The Principal Differences Between Orthodox Church Law and the Law of the Roman Catholic Church

Milan Petrović,

Faculty of Law, University of Niš, Serbia

 

 

Abstract. When discussing church law one must first bear in mind its complex structure. The central, fundamental part of church law is canon law, which regulates the internal life of the Church, and this primarily means the organization of the Church as a community of priests and laypersons, their mutual rights and obligations, and the activity of the Church within this community: the clerical work; teaching; government and trial. Ecclesiastical law is also a part of church law, and it regulates matters of common interest to the Church and the state. Religious education in state schools in particular requires the coordination of Church and state. The fundamental source of church law in general and canon law in particular is found in divine laws.

The point of departure between Orthodox and Roman Catholic church law is found precisely in the different interpretation of divine laws. The supreme authority of all Church, the Ecumenical Council decides on its own competences. It judges on teachings prominent in the Church and specifically condemns heresy. It regularizes the governance of the Church in general and hierarchical Churches in particular, and also deals with the rights of the Churches in governance. The conciliarity principle is valid for hierarchical Orthodox churches, too – their supreme bodies are regional councils. The Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church are legitimate successors of the Apostolic Council, and are therefore also the institution of divine law. The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils, held in the period 325 – 787. That is to say, the Orthodox Church does not accept the position that the Roman popes are his successors. It remains unknown who founded the Roman church. However, this was certainly not the apostle Peter.

 

When discussing church law one must first bear in mind its complex structure.

The central, fundamental part of church law is canon law, which regulates the internal life of the Church, and this primarily means the organization of the Church as a community of priests and laypersons, their mutual rights and obligations, and the activity of the Church within this community: the clerical work; teaching; government and trial. Let us mention that church dogmas, also a subject matter of dogmatics as a philosophy of Christianity, represent a constituent part of canon law, since their breach means a particularly serious guilt according to church law. Due to such an important position of canon law, the discipline dealing with it is called canonistics.

Ecclesiastical law is also a part of church law, and it regulates matters of common interest to the Church and the state. For instance, marriage is a holy sacrament for the church, but marriage and the family also provide the basis for the life of a community – a state or a nation. The church funeral is a holy act, however the legal organization of cemeteries is today inevitably in the jurisdiction of the state and the local government – for cultural, hygienic, and reasons of town planning. Religious education in state schools in particular requires the coordination of Church and state. The temple is a holy place, but it can also be a historic cultural monument protected by the state. And so forth. The view that the Church holds, that the relations between state and Church should be harmonious, is reflected in the position that matters of ecclesiastical law should be ordered through a mutual agreement of the two. This agreement is called a concordat. To be sure, a concordat is usually a formal agreement that the state and the Church conclude as two equal parties, a contract, therefore, made after the model of international treaties. However, this form is not obligatory. There is a concordat also if the state orders the matter single-sidedly, by a legal act, after it has obtained the positive opinion, i.e. consent of the Church.

Finally, there is also the so-called law of religious communities. These are regulations by means of which, in the regime of the separation of Church and state, the state imposes its will on the Church in those matters that the Church believes should be defined by the agreement of the two parties. These regulations, viewed as hostile by the Church, are not a source of church law. However, the science of church law still studies them as they regulate the relations between Church and state.

The fundamental source of church law in general and canon law in particular is found in divine laws. Divine laws are proclaimed mostly in the New Testament. Divine laws from the Old Testament pertaining to the Jewish church and nation are not valid for the Church as a "New Israel". However, divine laws from the Old Testament which are general in nature, primarily the Ten Commandments that God declared to Moses, still hold for the Church.

The point of difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic church law is found precisely in the different interpretation of divine laws.

In the Orthodox view, the New Testament laid foundations for the episcopal-conciliary governance of the Church. According to the Gospel of Matthew (18, 18), the Lord Jesus, speaking about the Church, said to his students – the apostles: "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Later on, the apostles would transfer their right and duty of supreme governance of the church to their successors, bishops, through ordination, and these would then ordain new bishops; this gave rise to the so-called apostolic succession (successio apostolica), the first principle of legitimate exercise of full church authority. Today this principle is not accepted only by the majority of Protestant Churches: for them, a bishop is not heir to the apostles, but rather a mere church or civil servant. The apostles are, however, equal in rights, and they resolve all issues related to the Church as a whole, the Christian Ecumene, together, in a conciliary way. And this is the second principle of legitimate exercise of full church of authority, the conciliarity principle. As it may be, the Lord Jesus explicitly condemned any idea of a possible hierarchy among the apostles, i.e. of apostolic supremacy. This is what the Gospel says (Matthew, 18, 1-4): "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, verily I say unto you, except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Again, the mother of the apostles Jacob and John, sons of Zebedee, asked Him to allow them to sit with him in the Kingdom of Heaven, one to the right, the other to the left; having heard this, all the other apostles became angry with these two brothers. The Gospel continues (Matthew, 20, 25-27): "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." Finally, the same question was posed during the Last Supper (Luke, 22, 24-27): "And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But you shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth."

In the narrower sense, the conciliarity principle was first expressed at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, probably held in AD 49. The jurisdiction and decisions of this Council became part of the regulations of the Scriptures, and thus have the power of divine laws. The Apostolic Council resolved that Christian Gentiles were exempted from the duties imposed by the law of Moses, except that they had to abstain from meats offered as a sacrifice to the idols, from blood, from strangled animals, and from fornication – "from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well." (Acts, 15, 29). It was also allowed that the apostle Paul and Barnabas should continue preaching the Gospels to Gentile brothers. As for the Jews, the Council found that their evangelization should still be carried out by the Church of Jerusalem, primarily by the apostle Peter (Gal, 2, 7-8). The Council still had to pay its debt to the historical situation, prescribing that the Christian Jews, Judeo-Christians, were still to adhere to the Law of Moses (Acts, 15, 21): "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

The Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church are legitimate successors of the Apostolic Council, and are therefore also the institution of divine law. It is desirable, but not necessary, that all hierarchical Churches should be present at the Ecumenical Council. However, it is important that the Council's decisions be accepted by all the Churches, both those whose representatives participated in the Council, and those who had no representatives, nor provided their position on issues to be discussed in the Council in specific epistles. "There have been heretical councils", Nikodim Milaš says (Orthodox Church Law, 3rd Ed, Belgrade 1926, 309), "like the one where the semi-Arian symbol was added, or such, whose acts were signed by numerous bishops, more of them than at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and also such whose resolutions were signed by both patriarchs and emperors. However, all these councils have not been recognized as ecumenical for the simple fact that the faithful people could not accept those decisions as the true voice of the church." The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils, held in the period 325 – 787.

The supreme authority of all Church, the Ecumenical Council decides on its own competences. It thus defines the dogmas of faith and presents them in the form of symbols and religious positions (Canon 7 of the Third Ecumenical Council). It judges on teachings prominent in the Church and specifically condemns heresy (Canon 1 of the Second Ecumenical Council). It clarifies and defines rules (canons) adopted at the previous Councils (Canon 1 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council). It regularizes the governance of the Church in general and hierarchical Churches in particular, and also deals with the rights of the Churches in governance (Canons 6 and 7 of the First Ecumenical Council). It orders the ranks and rights of bishops (Canons 4 and 6 of the First Ecumenical Council). Based on the Scriptures, the holy tradition and Christian morality, it exercises judicial power over the bishops, including autocephalous bishops, and also over hierarchical Churches themselves (Canons 12, 13, 32, 33, 55, 56, and 81 of the Fifth and Sixth, Trullan Ecumenical Council).

