Monday, May 05, 2014

Twenty Years



The Archbishop of Canterbury celebrates twenty years of formal heresy, a violation of Rule of Saint Vincent of Lerins and Catholic intent by changing the subject of the divinely-given Sacrament of Holy Orders. 

In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, 
quod ab omnibus creditum est

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Holy Week and Easter Week 2014 at Saint Barnabas Dunwoody



4795 North Peachtree Road
Dunwoody, Georgia 30338

Passion Saturday, 12th April
Workshop for Making Palm Crosses, 10am

Palm Sunday, 13th April
Sung Holy Communion
and the Blessing and Distribution of Palms,
9am and 11am

Monday in Holy Week, 14th April
Tuesday in Holy Week, 15th April
and Wednesday in Holy Week, 16th April
Holy Communion, 12 Noon

Maundy Thursday, 17th April
Holy Communion, 12 Noon
Sung Holy Communion, Stripping of the Altars and
Watch before the Altar of Repose, 7pm (Incense)

Good Friday, 18th April
Morning Prayer, Litany and Holy Communion
from the Reserved Sacrament 9.30am (Incense)
Three Hours’ Devotion, 12 Noon to 3pm
Stations of the Cross, 3pm
Sacramental Confessions, 4pm-6pm
Tenebrae, 7pm

Easter Even, 19th April
Easter Egg Hunt, 10.30am
Sacramental Confessions, 1pm-2pm
Easter Flower Ministry, 9am-3pm
Sung Holy Communion of the Easter Vigil, 8pm (Incense)

Easter Day, 20th April
Sung Holy Communion, 9am
Sung Holy Communion, 11am

Easter Monday, 21st April
Easter Tuesday, 22nd April
and Easter Wednesday, 23rd April
Holy Communion, 12 Noon

Easter Thursday, 24th April
Holy Communion, 7pm

Easter Friday (Feast of Saint Mark), 25th April
and Easter Saturday, 26th April
Holy Communion, 12 Noon

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Ecclesia



The latest edition of Ecclesia, the national newsletter of the Anglican Province of America, is available at this link.

2016 Pan-Orthodox Council


It should be noted that the impending Pan-Orthodox Council could not be admitted by the consensus fidelium as truly Ecumenical without the participation of the Patriarchate of the West, that is, the Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of other Catholic jurisdictions in the West, but Pan-Eastern Orthodox it should be, if the Patriarchate of Antioch joins in...

Sunday, March 09, 2014

The Right Reverend Robert Condit Harvey RIP



UPDATE:

The funeral service for Bishop Robert Condit Harvey will be celebrated on Thursday 13th March at 11am at Saint Barnabas Church, with a reception to follow in Harvey Hall sponsored by the Anglican Church Women.

My dear friends,

With a heavy heart, it is my sad duty to inform you that Bishop Robert Condit Harvey, our truly beloved friend and pastor and the first parish priest of Saint Barnabas Church, entered eternal life early this morning. Funeral arrangements are pending. Of your Christian charity, pray for the blessed repose of the sacerdotal soul of Robert, and for the peace and comfort of Marguerite and the entire Harvey family. As soon as more information is received, we shall forward it to you.

Monday, February 24, 2014

The Dean of Nashotah House invites Mrs Jefferts-Schori




The Pope, Pentecostalists, and an episcopus irregularis



The Bishop of Rome greets a group of Word of Faith pentecostalists. Word of Faith teachers espouse doctrine which the orthodox Church condemns as heresy. 'Word of Faith' is a belief that practitioners can control and manipulate God through speech and attitudes, thus deriving from God what is desired. The Word of Faith movement, to be perfectly blunt about it, reduces God to a 'divine miracle machine', a heavenly dispenser of good things for those who know how to use the system. God is made subject and responsive to a code wielded by human beings, and thus ceases truly to be God. As the Fathers of the Church assert, 'a comprehended God is no god.'

Other terms for this theology are 'health and wealth Gospel,' 'name it and claim it Gospel,' or 'prosperity Gospel.' Word of Faith religion could be described as occult in nature, because it ultimately seeks to manipulate or determine one's own environment apart from obedience to and a genuine relationship with God. This is the essence of magic. In this scheme there is a notable absence of the virtues, particularly love and adoration of God for His own sake and glory, obedience and submission to the perfect Will of God, and humility in the face of Christ's mercy, majesty, and righteousness. Word of Faith theology maintains that Christians should never suffer nor endure persecution, trial, illness, or financial loss. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as the Bible establishes in ways too numerous to detail. What of the Saints and the Martyrs? A cursory reading of Hebrews 11 should dispel such error. Word of Faith maintains that the right use of 'faith' as a tool to coerce God potentially means the avoidance of all evils and troubles. Such a worldview has more in common with gnosticism or mystery religions than traditional Christianity. 

