour in the Orthodox Church on the universal level has belonged to the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equal Primates of Local Orthodox Churches.
The source of primacy in honour on the level of the Universal Church lies in the canonical tradition of the Church fixed in the sacred diptychs and recognized by all the autocephalous Local Churches. The primacy of honour on the universal level is not informed by canons of Ecumenical or Local Councils. The canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the church-wide scale.[6]
The ecclesiological distortions ascribing to the primus on the universal level the functions of governanceinherent in primates on other levels of church order are named in the polemical literature of the second millennium as “papism”.

3.         Due to the fact that the nature of primacy, which exists at various levels of church order (diocesan, local and universal) vary, the functions of the primus on various levels are not identical and cannot be transferred from one level to another.
To transfer the functions of the ministry of primacy from the level of an eparchy to the universal level means to recognize a special form of ministry, notably, that of a ‘universal hierarch’ possessing the magisterial and administrative power in the whole Universal Church. By eliminating the sacramental equality of bishops, such recognition leads to the emergence of a jurisdiction of a universal first hierarch never mentioned either in holy canons or patristic tradition and resulting in the derogation or even elimination of the autocephaly of Local Churches.
In its turn, the extension of the primacy inherent in the primate of an autocephalous Local Church (according to Apostolic Canon 34) to the universal level[7] would give the primus in the Universal Church special powers regardless of whether Local Orthodox Churches agree to it or not. Such a transfer in the understanding of the nature of primacy from local to universal level would also require that the primus election procedure be accordingly moved up to the universal level, which would as much as violate the right of the pre-eminent autocephalous Local Church to elect her Primate on her own.

4.         The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ warned his disciples against the love of rulers (cf. Mt. 20:25-28). The Church has always opposed distorted ideas of primacy, which have begun to creep into church life from old times.[8] In Councils’ decisions and works of holy fathers, such abuses of power were condemned.[9]
The bishops of Rome, who enjoy the primacy of honour in the Universal Church, from the point of view of Eastern Churches, have always been patriarchs of the West, that is, primates of the Western Local Church. However, already in the first millennium of church history, a doctrine on a special divinely-originated magisterial and administrative power of the bishop of Roman as extending to the whole Universal Church began to be formed in the West.
The Orthodox Church rejected the doctrine of the Roman Church on papal primacy and the divine origin of the power of the first bishop in the Universal Church. Orthodox theologians have always insisted that the Church of Rome is one of the autocephalous Local Churches with no right to extend her jurisdiction to the territory of other Local Churches. They also believed that primacy in honour accorded to the bishops of Rome is instituted not by God but men.[10]
Throughout the second millennium up to today, the Orthodox Church has preserved the administrative structure characteristic of the Eastern Church of the first millennium. Within this structure, each autocephalous Local Church, being in dogmatic, canonical and Eucharistic unity with other Local Churches, is independent in governance. In the Orthodox Church, there was no and has never been a single administrative center on the universal level.
In the West, on the contrary, the development of a doctrine on the special power of the bishop of Rome whereby the supreme power in the Universal Church belongs to the bishop of Rome as successor to St. Peter and vicar of Christ on the earth has led to the formation of a completely different administrative model of church order with a single universal center in Rome.[11]
In accordance with the two different models of church order, different ways, in which the conditions for canonicity of a church community were seen, were presented. In the Catholic tradition, the necessary condition for canonicity is the Eucharistic unity of a particular church community with the chair of Rome. In the Orthodox tradition, canonical is a community which is part of an autocephalous Local Church, and through this it is in the Eucharistic unity with other canonical Local Churches.
As is known, attempts to impose the Western model of administrative order upon the Eastern Church were invariably met with resistance in the Orthodox East. This is reflected in church documents[12] and polemical literature aimed against papism, which comprise a part of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