The conciliarity principle is valid for hierarchical Orthodox churches, too – their supreme bodies are regional councils. However, in the old times, when all metropolitan Churches were autocephalous, according to the Canons 34 and 37 of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the archbishop always had to act with the knowledge of all other bishops from his archibishopry, and there was a council of bishops twice a year, where the bishops discussed with one another the dogmas and resolved church disputes. Jevsevije Popović comments on this (General Church History, I, Srem. Karlovci 1912, 2nd phototype edition, Novi Sad 1995, 293): "The archbishop was merely an individual preserving unity among the bishops. To be true, in his province he had not only a honorary, but also a jurisdictive primacy, however not with monarchic, but only with presidential powers, and not according to divine law, coming from Christ, but according to human law, made by the church after the apostles."

The bishops of Rome, the popes, turned this principle upside down, having established an unlimited, monarchic power over their Church and having expressed thereby their claim to such power over the entire ecumenical Church, i.e. to their sole autocephality. The climax of such apostasy from the fundamental legal principles of original Christianity is found in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility, declared in the constitution "Pastor Aeternus" by Pius IX on 18 June 1870. This dogma ruined any remnants of a national Roman Catholic Church and introduced a total centralism, a precursor to contemporary globalism.

The Roman popes found legitimacy for this outrageous abuse of law in the statement of the Lord Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew (16, 18-19): "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

However, as we have stated before, Jesus gave this same power to other apostles, too. According to the teaching of Protestant Churches, Jesus gave this so-called "Power of the Keys" (potestas clavium) not to Peter in person, but to the Church as a whole. Moreover, a notable Roman Catholic exegete, bishop of Avila Alphonsus Tostatus (died in 1455), claimed the same, and was never considered a heretic for this. History has showed that the latter interpretation is correct. (See: Richter/Dove/Kahl, Lehrbuch des katholischen und evangelischen Kirchenrechts, I, Neudruck Aalen 1975, 309 sqq.).

Starting from the "power of the keys" proclamation, the Roman popes have constructed the following theories: First, the apostle Peter was the first of the apostles, and thus the head of the Church as a whole. Second, the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome and died in Rome, crucified head down, in the time of Nero's persecution of Christians, in AD 64 or 67. Therefore, the Roman popes are heirs to the apostle Peter and thus heads of the entire Church. The popes have not only considered themselves Peter's successors, but have also identified with him. They often declare themselves: "I am Peter" (Ego sum Petrus).

A critical examination of the sources reveals that such theories are untenable.

We have already shown that the Lord Jesus did not allow that any supremacy among the apostles should be established; the hierarchy that emerged among the bishops later is an institution of human, and not divine law. However, was there not a factual, indirect supremacy of Peter over other apostles? Not at all. Peter was the oldest and the most eloquent of the apostles. As such, he often mediated their positions, opinions, and feelings to the Lord. However, he also fell into profound weakness. It is at him that the Lord directed, just after the praise ("You are Peter..."), a strict expostulation: "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew, 16, 23). He renounced the Lord with an oath, for which he repented bitterly (Matthew, 26, 69-75). It was only the resurrected Lord that forgave him and prepared him for missionary work (John, 21, 15-18). Peter did not chair the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, even though he was present and spoke there. Additionally, he had to justify his appearance with the baptism of the centurion Cornelius (Acts, 11, 1-18). The apostle Paul criticized him in his presence for being double-faced in spreading the Gospel in Antioch (Gal, 2, 14): "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews." Decisive to the appreciation of Peter's position in the Church of Jerusalem is the testimony of the apostle Paul, who put him to the second position, behind Jacob (Gal, 2, 9): "And when James, Cephas (which means Peter in Aramaic), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

The Protestant Churches hold the position that the apostle Peter was never in Rome. To be true, the Orthodox Church accepts the traditional view that he perished in Rome, but not that he was a Roman bishop. That is to say, the Orthodox Church does not accept the position that the Roman popes are his successors. Even further, more recent Orthodox Church historians question the position that the apostle Paul ever visited Rome; (see, for instance, Jevsevije Popović, op. cit., 195 sqq., 225 sqq.; M. E. Posnov, The History of the Christian Church [История Христианской Церкви], 2002). As it may be, Acts of the Apostles, which the apostle and gospel writer Luke wrote quite some time after Peter's death, perhaps around AD 80, although providing elaborate details on the activities of the apostle Peter, say nothing about his stay in Rome. This text would have to talk about this when describing the arrival of the apostle Paul in Rome (around AD 61), when he was welcomed there by Christian brothers (Acts, 28, 14): "And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and the three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage." However, Peter was not among the brethren. It remains unknown who founded the Roman church. However, this was certainly not the apostle Peter. In his epistles from Rome, the apostle Paul also failed to report that he had met Peter there, although in the Epistle to Galatians he described in detail his encounters with Peter in Jerusalem and Antioch. An exquisite contemporary scholar, the theologian Heussi (Die römische Petrustradition in kritischer Sicht, Tübingen 1955, 1 sqq.), based on the analysis of Paul's Epistle to Galatians (2, 6-9) concluded that, in the time in which it was written, around AD 57, the apostle Peter was no longer alive, i.e. that he had died long before Nero's persecution.

It would be useful here to mention a comment by the world-renowned papal historian, Kühner, even though, as a Roman Catholic believer, he stands on the position of the official tradition of his Church (H. Kühner, Lexikon der Päpste, Wiesbaden 1991, 23): "Peter was the first archbishop of Antioch and, as the first head of the Roman Christian municipality, he may be taken for the first Roman bishop. However, one can discuss papal dignity only beginning with the third decade of the 4th century."

Among numerous forgeries that the Roman popes have used to prove a right of theirs, "The Donation of Constantine" (Constitutum Constantini Imperatoris – Donatio Constantini) was given global historical importance. It is contained in a legal collection, which is otherwise packed with forgeries, "Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals" (Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae), from which, around 1140, it was taken over and incorporated into Gratian's Decretum, the first part of the Body of Canon Law (Corpus iuris canonici), which would remain the principal source of the canon law of the Roman church, even though as early as in the 15th century cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and universal humanist scholar Lorenzo Valla had empirically proved that it was forged. "The Donation of Constantine" is older than Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals; it originated in the forger's workshop of pope Symmacus (ruled from 22 November 498 to 19 July 514), who is also a Roman Catholic saint; (see: Кühner, op. cit., 54 sq.). According to the false "Donation of Constantine", pope Sylvester the First, who in reality never met Constantine the Great, cured this alleged major persecutor of Christians from leprosy and baptized him. In return, having decided to move to the East of the Empire, Constantine granted the popes dominion over Rome and all of Italy with the western provinces, and gave them the imperial insignia, so that, from that point on, the popes were legitimate rulers of the Western Roman Empire. "The Donation of Constantine" was efficiently used by pope Stephen the Second in winter 753/54, who showed it to the King of the Franks Pepin the Third, otherwise a usurper of the throne. Pepin "believed" and granted papal rule over the city of Rome and Central Italy – through this, a church state was made which endured until 20 September 1870. Pepin was rewarded by being recognized as a legitimate ruler and a Patrician of the Romans (Patricius Romanorum), and also "the adopted son" of St. Peter.

However, having proclaimed the dogma of their own infallibility, the Roman popes exceeded the legitimacy of Peter – since the apostle Peter was a man who made mistakes. This is why with this dogma the popes proclaimed themselves gods. Accordingly, this new papal legitimacy can be founded only on apostle Paul's Second Epistle to Thessalonians, which says (2, 4): "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." It is also suggestive that the Code of Canon Law (Codex iuris canonici) promulgated by Benedict XV in 1917, whose slightly revised 1983 version remains the principal source of law in the Roman Catholic Church, fully cancels the difference between the rules of the Ecumenical Church and later papal legislative additions, so that today's Roman Catholic canon law is only and exclusively papal law. Undoubtedly, signs are present that the end of the Christian eon, and therefore the arrival of Antichrist, is near. However, in the same Second Epistle to Thessalonians, the apostle Paul says that this end, or coming, will not happen until there is the "one who restrains", the "katechon" (2, 6-7). Today, after almost twenty centuries, we know that only the Orthodox Church can be this katechon. For it is only this Church that preserves and maintains as pure the sources of the Christian river, including the memory of the Christian Empire, "The Byzantine Commonwealth". This preservation and memory are also reflected in the resolution of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church of 12/25 May 1939 – standing in sharp contrast to the motorised legislation of the Roman popes and their incessant production of new false miracles and false saints: "That the Krmchya [1] shall remain our official canonical Code until it is replaced by a new one."