The Bishop of Rome proclaims the Reverend Tony Palmer a 'brother bishop.'

One must admit that the event is curious indeed...

Bishop Coadjutor for Mid-America





From Bishop Larry L. Shaver:

On Saturday, February 22, 2014, our Bishop Suffragan, the Right Reverend Robert Todd Giffin, was unanimously elected by both houses to be our Bishop Coadjutor and my successor.  Following the unanimous vote by written ballot, the Synod then elected him by acclamation.  The Special Election Synod was very well attended with 32 people present including delegations from all parishes and missions of the DMA. 

The election was followed by an extremely positive and fruitful discussion on the challenges we face as a diocese: growth, clergy compensation, evangelism resources and the care of souls.  The Sung Synod Mass was celebrated by the Rev. Canon John W. Berry, who was received as a priest into the DMA upon transfer from the DEUS.  He was formally installed as the Canon Missioner of the DMA and gave a brief talk on mission resources for the diocese as well as clergy compensation.  He was assisted by Canon Robert Jennings and Archdeacon Frank Endres, with Deacon Chris Perez serving as thurifer.  Bishop Giffin served as the Cantor, Epistoler and Gospeler, and also gave the Apostolic Blessing.  The Bishop Ordinary, the Rev. Dr. Larry L. Shaver, was the preacher. 

Also received as clergy at the Synod was the Rev. Paul D. Moore of Fayetteville, Arkansas, who is presently engaged in mental health counseling in a clinic and will begin the process of planting a mission for the DMA in Arkansas.  The Election Synod and Mass was hosted by the Anglican Church of St. Andrew the Evangelist in Merrillville, Indiana, and included a wonderfully prepared luncheon afterwards.

Congratulations to Bishop Giffin and the DMA!

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Septuagesima and Pre-Lent



Septuagesima: A funny sounding word that signals the ensuing approach of our Lenten discipline as we embark on the journey known as Pre-Lent, a mini-Lent before Lent, which is designed to ready us and gear us in the direction of the Lenten fast. As children, we might have thought Septuagesima probably referred to a laboratory experiment or a very challenging mathematical formula found in algebra books; it actually means ‘Seventy Days before Easter.’ Beginning even now in Pre-Lent, we are mindful of the distant dawn of the Feast of Feasts, the Paschal Mystery of Our Blessed Lord’s Resurrection. By the route of these seventy days, through the Cross of Lent, we emerge victorious from the Tomb in Easter joy with Jesus Christ our Redeemer.

Holy Mother Church in her good pastoral sense recognises that we need preparatory time to adjust to the sometimes jarring painful reality of Lent, its hopeful yet real sombreness, its renewed intensity and concentration on self-denial, its self-sacrificial discipline. Pre-Lent, a liturgical season now almost entirely unique to orthodox Prayer Book Anglicanism, offers a stage-by-stage, incremental way of getting ready for Lent. Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, such a glorious trinity of celebration and feasting -- the message of Pre-Lent heralded to us is this; it is now time to lay aside our seasons of festivity and equip ourselves for sacrifice, for union with Our Lord in His mysterious offering of Himself for our sake, His voluntary passion and suffering.

Pre-Lent is a time for taking stock of our spiritual lives, of beginning the process of our spiritual inventory. We must begin again to examine our souls, consciences and lives -- to root out sin, to reject evil, to purge ourselves of that which does not belong to God, in short, to repent.

Only by the grace of God our Father, through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Ghost, are we saved from our sins, and only by the exercise of our free-will, our correspondence and co-operation with grace, can we enable the free gift of God’s Life within us to take hold and bear fruit. God created our freedom, and He loves and respects it as being in us an indispensable aspect of His Image. He does not want automatons or robots in His Family, His Kingdom, but sons of God in freedom, in His Likeness. He wants synergy; He wants us to love Him and worship Him in freedom and delight. Salvation is free gift; and it can be lost without perseverance, faith, and obedience. Happy Pre-Lent!

Saint Paul announces that we enter into communion with God through the ‘obedience of Faith’ (Romans 1.5, 16.26). And our Book of Common Prayer asserts the theological virtue of Hope in relation to salvation: ‘I heartily thank our heavenly Father, that he hath called me to this state of salvation, through Jesus Christ our Lord. And I pray unto God to give me his grace, that I may continue in the same unto my life’s end’ (page 284).