5.         Primacy in the Universal Orthodox Church, which is the primacy of honour by its very nature, rather than that of power, is very important for the Orthodox witness in the modern world.
The patriarchal chair of Constantinople enjoys the primacy of honour on the basis of the sacred diptychs recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches. The content of this primacy is defined by a consensus of Local Orthodox Churches expressed in particular at pan-Orthodox conferences for preparation of a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church[13].
In exercising his primacy in this way, the Primate of the Church of Constantinople can offer initiatives of general Christian scale and address the external world on behalf of the Orthodox plenitude provided he has been empowered to do so by all the Local Orthodox Churches.
6.         Primacy in the Church of Christ is called to serve the spiritual unity of her members and to keep her life in good order, for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace (1 Cor. 14:33). The ministry of the primus in the Church, alien to temporal love of power, has as its goal the edifying of the body of Christ…that we…by speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ,from whom the whole body…according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love (Eph. 4:12-16).


[1] It includes election, consecration and reception by the Church.
[2] Ep. 69.8, PL 4, 406A (Letter 54 in the Russian version)
[3] As a rule, the pre-eminent bishop heads the main (pre-eminent) chair in the canonical territory of his Church.
[4] The autocephalous Local Church can include complex church entities. For instance, in the Russian Orthodox Church, there are autonomous and self-governed Churches, metropolitan regions, exarchates and metropolises. Each of them has its own form of primacy defined by a Local Council and reflected in the church statute.
[5] A reference to the primacy of honour of the chair of Rome and the second place of the chair of Constantinople is made in Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council: ‘The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome’. Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council clarifies this rule and points to the canonical reason for the primacy of honour of Rome and Constantinople: ‘The Fathers in fact have correctly attributed the prerogatives (which belong) to the see of the most ancient Rome because it was the imperial city. And thus moved by the same reasoning, the one hundred and fifty bishops beloved of God have accorded equal prerogatives to the very holy see of New Rome, justly considering that the city that is honored by the imperial power and the senate and enjoying (within the civil order) the prerogatives equal to those of Rome, the most ancient imperial city, ought to be as elevated as Old Rome in the affairs of the Church, being in the second place after it’.
[6] There are canons used in polemical literature to give a canonical justification to the judicial powers of the first chair of Rome. These are Canons 4 and 5 of the Council of Sardica (343). These canons, however, do not state that the rights of the chair of Rome to accept appeals are extended to the whole Universal Church. It is known from the canonical codex that these rights were not limitless even in the West. Thus, already the 256 Council of Carthage chaired by St. Cyprian responded to the claims of Rome to primacy expressed the following opinion about relations between bishops: ‘neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let all of us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there’ (Sententiae episcoporum, PL 3, 1085C; 1053A-1054A). The same is stated in the Letter of the Council of Africa to Celestine, the pope of Rome (424), which is included in all the authoritative editions of the code of canons, particularly, Book of Canons as a canon of the Council of Carthage. In this letter the Council rejects the right of the pope of Rome to accept appeals against judgements made by the Council of African Bishops: ‘We earnestly conjure you, that for the future you do not readily admit to a hearing persons coming hence, nor choose to receive to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us…’. Canon 118 of the Council of Carthage forbids to make appeals to Churches in overseas countries – which is anyway implied by Rome as well: Clerics who have been condemned, if they take exception to the judgment, shall not appeal beyond seas, but to the neighbouring bishops, and to their own; if they do otherwise let them be excommunicated in Africa’.
[7] As is known, there is not a single canon that would allow of such practice.
[8] As far back as the apostolic times, St. John the Theologian in his Epistle condemned Diotrephes ‘who loves to be the first’ (3 Jn. 1:9).
[9] Thus, the Third Ecumenical Council, seeking to protect the right of the Church of Cyprus to have her own head, stated in its Canon 8: ‘the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood’.