 

1. Krmčija, Krmchya (Constitution) – St. Sava's translation of Byzantine Church Code, 13th century (translator's remark).

 

Source: Facta Universitatis, Series: Law and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1-7.

Archimandrite Alexis (Pobjoy): On the Western Rite

Source: The Shepherd: An Orthodox Pastoral Magazine, Vol. XLV, No. 2, October 2024, pp. 17-20.

 

 

A relative of mine asked me about the Western Rite... Please tell me about who are the Western Rite and what are their significance to our Holy Church. Is there a particular canon of the Ecumenical Councils that mandates exclusive use of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom? Are the Orthodox faithful of the Western Rite parish allowed to receive communion with us and vice-versa? - A.Q., By email.

Regarding the Western Rite, I must start by saying that what I am going to say is only my opinion, and I may well be wrong. I only offer it, because you asked for my opinion. It is true that the ROCOR which has united with Moscow, ROCA-MP, has in the last few years [the period when Metropolitan Hilarion headed their Church] taken in a number of Western Rite clergymen and parishes, and appears to be promoting them. Although, rather strangely, on their official website, little or no mention has been made of this fact. There the emphasis seems to be on Russianness. Perhaps they fear that the two things do not quite marry and are keeping them in separate compartments. His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion appears to have taken all the Western Rite groups under his own omophorion, whatever geographical diocese they happen to fall in. The ROCA, under His Eminence Metropolitan Agafangel, which is our sister Traditionalist Synod, does not have any Western Rite clergy or parishes to the best of my knowledge. Regarding the Rite itself, I believe that there should be great concerns about its implementation, and I believe the fact that it is being sponsored is something that should be of great concern to Orthodox Traditionalists. I will try and explain why I feel this. First of all, there seem to be two types of Western Riters. There are those who use a modified form of relatively modern Roman Catholic or Anglican rites, from which things, which are ostensibly not Orthodox, have been excised, and into which some Orthodox features have been added. Let us call these TYPE A. And there are those who have tried to return to rites which were current in the West, before the Schism of Rome from Orthodoxy. Let us call them TYPE B. I believe that there are dangers in adopting either of these approaches. TYPE A: In this instance, they are using rites, which although they might be able to trace a history back to something authentic, have essentially been shaped and formed by people outside the Church. The modifications, excisions and additions, do not seem to have been thought over long and hard. It seems to me as if they have taken a Ford Escort, added in a couple of features, improved the upholstery and taken off the Escort insignia, and now pretend it is a Lexus. Just recently, I saw a clip of one of these Western Rite services, and they had statues in their church. If such a ‘conversion’ of these rites was to be undertaken, then I would think that it should be done not by one or two hierarchs and not in a short space of time, but by the whole Church acting together - a thing which, given the situation that Orthodoxy finds itself in today, is completely impossible. TYPE B: Here we have the problem of trying to revive something which has been unused in the Church for a thousand years. If I am not mistaken, none of the rites used in the pre-schism West still exist in their entirety, and so those who have adopted this approach, of necessity, have to feed in certain elements from Byzantine usage. I once, many years ago, attended such a Mass, celebrated by Bishop Germain de Saint-Denis, who struck me as a very affable man (I gave him a lift in my car), but, although I am no expert in liturgics, it was obvious that the rite he performed could not have been that of the pre-schism West. If my memory serves me right, he even used the dikiri and trikiri candles, which I am sure were not used in preschism France! Furthermore, with TYPE B, we have the problem of providing for those feasts which are celebrated by the Orthodox today, but were not observed in the pre-schism West. Do services, fitting the Western usage, have to be composed for them or are these feasts simply to be ignored? I think, too, that there is a ‘chicken and egg,’ problem. The West fell away from Orthodoxy, and since that time has added heresy to heresy. One has to ask: were the rites that they were using in some sense deficient, and unable to contain the fullness of Orthodox teaching? If such is the case, there is extreme folly in returning to those rites, especially as we do not possess them in their fulness. But maybe the West fell away from Orthodoxy despite the adequacy of their rites at that time; then there is folly in the TYPE A approach. We are in a twilight zone here, and we need fathers of clear spiritual insight, or, better still, the consensus of the whole Church to guide us before we venture on a path which may be perilous. I am bold enough, and stupid enough, to believe that the adoption of the Western Rite is a path which is extremely perilous, and I will try to explain, in addition to the above, why. First of all, in the Byzantine Rite, we have an immense wealth of liturgical materials, which have been used by the whole Church for centuries. We have a banquet spread before us. Why turn away from it and pick at crumbs which are stale and may be contaminated? Secondly, the vast majority of people involved in the Western Rite movement, if one can call it that, are quite understandably converts to Orthodoxy. They are, perhaps, the people who most need to drink from the living sources, to be nurtured on Orthodox teaching and understanding through the services of the Church. Thirdly, those in the TYPE A situation, who are excising and amending to bring their rites into an Orthodox frame, are often the very people who should not be doing this! They are not, by and large, people who have been formed by Orthodoxy, who have reached spiritual heights, but are the converts themselves, very often converts who, because of their adherence to these rites, have lived as it were on the very outskirts of the Orthodox world, have not integrated with it. How different their approach to that of that beautiful example of a convert, our foremother Ruth - see her confession (chapter 1:15-18) and see her extraordinary obedience (chapter 3:2-5). Can you think for a moment how difficult that obedience must have been for a modest, Eastern woman of that period? And yet her answer was: ‘All that thou sayest unto me, I will do.’ Maybe I judge them, and if I do may I be forgiven, but it seems to me that these people are instead making that most horrible of professions, ‘I will do it my way.’ Lastly, at least for now, from the clip that I saw the other day, my attending Bishop Germain’s Mass, and other things I have seen, it seems to me that the Rite itself fosters an un-Orthodox spirit. There appears to be a strong element of posing (for want of a better word), of striking ‘pious’ poses, which is alien to Orthodoxy. It appears also that the order somehow takes precedence over the spirit. The thing appears to be an elaborate ritual. In a sense, we do not have ritual in Orthodoxy. I remember years ago seeing Father Vladimir serve at Jordanville. One could not say he was performing a ritual (although of course there is an outward ritual form to our services), rather it was clear that he was entering into a dialogue with our Saviour. Perhaps I exaggerate - I was young and impressionable at the time, but it does seem to me that the Western Rite (what I have seen of it) promotes a contrary spirit, - to put it very crudely, a ‘look at me, see how well I am doing this’ ethos. Again, forgive me if I am wrong. This may in any case be a defect of the celebrants I have seen, and not of the rite itself, but it is these same celebrants who are furthering its use. I believe that before ROCA-MP went under Moscow, there was only one Western Rite community, and that was countenanced more as a pastoral condescension to its priest, with whom I had a brief correspondence, than anything else. There was an earlier venture into Western Ritism with the consecration of Bishop Jean-Nectaire of Saint-Denis, but that did not last long. As far as I know there is no canon of the Oecumenical Councils regarding the Western Rite - what rites were being used in the West at that time would have been Orthodox, and the question of assessing them would not have arisen. Regarding whether Western Rite people may receive the Holy Mysteries in Eastern Rite churches: I presume, and only that - I have not looked into it, that in the present ROCA-MP they can, because surely as they are under the same Bishops they are of one mind and one heart with each other, and with their Bishops.