Pre-Lent’s liturgical theme reminds us that we are saved by grace through faith, and that in the wondrous love of God, we cannot save ourselves, although God never forces us to be saved. The gift must be received, it must be used, it must be prayed, lived, experienced, actualised. On one hand, salvation, freedom from sin and union with God, is entirely the action of the divine initiative: ‘But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’ (Romans 5.8) ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them’ (Ephesians 2.8-10).

On the other hand, the Word of God written tells us in no uncertain terms: ‘work out your own salvation with fear and trembling’ (Philippians 2.12) ‘Faith without works is dead’ (Saint James 2.20, 26). God’s free gift of salvation in Jesus Christ, unmerited and undeserved on our part, requires and demands a life, once liberated from the power of sin and death and supernaturally regenerated in Christ, lovingly conformed and subjected to the will of God, seeking to imitate Christ, to be Christ-like.

Father Ronald Knox, the famous English priest and theologian writes,
‘Septuagesima has an epistle that warns us that it is never too late to be damned and a gospel that reminds us that it is never too late to be saved’ -- fitting food for thought as we now engage in the process of preparing ourselves for the great revelation of the Risen Christ, who is always prepared to receive our repentance. The Christian life requires the acceptance of the divine gift, and good works proceeding from a living faith, if we are to be saved and go to heaven. Pre-Lent is about our response, our side of the divine-human equation; it is about the ‘D’ word: discipline.

1 Corinthians 9: Saint Paul gives us the whole Lenten theme in one fell swoop, and admonishes us to maintain discipline in our lives, without which we may slip and fall from grace. He cleverly uses the image of the arena of his day, track and boxing, to describe the process of subjecting the body to the spirit, and most importantly, to the Spirit of God. Prayer, almsgiving, and fasting are exercises in self-control, and are critical to the conforming of our lives to the will of God. We can break the standards that we require of others, and thus lose our salvation. We must ever be vigilant for our own souls, ever on-guard through prayer and good works.

Real Christianity demands a real struggle, a real effort, real sacrifice. ‘Armchair Christianity’ is a deceptive impostor of the genuine article. The essence of the Christian life is ascesis, training, practice, effort, exercise. Orthodox Christianity is not only aesthetic, beautiful, it is ascetic, active.

Saint Matthew 20: Jesus Christ shows us in His parable of the labourers that God is limitless in love and mercy, forgives all sins, and, transcending all concepts of human justice, shows mercy on whom he shows mercy. The Kingdom of God is a free gift of God’s love, a pouring-out of the abundance of God’s generosity, which demands of us a proper response and a thankful return in the offering of our lives to Him. The Kingdom cannot be merited or deserved; it is given to us by Him who alone knows our own good actions and failures.

From the earliest Septuagesima sermon we possess, that of Saint Gregory the Great, the eminent reformer of the sixth century, we discover these words, more applicable today than when they were first uttered: ‘Many arrive at faith, but few are led into the heavenly kingdom. Behold many there are in the Church - they fill Churches throughout creation, yet who knows how few they are who shall be numbered in that chosen company of the elect? Behold the voices of all that proclaim Christ, but the lives of all do not proclaim Him. And many keep company with God in word, but shun Him in deed. At the call of the Lord are multiplied those without number; however, the unfaithful are mingled with the faithful, but because of their way of life they shall not merit to be partakers of the lot of the faithful. No one shall receive a Kingdom, who though formed in heavenly faith, with all their hearts seek the things of earth. Two things there are upon which we should carefully reflect. Because many are called but few chosen, the first is: let no one presume his own salvation; for though he be called to faith, whether he is worthy of the eternal kingdom he knows not. The second is: let no one presume to despair of his neighbour, who he perhaps sees lying in sin; for he knows not the riches of the divine grace.’

The days with the odd names beckon us to practice what we preach, to walk the walk as well as to talk the talk. Does our life, in its fruits, labours, works and prayers, match our profession? Saint Paul commands us to ‘walk worthy of our calling.’ Are we? If we are, we have the hope of being saved, of rejoicing on that heavenly shore, in that greater light, with Blessed Mary and all the Saints on that heavenly Easter Day which lasts for all eternity.

May the Lord Jesus Christ, the Suffering Servant Who fasted, prayed and gave for us men and our salvation, grant you a productive and transformative Pre-Lent.

God bless you!