[10] Thus, in the 13th century St. Herman of Constantinople wrote, ‘There are five patriarchates with certain boundaries for each. However, in the recent time a schism has arisen among them, initiated by a daring hand which seeks to dominate and prevail in the Church. The Head of the Church is Christ, and every attempt to obtain domination is contrary to His teaching’ (cit. in Соколов И.И. Лекции по истории Греко-Восточной Церкви. – СПб., 2005. С.129).
In the 14th century, Nilus Cabasilas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, wrote on the primacy of the bishop of Rome, ‘the pope indeed has two privileges: he is the bishop of Rome… and he is the first among the bishops. From Peter he has received the Roman episcopacy; as to the primacy, he received it much later from the blessed Fathers and the pious Emperors, for its was just that ecclesiastical affairs be accomplished in order’ (De primatu papae, PG 149, 701 CD).
His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew states, ‘We all, the Orthodox… are convinced that in the first millennium of the existence of the Church, in the times of the undivided Church, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the pope, was recognized. However, it was honorary primacy, in love, without being  legal dominion over the whole Christian Church. In other words, according to our theology, this primacy is of human order; it was established because of the need for the Church to have a head and a coordinating center’ (from the address to the Bulgarian mass media, November 2007).
[11] Differences in the church order of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church can be seen not only on universal but also local and diocesan levels.
[12] In the 1848 Encyclical, the Eastern Patriarchs condemn the fact that bishops of Rome turned the primacy of honour into lordship over the whole Universal Church: “We see very primacy transformed from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority.” (Par. 13). The dignity of the Church of Rome, the Encyclical states, “is not that of a lordship, to which St. Peter himself was never ordained, but is a brotherly privilege in the Catholic Church, and an honor assigned the Popes on account of the greatness and privilege of the City” (Par. 13).
[13] See in particular, the Decision of the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Conference (1968), Par. 6, 7; the Procedure of Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences (1986), Par. 2, 13.

Why Millennials Long for Liturgy: Is the High Church the Christianity of the future?