Various Russian Monastic Prayer Rules

The Rule of Florishcheva Hermitage

 

 

In Florishcheva Hermitage, founded in the seventeenth century in Vladimir Governorate by Saint Hilarion, Metropolitan of Suzdal, the following rule was introduced by him, divided according to time into three parts. At Compline the canons to Jesus the Sweetest, to the Mother of God, and to the Guardian Angel were read, as well as the Akathist to the Mother of God. After some time the brethren performed the rule in church. In addition to the seven brief prayers read at the beginning of the rule according to the Psalter, the Saint introduced invocations to various saints and to whole ranks of saints, as well as seven prayers composed by the holy fathers. Then 300 prostrations, 600 Jesus Prayers, and 100 prayers to the Theotokos were performed (which corresponds to the rule in the Psalter) according to the following order: the exclamation, the usual beginning through the “Our Father,” Psalm 50, the Symbol of Faith, 30 full prostrations with the Jesus Prayer (all the brethren together), after which, standing, they read 70 Jesus Prayers in a whisper or with the mind, “Glory, both now,” Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia, “Glory to Thee, O God” (three times, with full prostrations), and again they made 30 full prostrations, and so on, with the reading of “Glory, both now” after each hundred prayers (or hundred. A hundred is 100 noetic prayers performed on the prayer rope.) Then they read the Commemoration Book with prostrations according to the Psalter, “It is truly meet,” the Trisagion, the troparia “Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us,” “Lord, have mercy” (40 times), “More honorable,” “O God, be bountiful unto us,” and the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian, “O Lord and Master of my life,” with full prostrations, “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” (three times, with prostrations), “More honorable,” and the dismissal. Then came the usual mutual forgiveness of the brethren. After this, in their cells, the brethren read the Psalter. The beginners read 3 kathismas, those in the middle rank 4 kathismas, and the perfect 7 kathismas. Those who could not fulfill this were to read the “Our Father” in their cell 30 and 50 times with prostrations, or more. In addition, they read “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” with prostrations (the beginners 50 times, those in the middle rank 100 times, and the perfect 150 and more). For the infirm and the young, this cell rule was abolished. Subsequently the rule of Florishcheva Hermitage was borrowed by the Sarov monastery, but in a somewhat abbreviated form. From Sarov Hermitage the cell rule passed to the Novgorod Yuriev Monastery, with the beginning and end of the rule shortened, but with the canons at Compline increased, with the addition of canons to the saints of the week. In different monasteries, the hundreds of noetic prayers were performed in different numbers and at different times of the day: in the morning after sleep, in the evening after supper, or at midnight. The variety in the performance of the cell rule arose because the rule given in the Psalter is difficult for many to fulfill, and is set forth briefly and indefinitely, which gave occasion for different understandings and interpretations. In the Psalter it is indicated that the full rule is not obligatory for all and is shortened for the infirm and beginners. In monasteries, much with regard to the cell rule was left to the will of the abbots, spiritual fathers, and elders guiding the beginners. Therefore, differences in the cell rules of monasteries are permissible.

 

The Rule of the Sarov and Novgorod Yuriev Monasteries

 

 

According to the Sarov rule: after Compline, without leaving the church, the brethren listened to the evening rule with three canons: to Jesus the Sweetest, to the Most Holy Theotokos with the Akathist, and to the Guardian Angel. According to the Yuriev rule: at the end of Compline it is appointed to perform certain canons (in the Psalter with the Order of Services), namely: on Saturday evening, the canon to the Lord Jesus Christ, whose irmos is: “Helper and Protector”; the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, and the canon to the Guardian Angel. Then “It is truly meet,” the Trisagion through the “Our Father,” the customary troparia and the prayer: “O undefiled, untainted one,” “And grant us, O Master,” and the dismissal (hundreds were not appointed on the eve of Sunday). On the other days: on Sunday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus, the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, whose irmos is: “Having passed through the water”; and the troparion: “Held fast by many temptations”; the canon to the Archangels, and then the prostrations (that is, the five hundreds, as shown below), and the rest*. On Monday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus, the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, the canons to Saint John the Forerunner and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Tuesday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus Christ, the canon to the Theotokos Hodegetria and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Wednesday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus, the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, to the holy Apostles, and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Thursday evening, the canon to the Life-giving Cross, whose irmos is: “I shall open my mouth,” the Paraklesis to the Theotokos and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Friday evening, the canon to Jesus the Sweetest, whose irmos is: “In the deep of old”; the Akathist to the Theotokos without fail, the canons to the Guardian Angel and to All Saints, the prostrations, and the rest.

The Five-Hundred Cell Rule

O God, be merciful to me, a sinner.

O God, cleanse my sins and have mercy on me.

O Lord Who hast created me, have mercy.

Without number have I sinned, O Lord, forgive me.

O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save me, a sinner.

Holy Archangels and Angels and all Saints, pray to God for me, a sinner.

My holy Guardian Angel, preserve me from every evil.

Holy Apostle, or venerable father, or martyr (name), pray to God for me.

Then the hieromonk said the exclamation: “Blessed is our God,” and the reader: “Amen. Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.” “O Heavenly King.” The Trisagion through the “Our Father,” “Lord, have mercy,” 12 times. “Glory, both now.” “Come, let us worship” (three times). Psalm 50. “Have mercy on me, O God.” “I believe in One God.” Then, according to the Sarov rule, the reader (according to the Yuriev rule—the abbot), standing in the middle of the church, began to make 30 full prostrations. Having said aloud the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” he made a prostration, and with him all the brethren. Each one read the same prayer with the mind and made the prostrations together with all. The prayer with prostrations was performed unhurriedly and in good order. Each monk first pronounced the prayer, then made the prostration. When the 30 prostrations with the prayer had been completed, after a brief pause, the one presiding pronounced aloud three times the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”; then each one repeated the same prayer in the mind one hundred times. Then the one presiding exclaimed: “Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, both now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia, glory to Thee, O God” (three times). “Lord, have mercy” (three times). “Glory, both now.” And again he said the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” and again made 30 prostrations, and then they performed 100 Jesus Prayers. Then—“Glory, both now,” “Alleluia,” and the rest. Then again the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” and with it they made 20 prostrations, and again read 100 prayers (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”), “Glory, both now,” “Alleluia,” and the rest; then they read the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” and with it made 20 prostrations. After this they read aloud the prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos, three times: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save me, a sinner,” then in the mind they performed the same prayer one hundred times. “Glory, both now,” “Alleluia,” and the rest; then they pronounced the prayer aloud: “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” (according to Sarov, five times with prostrations; according to Yuriev, once). According to the rule of Florishcheva Hermitage, after the prostrations and noetic prayers they read the Commemoration Book according to the Psalter, with full prostrations. In the Yuriev rule there is no mention of reading the Commemoration Book. After “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” the two choirs together sang sweetly “It is truly meet” and made a prostration. Then—the Trisagion through the “Our Father.” The appointed troparia of the canons (according to Sarov and Florishcheva: “Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us”). Then, according to Yuriev, the prayer: “Those who hate us and wrong us” (instead of the Commemoration Book), and 16 prostrations with the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian: “O Lord and Master of my life.” “Glory to Thee, O Christ God, our hope, glory to Thee,” and the dismissal. Then—the usual mutual forgiveness of the abbot and the brethren. According to Florishcheva, after “Open unto us the doors of mercy”—“Lord, have mercy” 40 times, “More honorable than the Cherubim,” “O God, be bountiful unto us,” and the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian: “O Lord and Master of my life,” with full prostrations. “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” (three times) with full prostrations. “More honorable than the Cherubim,” the dismissal, and the mutual forgiveness of the brethren. According to Sarov, after the fivefold “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” there was a reading from the book of Saint Ephraim the Syrian, then: “It is truly meet,” the Trisagion through the “Our Father.” The troparia: “Have mercy on us, O Lord,” and the rest. “Lord, have mercy” 40 times. The prayers: “Thou Who at all times and at every hour...,” “Lord, have mercy” (three times), “Glory, both now,” “More honorable than the Cherubim,” “In the name of the Lord, bless, father,” “Through the prayers of our holy fathers,” “O undefiled, untainted one,” “And grant us, O Master, as we go to sleep.” Then they read the Commemoration Book according to the Psalter. Then, from the prayers before sleep—the prayer of Saint Macarius the Great to God the Father: “O Eternal God and King of all creation,” the prayer of Saint Antiochus to the Lord Jesus Christ: “O Almighty Word of the Father.” The prayer to the Holy Spirit: “O Lord, Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, have compassion.” The prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos: “O good Mother of the good King.” The prayer to the Guardian Angel: “Angel of Christ, my holy guardian.” “To thee, the Champion Leader,” and the rest. “Most glorious Ever-Virgin, Mother of Christ our God,” and the rest, the prayer of Saint Joannicius: “My hope is the Father.” Finally the one presiding made the small dismissal and pronounced the litany. Then—the mutual forgiveness of the brethren. (Nothing is said about the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian.)

