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://www.romfea.gr/images/article-images/2019/06/mannis_naupaktou.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.