America’s youth are leaving churches in droves. One in four young adults choose “unaffiliated” when asked about their religion, according to a 2012 Public Religion Research Institute poll, and 55 percent of those unaffiliated youth once had a religious identification when they were younger. Yet amidst this exodus, some church leaders have identified another movement as cause for hope: rather than abandoning Christianity, some young people are joining more traditional, liturgical denominations—notably the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox branches of the faith. This trend is deeper than denominational waffling: it’s a search for meaning that goes to the heart of our postmodern age.
For Bart Gingerich, a fellow with the Institute on Religion and Democracy and a student at Reformed Episcopal Seminary, becoming Anglican was an intellectual journey steeped in the thought of ancient church fathers. He spent the first 15 years of his life in the United Methodist Church, where he felt he was taught a “Precious Moments” version of Christianity: watered down, polite, and unreal. His family joined a nondenominational evangelical church when Gingerich was 16. Some of the youth he met were serious about their faith, but others were apathetic, and many ended up leaving the church later on.
While attending Patrick Henry College in Virginia, Gingerich joined a reformed Baptist church in the nearby town of Guilford. Gingerich read St. Augustine and connected strongly with his thought—in class from Monday to Friday, Gingerich found himself arguing for ideas that clashed with his method of worship on Sunday. Protestantism began troubling him on a philosophical level. Could he really believe that the church “didn’t start getting it right” till the Reformation?
The final straw came when a chapel speaker at the college explained the beauty of the Eucharist in the Anglican service. Gingerich knew this was what he was looking for. Soon after, he joined the Anglican Church.
For high-school English teacher Jesse Cone, joining the Orthodox Church fulfilled a deep yearning for community and sacramental reality. Cone grew up in the Presbyterian Church of America, heavily involved in youth group and church activities. While attending Biola University, an evangelical school in southern California, Cone returned home over the summers to help lead youth-group activities. He was hired as a youth pastor and “even preached a sermon.” But at Biola, Cone struggled to find a home church. There were many megachurches in the area that didn’t have the “organic, everyday substance” Cone was seeking.
He began attending an Anglican service, drawn to its traditional doctrine. He was a “perpetual visitor” over the next few years. A Bible study on the Gospel of John pushed him further towards the high church. Reading through the book with a group of friends, Cone began to notice the “conversational and sacramental” way Jesus related to people. “There’s a lot of bread, and wine, and water,” he says. From Jesus’s first miracle—turning water into wine—to telling his disciples “I am the True Vine,” the mundane, communal ways in which in which Jesus connected with people “confirmed in me a sense of sacramentalism—that everyday aspects of life are important, in a way the modern mindset doesn’t share,” Cone says. “I started looking at the world with more sacramental eyes.”
Cone became engaged to a woman who was also raised Presbyterian. In the weeks leading up to their marriage, they sought a church together, but none seemed to fit. Fundamental questions lingering in Cone’s mind—about church history, the importance of doctrine and dogma, what it means to live a full Christian life—came to a head. He told his wife, “I don’t think I’m comfortable being Orthodox, but I want to at least see one of their services, see what it’s like out there.” The next Sunday, they decided to attend an Orthodox Church with another young couple. By the end of the service, Cone says, “We were just blown away. Just blown away.” The worship, doctrine, and tradition were exactly what they had been looking for. “We were shell-shocked. And we haven’t stopped going since.”
For CreedCodeCult.com blogger Jason Stellman, joining the Catholic Church was an act of religious and intellectual honesty. Brought up in a Baptist church, Stellman became a missionary in Europe for Calvary Chapel after college. When he began studying and accepting Calvinistic theology, he was dismissed from Calvary’s ministry and moved back to the U.S. He joined the Presbyterian Church of America and enrolled in Westminster Seminary in 2000. He and his wife helped start a Presbyterian Church in Southern California some time later.
In 2008, Stellman was introduced to serious arguments for the Catholic faith.  He studied scriptural passages on church authority, the early church fathers, and St. Augustine’s writings on justification. The more Stellman read, the more he was drawn to the Catholic Church. While in Europe, he had attended mass at a cathedral in Brussels and discovered it possessed a liturgical beauty he hadn’t encountered before. Last year, he announced to his church that he was leaving to become Catholic.
Leaving one church for another is not easy. For Gingerich and Cone, the decision was difficult on a family and community level. Many in their old churches expressed confusion and hurt, and some asked rather ignorant, if well-intentioned, questions: “Do you worship Mary?” or “Do you still believe in Jesus?” There began a process of rebuilding trust that continues to this day. Stellman had to tell his church—a church he planted and ministered, and which his family still attends—that he could no longer serve as their pastor.
Yet all three say the high church has presented them with a sense of community they would not have experienced otherwise. For Gingerich, the seasons of feasting and fasting taught him to suffer and celebrate with the church in a way he had never experienced. “I was re-taught compassion,” he says. Cone’s Orthodox family now stretches from coast to coast and has supported him and his wife as they raise their three children. Their priest drives an hour to their house for confession, knowing how difficult it is for them to make the drive. “He leaves the 99 to get the one,” Cone says.
Many Protestant churches have noticed these congregational trends and their loss of numbers. Some are adopting a more liturgical style to draw in younger audiences: the new book Gathering Together, by Christian theology professor Steve Harmon, describes a Baptist denominational move towards a greater liturgical focus. “It represents an increasingly widespread Baptist recognition that our tradition by itself is not sufficient,” Harmon told ABP News.
Gingerich argues that such stylistic treatments dodge the real question: the issues of church authority behind the traditional liturgy. Cone says he sees “a sincere expression of gratitude and study” from his Protestant friends. But, he adds, “When I look at a Protestant service, it lacks the mystery and power of the body of Christ. … The whole life of the church, the prayers of the desert fathers, the blood of the martyrs, is more intimately connected in the Orthodox life than a mere stylistic change that a Protestant church can do.” 
Yet Lee Nelson, Co-Chair of the Catechesis Taskforce of the Anglican Church of North America, is hopeful that if evangelical churches begin adopting elements of liturgical worship, some of the Christianity’s larger schisms might dissipate. One must wonder, he admits: are churches becoming liturgical because it’s cool or because it’s right? But when a church’s intention is truly worship-motivated, Nelson thinks such changes can lead “closer and closer to Christian unity, and that’s the best part.”
Nelson believes a sacramental hunger lies at the heart of what many millennials feel. “We are highly wired to be experiential,” he says. In the midst of our consumer culture, young people “ache for sacramentality.”
“If you ask me why kids are going high church, I’d say it’s because the single greatest threat to our generation and to young people nowadays is the deprivation of meaning in our lives,” Cone says. “In the liturgical space, everything becomes meaningful. In the offering up of the bread and wine, we see the offering up of the wheat and grain and fruits of the earth, and God gives them back in a sanctified form. … We’re so thirsty for meaning that goes deeper, that can speak to our entire lives, hearts, and wallets, that we’re really thirsty to be attached to the earth and to each other and to God. The liturgy is a historical way in which that happens.”
The millennial generation is seeking a holistic, honest, yet mysterious truth that their current churches cannot provide. Where they search will have large implications for the future of Christianity. Protestant churches that want to preserve their youth membership may have to develop a greater openness toward the treasures of the past. One thing seems certain: this “sacramental yearning” will not go away.
Gracy Olmstead is associate editor of The American Conservative.