 

The Optina Cell Rule

 

 

In addition to the church services—the Liturgy, Matins, and Vespers with Compline, at which all the brethren of the monastery were required to be present—many of them daily read in their cell one chapter from the Gospel in sequence, beginning with the first chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew and continuing to the last chapter of the Gospel according to John, and two chapters from the Apostle likewise in sequence, beginning with the Acts of the Holy Apostles and ending with the last chapter of the Apocalypse of John the Theologian; moreover, the last seven chapters of the Apocalypse were read one per day; then the last of them was read on the same day as the last chapter of the Gospel according to John. Having thus completed the reading of the entire New Testament, they began again from the first chapters a new cycle of reading. From the Psalter they read one kathisma per day, beginning with the first and continuing through the last inclusively. In addition, they performed the so-called five-hundred cell rule in the following order: After the three prostrations usually appointed at the beginning of every prayer rule in church and in the cell, with the prayers: “O God, be merciful to me, a sinner”; “O God, cleanse my sins and have mercy on me”; “O Lord Who hast created me, have mercy! Without number have I sinned, O Lord, forgive me.” In the cell a fourth prostration was also appointed, with the prayer: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save me, a sinner”3. Then followed the usual beginning: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers, O Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us.” “Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.” “O Heavenly King” and the rest (as shown in the Sarov rule) up to “I believe in One God.” After this they read 100 prayers: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” At the first 10 prayers—one full prostration at each; at the next 20 prayers—one bow from the waist at each; at the last, that is, the hundredth, prayer—a full prostration. Then came the prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos, appointed at the end of the morning prayers and beginning with the words: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos.” At the end of this prayer they made a full prostration4. Then they again performed 100 Jesus Prayers in the indicated order, with 10 full prostrations and 20 bows from the waist, and at the last Jesus Prayer—a full prostration, and again the same prayer: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos,” with a full prostration. The third hundred was performed in the same way as the first and the second. The fourth hundred of prayers was addressed to the Most Holy Theotokos: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos, save me, a sinner”5. Of this hundred, the first ten prayers were likewise performed with full prostrations, and the next 20 with bows from the waist, the remaining 69 without prostrations. The last, hundredth, prayer was with a full prostration, and after it, likewise with a full prostration, the prayer: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos.” Then 50 prayers: “Holy Angel of God, my Guardian, pray to God for me, a sinner”; at the first five prayers—one full prostration at each; at the next ten—one bow from the waist at each; and the remaining 35 prayers without prostrations, only at the last—a full prostration, and again the prayer was read: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos,” with a full prostration. After this, 50 prayers: “All Saints, pray to God for me, a sinner.” At the first five prayers—one full prostration at each; at the next ten—one bow from the waist at each; the last prayer again with a full prostration, after which there was again read: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos,” with a full prostration. Then: “It is truly meet” and a full prostration. “Glory to Thee, O Christ God,” and the dismissal: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers, O Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us. Amen.” On weekdays they performed all the above-mentioned prostrations. On the days of Pentecost, of polyeleos feasts, of forefeasts and afterfeasts, on days when the Great Doxology is sung at Matins and full prostrations are abolished in church prayer, they were abolished also in the cell rule and replaced by bows from the waist. Likewise, only bows from the waist were always performed on those days when an All-Night Vigil was appointed to be served. In the last two days of Passion Week, throughout all of Bright Week, and beginning from December 24 to January 7 (Old Style), this cell rule was set aside, and also on Sundays, even if an All-Night Vigil was not served. Any change in the composition of this cell rule, whether its reduction or increase, was left to the will and blessing of the elder or spiritual father.

 

The Cell Rule of the Holy Trinity Sergius Riga Monastery

 

 

A chapter of the Gospel and of the Apostle; the canon to Jesus Christ and to the Most Holy Theotokos; the Akathist to the Savior or to the Mother of God, and the canon to the Guardian Angel; three kathismas and five hundreds of prayers on the prayer rope. The beginning of the rule is according to the Psalter with the Order of Services. The beginning of the hundreds: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers,” “Glory to Thee, our God,” and the rest (as before the Sarov and Yuriev rule). After “I believe in One God”—the first hundred: 30 full prostrations with the prayer “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”; 70 noetic prayers, standing, without prostrations (for rest), with the same prayer. “Glory, both now.” “Alleluia” (three times). “Lord, have mercy” (three times). “Glory, both now.” “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos, by Thy holy and all-powerful supplications...” “Amen.” “More honorable than the Cherubim...”8. The beginning of the second hundred: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers.” “Glory to Thee, our God,” through the “Our Father,” and the second hundred: 30 full prostrations with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”; 79 noetic prayers, standing, without prostrations for rest, with the same prayer. “Glory, both now,” and the rest. “More honorable than the Cherubim,” as after the first hundred. The third hundred is read in the same way as the second. The beginning of the fourth hundred: “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” and 30 full prostrations with the prayer “Most Holy Lady, Virgin Theotokos, save me, a sinner”; 70 noetic prayers of the same kind. The fifth hundred: 15 full prostrations with the prayer: “All ye heavenly ranks, Archangels and Angels, pray to God for me, a sinner,” and 35 noetic prayers of the same kind. 15 full prostrations with the prayer: “My holy Guardian Angel, preserve me from every evil and pray to God for me, a sinner”; 35 noetic prayers of the same kind. “It is truly meet,” “More honorable than the Cherubim,” “Glory, both now,” “Lord, have mercy” (three times), “Through the prayers of our holy fathers,” “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us.” For the acquisition of benefit for the soul and so as not to damage health, it was advised: at midnight to perform the first hundred alone, then to go to Matins; to perform the second hundred after Matins, and the last three in the evening, before sleep, or however one wishes. On the eves of Sundays and great feasts, from the Nativity of Christ until Theophany and from Palm Week until the Sunday of the Apostle Thomas, the rule was completely set aside, and on the days of polyeleos feasts and on Saturdays it was performed without full prostrations. The Commemoration Book was read at one’s discretion. If there was no time, it was replaced by the prayer: “Those who hate us and wrong us.” Without omission, daily, when going to sleep, the confession of sins was read: “I confess to Thee, the Lord my God and Creator, One in the Holy Trinity.” Then they read the prayers before sleep.