+Chad

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

The APA-ACA Reconciliation Working Group


On Tuesday, 28th January 2014, the Reconciliation Working Group of the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Province of America met at Saint Barnabas Church in Dunwoody, Georgia, the day on which the 'snowpocalypse' descended on the city of Atlanta. Mercifully, the weather did not prevent the Group from enjoying a thoroughly cheerful and productive meeting. Three APA representatives and five ACA representatives began the first day with the celebration of the Holy Eucharist and met for approximately seven hours in intensive conversations. A second meeting of the Group involving the Presiding Bishops of our Churches was held on Wednesday 29th January at the Holiday Inn Perimeter in Dunwoody. The Group intends to meet again before the concurrent APA and ACA national Synods to be held in October 2014 in Belleville, Illinois.

Many various items and issues were discussed in the course of the meetings, but three stand out and bring into relief the process of reconciliation now underway.

First, the Group discussed the ongoing effort to evaluate and propose a united body of Canon Law for a future reunited Church. The 1993 Canons of the originally united Church are the basis for restoring an agreed body of Canons. Over the past year and a half, the Group has worked diligently to determine which Canons would best serve the needs of a reunited ecclesiastical structure. A proposed Constitution based on the original 1993 version has already been completed, and many of the Canons have been reviewed and accepted for future submission to the Synods of the Church. It is hoped that the entire Constitution and Canons will be completely reviewed and ready for future action before the end of this year. Of course, the Group’s role in this matter is only to propose. The Synods of the Churches must examine and accept by juridical process any proposed future changes.

Second, the Group reviewed action items already proposed and discussed at previous meetings. We hope to see a new joint website for news and information from the APA and ACA created soon. We continue to encourage joint events on the local level between parishes, deaneries, and Dioceses, and we encourage mutual participation in youth camps and other youth events. Wherever and whenever possible, we hope to witness an increase in mutual involvement and participation at every level of Church life. New ideas for promoting grass-roots shared ministry and friendship are forthcoming.

Third, the Group received a proposal for the creation of an Assembly of Bishops for the Traditional Anglican Church in the United States of America, a Continuing Church counterpart to the ‘Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America,’ in which the bishops would be in full sacramental communion with each other (communicatio in sacris) and bound by mutual love and commitment to working together as one body. In it, Dioceses and Provinces would remain autonomous and canonically self-determining. The bishops would consult with each, confer with one another, make decisions together, and speak with one voice to culture and society; they would be enabled to form, educate, and train clergy and laity together as one body. Evangelistic and missionary efforts, domestic and foreign, would not overlap but would be united and synchronised. Each Diocese or Province would pledge over time not to act in any major way without consultation and consensus with and through the others.

In the Assembly framework, no jurisdiction would lose its own territory or canonical authority. No Canons would have to be changed. No jurisdiction would be compelled institutionally to unite with another jurisdiction. Overlapping geographical jurisdictions would remain while a united Church could be forged. In the Assembly, bishops and jurisdictions would mutually recognise each other and agree together on which bishops and jurisdictions would or would not gain entrance into the body. The organisation of this Anglican Assembly would allow the jurisdictions to enter into full visible communion with each other and maintain agreed standards of discipline and mutual accountability while maintaining the jurisdictional independence of each participating body, an expansion and deepening of the current Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas.

All the APA and ACA bishops present at the Group meetings endorsed the creation of the Assembly. The proposal now moves to the Houses of Bishops of the founding jurisdictions for further consideration.

Please continue to pray for the members and the efforts of the Reconciliation Working Group.

God bless you! +Chad 

Thursday, February 06, 2014

Brother John-Charles Vockler FODC - RIP




Canon Matthew Kirby wrote shortly after midnight, U.S. Eastern time, to report the death of Brother John-Charles, fifth Acting Primate of the Anglican Catholic Church. His Grace died peacefully, and Canon Kirby was with him at the time.
Please feel free to notify those whom you know who will want to know this.
The ACC website with have further information. Canon Kirby will take the requiem Mass and funeral according to Brother John-Charles’s instruction.
May he rest in peace.
+Mark Haverland
(The Most Reverend) Mark Haverland, Ph.D.
Sixth Acting Primate, Anglican Catholic Church

___________________________________
Brother John-Charles, Bishop in the Church of God, was a beloved friend, spiritual director, and mentor, to me and to many other Traditional Anglicans around the world: he was kind enough to serve as a confessor and spiritual director for me from 1994 to 2000. A man of remarkable ascetical and intellectual gifts, he was a master of the spiritual life and a truly eminent and holy pastor and theologian. Of your Christian charity, pray for the repose of his sacerdotal soul.

+Chad

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

Comprovincial Newsletter and Video - September 2026

  The Anglican Province of America Comprovincial Newsletter and Video - September 2026