Sunday, January 05, 2014

Once in Royal David's City



For Twelfthnight this evening, 5th January 2014... our son Aidan Jones, introducing Nine Lessons and Carols at Saint Barnabas Dunwoody.

Saturday, January 04, 2014

The Congress of Saint Louis



Audio recordings of the entire proceedings of the Congress of Saint Louis 1977, courtesy of the Anglican Church of Our Saviour, Florence, South Carolina.

The Congress was arguably the seminal event in the formation of the Continuing Anglican Church movement, and was certainly one of the most important events in the contemporary history of Anglicanism...

Wednesday, January 01, 2014

The Manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles




A blessed New Year of Grace 2014, a joyful Christmastide and a happy Epiphany to all! God bless you!

‘Those who once worshipped the stars are now led by a star to worship thee, the Sun of Righteousness, and to follow thee, the Orient on High.’ This beautiful prayer from the ancient Byzantine rite refers to the wondrous mystery of our orthodox faith which we celebrate on 6th January, the Epiphany, or as the Prayer Book describes it, the Manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles. This feast declares the self-revelation of God in the Person of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, the only-begotten Word of the Father. Jesus is the Light of the world; He is the Life and Light of men (Saint John 8.12, Saint John 12.36, Saint John 1.9). The Catholic creed professes Him ‘Light of Light.’ Jesus Christ, the Lord of the universe, of Jews, of Gentiles, of all creation, shines upon a world darkened by death and sin. He comes to set the world alight with the brilliance of His divine power, presence, resurrection.

What is the significance of the title of this feast as provided by the Book of Common Prayer? The Jewish Messiah of Israel, the Promised One of the true covenant people, reveals Himself as the universal Saviour of the whole human race, the redeemer of creation and Head and Author of the new created order and the new redeemed human family, the Church. He shows the Gentiles, those races and nations originally outside the old covenant, that they are now called to divine life and salvation. Christians are often tempted simply to think and act as though Our Lord were Himself a Gentile – but not so – it is as the Jewish Messiah that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Anointed One, the Davidic Priest-King, comes to bring the Gentiles into communion with God (Ephesians 2.11-22).

The word epiphano in the koinetic Greek means ‘to shine forth, manifest, reveal, illuminate, cast light upon.’ From it, we garner the English term ‘Epiphany.’