 

The Rule of the Seraphim-Diveyevo Women’s Monastery

 

 

Finding the rule of the Sarov monks beyond their strength and difficult, Saint Seraphim gave a daily rule taught to him by the Theotokos. Upon rising in the morning, one was to read: once “It is truly meet,” three times the “Our Father,” three times “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” the Symbol of Faith, then two bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner,” a bow from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners”; after this, two bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, through the Lady Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, have mercy on me, a sinner,” and likewise a bow from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, through the Lady Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, have mercy on us sinners.” At the conclusion of this rule, standing on bended knee, one must make twelve bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us sinners,” and in exactly the same way twelve bows from the waist with the prayer: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save us sinners.” Then the morning prayers are to be read. For those who labor, this rule may be read even while walking, during work. Until dinner one must constantly read the Jesus Prayer inwardly, and after dinner until night: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save us.” The evening rule: to read the 12 selected psalms (typical psalms) of the desert fathers, then the Commemoration Book, an instruction, and to make 100 bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners,” and one hundred bows from the waist with the prayer: “O our Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save us sinners.” Then the morning rule is to be repeated. At night they must again read this same rule and the prayers before sleep. The Mother of God forbade Father Seraphim to make the reading of the Akathist obligatory, so as thereby not to lay a burden and an additional sin upon anyone’s soul. On Sunday Father Seraphim gave the commandment to serve (in Diveyevo) before the Liturgy, without omission, the Paraklesis to the Mother of God, all of it sung melodiously, according to the musical notation. Then Father Seraphim ordered that, without omission, they confess and commune during all the fasts and, in addition, on the Twelve Great Feasts, without tormenting oneself with the thought that one is unworthy, “since one should not miss the opportunity, whenever possible, to make more frequent use of the grace bestowed by communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. Striving, as far as possible, to concentrate oneself in the humble consciousness of one’s own entire sinfulness, with hope and firm faith in God’s ineffable mercy, one should approach the Holy Mystery that redeems all things and all men.

 

Russian source: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/molitva/inocheskoe-kelejnoe-pravilo/

“Autocephalous Church” or “Autocephalous Ecclesiology”?

Nikolaos Mannis | July 1, 2019

 

 

After the recent (January 2019) practical proclamation of the heresy of Neo-Papism by the Patriarch of Constantinople, [1] His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios unfortunately appeared as an advocate of the Phanar.

With the present text I would like to take a position on the text of His Eminence Hierotheos, the latest in chronological order in his series of articles in favor of the Phanariots, entitled “The Term ‘Autocephalous Church.’” [2]

Unfortunately, in this text His Eminence comes into conflict chiefly with himself. For while he very correctly develops (throughout the whole of chapter 1 and in the first half of chapter 5) the Orthodox ecclesiology concerning the Head of the Church (Christ alone), he then contradicts himself (in the rest of chapter 5, as well as in chapters 6 and 7), as we shall see in detail, by regarding the “First” as Head, regardless of the fact that, theoretically, he rejects this.

His Eminence writes: “The Ecumenical Patriarch, as the First-Throne, has certain duties, which in practice all the Orthodox Churches have recognized for him. Among these is that he presided at the Second Ecumenical Council and at the subsequent Ecumenical Councils.” This, however, is not entirely accurate! For:

• The first president of the Second Ecumenical Council was Saint Meletios of Antioch. And only after his repose was the Archbishop of Constantinople, Saint Gregory the Theologian, elected president. [3]

• At the Third Ecumenical Council, Nestorios of Constantinople not only did not preside, but was the accused party. This Council (which in fact deposed Nestorios) was presided over by Saint Cyril of Alexandria. [4]

• At the Fourth Ecumenical Council, those presiding were the legates of Pope Leo of Rome. [5]

• At the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which anathematized, among others, four successive Patriarchs of Constantinople!), the representatives of the Pope of Rome again held the presidency. [6]

• The only Ecumenical Councils, therefore, after the Second, at which the Patriarch of Constantinople presided were the Fifth (Saint Eutychios) and the Seventh (Saint Tarasios).

His Eminence continues, writing that the Patriarch of Constantinople “granted not only the Tomoi of Autocephaly, but also the Patriarchal ranks and honors, to all the newer Churches, from the Church of Russia up to today.”

But neither is this entirely accurate. It is known from ecclesiastical history that in 1589 Patriarch Jeremias II Tranos of Constantinople uncanonically granted the patriarchal rank to the Church of Russia, giving it the third place, and appointed the Metropolitan of Moscow, Job, as Patriarch. [7] But it is known that many enlightened Hierarchs reacted against this arbitrary act, such as Hierotheos of Monemvasia and Saint Meletios Pegas, who knew that according to Orthodox ecclesiology only the Ecumenical Council grants Patriarchal ranks and honors. Hierotheos of Monemvasia was the first to react and “says privately to the patriarch, my master, this cannot be done, because Constantine the Great made the patriarchates with an ecumenical council; and Justinian the Great, with the Fifth Ecumenical Council, made Achrida an archbishopric, and Jerusalem, on account of the precious Passion of Christ, a patriarchate.” [8] Patriarch Jeremias, in his attempt to secure his arbitrary act, convened an Endemousa Synod in May 1590 in Constantinople, which granted the Patriarchal Tomos to the Church of Russia, assigning it the fifth place, and in which the Patriarchs Joachim of Antioch and Sophronios of Jerusalem also participated, along with another eighty-one Bishops! [9] Nevertheless, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Saint Meletios Pegas, who was also described as “the new Photios after the schism,” [10] reacted and demanded the convocation of an Ecumenical Council. And in his letter to Jeremias of Constantinople in 1591, he writes the following weighty words, which constitute a thunderbolt against the positions of His Eminence of Nafpaktos and every other defender of the Phanariot arbitrariness of our time:

“I know, besides, that you were grieved over the elevation of the Metropolis of Moscow to a Patriarchate; for it does not escape your notice that this belongs not to one Patriarch (unless the New Rome has decided to follow the Old), but to a Synod, and an Ecumenical Synod, of the Orthodox, that is; for in this way the Patriarchates up to today were also established. Therefore, your sacred soul ought also to have taken together the vote of the rest of the brethren, for all must know, as the Fathers define at the Third Council, what is being done, because the consideration concerns a common matter. And it is clear that no Patriarchal throne is subject to another, but is joined to the Catholic Church.” [11]

(Additional note: a Pan-Orthodox Synod was finally held in 1593 and conferred the patriarchal rank upon the Church of Russia, assigning it the fifth place).

Therefore, in all the subsequent newer Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches, the Patriarchal ranks and honors, and the autocephalies, were granted by economy and, as His Eminence also admits, “stand in reference (ad referendum) to the Ecumenical Council.” [12] Therefore, since according to exactness they have not been recognized, there exist no “exceptional privileges and duties” of the Patriarch of Constantinople!

Below, His Eminence also advances other positions that overturn what he wrote at the beginning, adopting an “autocephalous” (=independent) ecclesiology, which unfortunately attempts to establish what is called the “Neo-Papism of Constantinople.” He wonders: “…to whom do the Primates of the Churches refer? Should they not refer to the Synaxis-Synod of the Primates, with the Ecumenical as First? Otherwise, is autocephaly perhaps interpreted as ‘autocephalarchy’?”

But the answer to these questions we shall not seek elsewhere, but in his own text itself, a few pages above:

“Professor Ioannis Karmiris writes: ‘But while in the East the pentarchy of the Patriarchs prevailed canonically, and through it the episcopal-synodal – democratic – decentralizing system of administration, on the contrary in the West the papal – monarchical – absolutist – centralizing system of administration was gradually imposed by the bishops of Rome, the ecclesiastical polity that had been in force from the beginning thus being overturned. Thus, gradually and little by little, a differentiation was completed in the polity of the two parts of the Church, that is, of the eastern and the western.’”

Pentarchy, then; and when the Ecumenical Council recognizes according to exactness the Patriarchal ranks and honors, and the autocephalies, then why not also a Decarchy or a Decatetrarchy? Why the derogatory term “autocephalarchy,” since this has always been the system by which the Orthodox Church is governed, and in which no partial head surpasses another, precisely in order to avert phenomena such as the Papism of Rome, or the Neo-Papism of Constantinople today. His Eminence himself wrote these things a short time ago:

“Saint Theodore the Studite considered that the five Patriarchs constituted ‘the five-peaked dominion of the Church’ or ‘the five-peaked body of the Church’ or the ‘five-peaked ecclesiastical body.’ Theodore Balsamon parallels the existence of the Pentarchy with the five senses in the body of Christ.” [13]

So where is the problem? In the number “five”?

And His Eminence continues: “And does the Synod-Synaxis of the Primates not have a head, does it not have a First? Is the Orthodox Church headless in a Protestant manner?”

But he had again answered himself:

“First of all, it must be emphasized that the head of the Church, and I mean of the Orthodox Church, is Christ… The head of the Church is Christ. He fits together and joins the whole body of the Church, and each member of the Church, according to the gift he possesses, contributes to the growth of the body and to its edification in love… Christ is the head of the Church. The local presidents are regarded as heads in the type and place of Christ, and not as His representatives and vicars.”

Are the above “Protestantism”?

Besides, the only Primacy that the Church of Christ recognizes is the entirely formal Primacy of honor, which consists, according to Makarios of Ancyra, in “presiding, occupying the first seat, speaking first, giving an opinion first, signing first in synodal assemblies and acts, and furthermore, having his name pronounced in the Diptychs.” [14] Behold, then, what sort of “exceptional privileges” the “First” has: to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, to sit in the first place, to speak and give an opinion first, to place his signature first, and to have his name pronounced first in the Diptychs! That is, it has no relation whatsoever to the “privileges” that the Neo-Papists and their advocates want to recognize for him.

Further on, His Eminence makes proposals for the abolition of the traditional commemoration of the Primates “for every Orthodox bishop” and its replacement by the commemoration of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the other Primates, who in this way will be transformed into a universal First (according to the papal model!), proposals that clearly teach an “autocephalous” ecclesiology of the Monarchy of the Phanar, instead of the Orthodox ecclesiology of the relative polyarchy of the partial heads-bishops under the Absolute Monarchy of the general Head, Who is Christ alone!

At this point it must be emphasized that these positions of His Eminence are not supported by the Fathers of the Church. On the contrary, the patristic positions are precisely the opposite, and nowhere do they speak of any “universal first” and “head of the other primates.” Saint Meletios Pegas characteristically writes:

“The individual churches, and the heads of the churches, all coming together into one wholeness [sic] of the catholic Church, constitute one body, whose head is Christ alone! Therefore, the catholic Church is not a monster, having Christ as one catholic Head. For the partial heads [15] of the catholic Church do not impair the meaning, but fulfill it in each particular case; just as neither do the partial churches impair the meaning of the one catholic Church.” [16]

And Maximos the Peloponnesian more analytically:

“And all are heads, all teachers, all ecumenical shepherds of the Church, and they have Christ as their universal head, upon Whom they too are founded, together with the whole Church; all are servants and preachers of the Gospel of Christ, to which they bring the other faithful also. Although they are heads, nevertheless they are not such heads as to give life from themselves to the members. For only Christ does this, as He is Life itself and the Giver of life… And whoever is separated from Him, [17] even these shepherds, and even the Apostles [sic], cannot live. Therefore, they too are called heads, but partial ones, and not catholicly.” [18]

The positions, then, concerning a universal “First” with “exceptional privileges and duties” (and despite the theoretical admission only that Christ is the Head of the Church) are far removed from the Orthodox positions! I am curious as to whether the devotees of Neo-Papism could manage to compile a list of “universal firsts” in the Church from Pentecost until today, so that we may see to what extent their positions can stand… And I also address a question personally to His Eminence: Who was the “First” after Pentecost, Your Eminence? Peter or Paul?

And the worst thing is that such views lead to even more anti-Orthodox positions, confirming the saying “one evil is followed by countless others.” For His Eminence reaches the point of expressing the position that “when a Local Church ceases the commemoration in the Diptychs of the First, then it is already in schism, it creates an independent head.” But in what way is the one who ceases the commemoration of the “First” in schism, that is, outside the Church, and creating an “independent” head, since Christ, and not the “First,” is the Head of the Church? One could claim that this happens because the Church is renounced and Christ is rejected in the person of the “First.” But perhaps this applies only in the case where the “First” is a faithful keeper of the Orthodox Faith and of the Traditions and Canons, and those who cease commemorating him are fallen concerning the faith?

This is probably not something His Eminence seems to share, because he considers as schism even merely the fact itself of a Primate, together with his Synod, cutting himself off from the “First” and ceasing Eucharistic communion with him, overlooking both the fact that the Sacred Canons do not always regard this cessation as a condemnable schism, but sometimes as a praiseworthy act—namely, when the “First” preaches a condemned heresy “publicly and with bare head” [19]—and the fact that there is the possibility that the schism may be created through the fault of the “First,” namely, when he enters into union with condemned schismatics or heretics. [20] For His Eminence, these things evidently do not matter, and he considers that whoever cuts himself off from the “First” is necessarily placed “outside the Church.” But this is pure Papism!

Finally, His Eminence does not dare to speak about the falls of the “Firsts” into heresy and the consequences they have, but speaks about cases in which the “First” fell into “theological errors,” as he calls them, obviously fearing lest he shake the foundations of the “autocephalous” ecclesiology which he labored to build. A pity!

 

NOTES

[1] Fr. Georgy Maximov (Religious scholar – Doctor of Theology), “The Heresy of the Papism of Constantinople” https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/26628-airesi-tou-papismou-konstantinoupoleos [English source: https://orthochristian.com/118982.html]

[2] https://www.romfea.gr/images/article-images/2019/06/romfea2/kievo/Autocephalous-Church.pdf [English source: https://parembasis.gr/index.php/5809-2019-07-01a]

[3] Saint Nektarios (Kephalas), The Ecumenical Councils, Athens, 1892, p. 83.

[4] Ibid., p. 95.

[5] Ibid., p. 112.

[6] Vasilios Stefanidis, Ecclesiastical History, 2nd ed., Athens, 1959, p. 224.

[7] See Pheidas, Ecclesiastical History of Russia, Apostoliki Diakonia Publications, Athens, 2011, p. 295.

[8] Kon. Sathas, Biographical Sketch concerning Patriarch Jeremias II, Athens, 1870, p. 21.

[9] Kallinikos Delikanis, Patriarchal Documents, vol. 3, Constantinople, 1905, pp. 24–26.

[10] Christodoulos Paraskevaidis, later Archbishop of Athens, Meletios Pegas, Athens, 1971, p. 27.

[11] Methodios Fouyas, Letters of Meletios Pegas, Ecclesiastical Pharos 52 (1970), p. 232.

[12] Letter of the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos to the D.I.S. concerning the Ukrainian Question (https://www.romfea.gr/ekklisia-ellados/27999-epistoli-mitropoliti-naupaktou-pros-tin-dis-gia-to-oukraniko).

[13] Nafpaktos: “The Institution of Autocephaly in the Orthodox Church” (https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/24439-naupaktou-o-thesmos-tis-autokefalias-stin-orthodoji-ekklisia). [English source: https://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/articles-in-english/5514-2018-11-19-en]

[14] Dositheos of Jerusalem, History of Those Who Served as Patriarchs in Jerusalem, Bucharest, 1715, p. 954.

[15] Why, one wonders, does he not mention that these partial heads have someone among them as “head” and “first”?

[16] Meletios Pegas, Orthodox Christian Dialogue (Harley MS 5643, f.309v).

[17] From Christ, not from the “First”!

[18] Maximos the Peloponnesian, Handbook against the Schism of the Papists, Bucharest, 1690, pp. 36–37, 79. And again, no reference to anyone who is the head of the partial heads.