In the Holy Scriptures and according to the Holy and Apostolic Tradition, there are at least three Epiphanies or manifestations of the Lord Jesus as the Eternal and Incarnate Word. Our Prayer Book liturgy will dwell on each in the weeks to come:

1. Specifically, on the Feast of the Epiphany itself, we celebrate on 6th January theVisit of the Magi (Saint Matthew 2.1-12). The number of three Magi is not identified in the New Testament; rather, the sacred number is only given by Tradition. Magi were Persian astrologers and students of the sky, observers of natural phenomena and rulers of the people. They are the representatives of the Gentile world who come to adore the new-born King of all men. The three Magi manifest the three major races of mankind; they represent the whole of mankind in his three main races, European, Asian, African. The ethne or Gentiles nations, personified in the wise men, come to submit to and worship their Lord and the King of all. Saint Hilary of Poitiers, an eminent Church Father of the West, interprets the holy gifts offered to Christ by the Three Kings:
  • Gold: the honour of royalty, gold shows forth Christ as King of the Universe and of the Gentiles.
  • Frankincense: incense is always used in the Old and New Testaments in the worship of the Most High God, representing Deity and Divinity.
  • Myrrh: a spice used for burial, it symbolises the Death, Burial, and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Who is King, God, and Sacrifice: Our Lord is the crucified and risen God, the Messiah-King.

2. The Baptism of Christ. In the Epiphany of His Baptism, Christ is manifested, revealed as the Messiah, and anointed with the Holy Ghost in His humanity as the Incarnate Son. In being baptised, the God-Man also sanctifies the water of our own Baptism into Him. Christ’s Baptism is, as well, the first and most vital manifestation of God as Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The voice is that of the Father, the Son is baptised and revealed in His human nature, and the Spirit is seen as the dove descending on Christ (Saint Matthew 3.13-17, Saint Mark 1.9-12, Saint Luke 3.21-22, Saint John 1.29-34).

3. Cana-in-Galilee: The Epiphany of Our Lord’s first miracle is recorded in Saint John’s Gospel (Saint John 2.1-11). Christ turns water into wine, which miracle or sign is an icon, image, of the august miracle and sacramental Sign of the Holy Eucharist, wherein Christ continually transforms bread and wine into His most precious Body and Blood. The Real Objective Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is a perpetual Epiphany. ‘This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

There are, in fact, many Epiphanies of Jesus Christ in salvation history, and particularly today. The Holy Catholic Church of Christ is the great Sacrament of Christ and perpetually manifests Him in creation. The Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, is His epiphany still. All Seven Sacraments of the Church are a continual epiphany of Christ, a manifestation of His power and grace. In the Church, we mystically join with the Magi and worship the new-born King, our Priest and Messiah. We unite ourselves with them in offering our lives to the True God. Our Blessed Lord has epiphanied Himself to mankind so that we, united to Him, may manifest, presence, reveal our Saviour to others. The Christian vocation, of one who has ‘put on Christ’ (Galatians 3.27), is to ‘shine forth the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ (II Corinthians 4.6), to shine in a benighted world with the divine Sun of Righteousness.

We are summoned to illuminate the whole of this creation with the divine light of the love of Christ. Jesus is the Light, and like Saint John the Baptist, we must ‘bear witness of the Light’ (Saint John 1.7). We are to epiphany Jesus to the world in which we live and to the people we encounter. Baptised, Confirmed, Eucharistic, fully-initiated and illuminated Christians are the epiphanies of Christ, conformed to His Image and made in His glorious likeness by grace. We are ultimate Epiphany of Christ. As filii in Filio, the sons in the Son, let us resolve to epiphany the Epiphany!

Please join us for the Epiphany Eucharistic Liturgy in which Our Lord once more epiphanies Himself for us and to us: the Holy Communion will be celebrated at Noon and 7pm on Monday 6th January 2014.

May the Lord of glory, Jesus, the Splendour of the Father, bless you and all you love during this holy Epiphany season!

PNCC-G4 Dialogue

The Anglican Joint Synods (G4) - Polish National Catholic Church Dialogue Meeting was held from 28th-30th January 2020 at Saint Barnabas Du...