[19] Canon 15 of the First-Second Council. Indeed, the Canon clearly speaks of the right of walling off even “before a synodal decision.”

[20] See, for example, the case of John Bekkos.

 

Greek sources:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190819122100/https://katanixi.gr/2019/07/01/%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%AD%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%B7-%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CE%AE-%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%AD%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%B7-%CE%B5%CE%BA/

https://www.romfea.gr/images/article-images/2019/06/mannis_naupaktou.pdf

A Hermeneutics of Suspicion

by Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna

 

 

One of the principles of contemporary scientific inquiry is that we proceed to establish an hypothesis by first attempting to reject it: by attempting to prove the so-called null hypothesis. Any hypothetical relationship that we confirm, by the same token, is always expressed in terms of a set criterion of probability that the disproved null hypothesis is indeed true. Modern science more assiduously avoids the introduction of wrongly affirmed hypotheses into the body of scientific data than it does the exclusion of wrongly rejected hypotheses into that body. Thus the essentially "negative" approach to truth.

The "negative" approach to the establishment of scientific "facts" has served the natural and social sciences well (though one might argue that a heuristic view of science—approaching all hypotheses as valid and worthy of investigation—is more expansive in its scope). Yet, it is an approach, when combined with the naive notion that the methodologies of the natural sciences can be applied universally, which has had a very negative effect on other fields of learning, especially theology. More often than not, less sophisticated investigators have come to think that good scholarship lies in the ability to debunk and to doubt a principle, while careful explication and investigation of an assumed truth is somehow unscientific. This hermeneutics of suspicion has come with full force to the Orthodox theological world in the form of a modernistic spirit of inquiry foreign to traditional Orthodox scholarship.

The natural sciences draw their hypotheses about the world from empirical investigation. An effect is established as a principle or law when it is confirmed by replication and the high probability that the effect is everywhere and at all times present under specified conditions. Orthodox theology also confirms its data by observation and replication, but its hypotheses are drawn from revelation. Whereas the natural sciences make probable statements about hypotheses drawn from deduction, theology confirms its revealed truths by their effects on the empirical world. Orthodox theology, therefore, is not unscientific in the sense of being oblivious to empirical data, but unlike the natural sciences, its methodology lies in a positive affirmation of spiritual principles in the real world.

An Orthodox theologian begins his study by affirming the existence of God and by applying the affirmations of that existence in revelation—whether Scriptural, Patristic, or experiential—to his own person and to the world around him. There is no possibility of the "negative" methodology that characterizes the natural sciences; nor can an Orthodox theologian approach theology as our tradition understands it in a spirit of doubt. The objective element in an Orthodox theologian's intellectual pursuit is his ability to capture, internalize, and then to express and articulate the spiritual truths which he encounters in Scripture and in the Fathers. His very objectivity lies in the authenticity of what he experiences. And that authenticity disallows a spirit of doubt and negativity.

It is a sad but true fact that many of our contemporary Orthodox theologians know little of the Patristic way of theology. They are thus neither theologians nor fully Orthodox in their thinking about and understanding of things spiritual. Indeed, most Orthodox theological thinkers, especially in America and Western Europe, are so immersed in the categories of Western theological science that they hardly understand that Orthodox theology is not a deductive science. An Augustinian theology prevails not only in the heterodox West, but holds forth strongly in the westernized spirituality of most of contemporary Orthodoxy—again, especially in America and in Western Europe.

Moreover, other Orthodox theologians confront the West, as Chrestos Yannaras once noted, with a sense of inferiority. A hermeneutics of suspicion and doubt, indeed, of snide sarcasm among the less savory advocates of this "science," often intimidates them. They therefore abandon the Orthodox way of scholarship and unwittingly adopt a methodology of inquiry which is inimical to Orthodoxy itself. As I read in a column in Orthodox Tradition some time ago, would-be experts on the Liturgy begin their classes with silly remarks about the "decrepit" state of contemporary Orthodox worship, undoubtedly unintentionally falling to blasphemy in the immature desire to imitate the negative spirit of their Western theological mentors. This is a sad state of affairs, for it deprives these individuals of their own Orthodox identity and, at the same time, serves to perpetuate a Western ascendency in theological scholarship which is neither fair nor productive.

We Orthodox must begin to defend our traditional approach to theology and cease imitating or being intimidated by the theological schools of the West. For example, I recently served as a reader for a fine doctoral dissertation written by an Orthodox clergyman, a thorough and analytical investigation of first quality. One of the other readers—non-Orthodox—commented that the paper, while well written and interesting, lacked the methodological rigor of what one would expect from a paper by a Western Christian scholar. Though openly confessing his ignorance of Patristics and displaying an obvious ignorance of Orthodox scholarship, the same reader made reference to the uncritical nature of Orthodox scholarship in general. He suggested that a spirit of "suspicion" in approaching the Orthodox attitude toward the subject matter of the dissertation might have made it more provocative and might have freed it from the ostensible limitations of Orthodox scholarship.

As is usually the case, the reader in question had no extensive knowledge of the Fathers. How, then, could he comment on the methodology of a theological system based on the Patristic witness? Moreover, sweeping criticism by those ignorant of the foundations of the scholarship which they are assessing is as unscientific and unobjective as the reader presumes Orthodox scholarship to be. I made this quite clear to the student who had written the thesis and made my views known, as well, to the other members of his dissertation committee. In following such a course, I brought into focus the fact that the negative scholarly methodologies of the West are not the exclusive paths to objective knowledge. Rather, they are often the source of unobjective thoughts and observations, as in the case of the negative comments about this dissertation.

One must learn to look at Western criticism for what it is: more often than not, it is the product of limited knowledge or of deep resentment of the expansive and impressive body of knowledge that constitutes the theology of the Orthodox Church. Viewing the West in this more objective way, unintimidated by its supposedly superior methodologies, one can turn with full faith to Orthodox studies. Uninhibited by Western prejudice, the Orthodox scholar can insist that Westerners allow the existence of methodologies which, while quite different from their own, are nonetheless quite rigorous and scientific within their own right.

With regard to the Orthodox Faith, we as Christians have fixed responsibilities within the Church. We should therefore discourage our Orthodox students, theologians, and leaders from adopting the snide suspicion and cynicism that mark much of Western theological studies. When we approach Scripture, the Fathers, and the teachings of the Orthodox Church with doubt, we are mocking the very meaning of Faith. As Soren Kierkegaard once remarked—if I may paraphrase from memory—, a philosophy which begins with doubt is like teaching a soldier to stand at attention by asking him to fall on the ground in a dead heap. Likewise, any attempt to set forth Orthodoxy by a methodology of doubt is doomed to fall in on itself. If faith in the truth of the revelatory foundations of Orthodoxy is missing, any theology thus set forth is, again, neither Orthodox nor—by an Orthodox reckoning— theology. Such "theologies" we must reject.

We traditional Orthodox scholars are not the inferiors of our Western brethren. We, too, can understand the scientific method. Many of us are very competent statisticians. Many of us understand well the assumptions of contemporary philosophy and the burning issues in the philosophy of science. We are not ignorant of the ways of Western theology. Nor, to be sure, are we so bold as to criticize Western theology without knowing thoroughly its ways and presuppositions—a boldness all too frequently to be observed in Western scholars as they approach the Orthodox East. We have, therefore, every right to speak candidly and forcefully to the heterodox West. After all, they proffer their often unfounded criticism of our scholarship with a knowledge of the intellectual world limited to their Western experience, while we have at hand a world-view which encompasses both the Western world and its Eastern roots.

In living, writing about, and protecting our ancient Faith, we Orthodox have a positive witness before the modern world. Let us not sacrifice it before a methodology of doubt that unfairly renders our way to knowledge "unscientific."

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VII (1990), No. 2, p. 13.