Met. PHILIP Responds to the Jerusalem Patriarchate Transfer

Here's Metropolitan PHILIP's letter on the topic:

August 7th, 2008

To: The Esteemed Hierarchs, Members of The Archdiocese Board of Trustees, Clergy and Faithftil of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America:

On August 5, 2008, The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America issued a press release which established a vicariate with the name 'Vicariate for Palestinian/Jordanian Communities in the USA'. The membership of this vicariate will consist of those communities in the USA which were originally part of the Patriarchate of Antioch, but most recently (since 1993) were uncanonically claimed by the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. From an historical perspective, it has been clear since the disintegration of Orthodox unity which existed in North America until 1917, that the Arabic-speaking Orthodox people in North America have been exclusively under the pastoral care of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Similarly, the Greek-speaking Orthodox people (e.g. Cypriot, Greek, Egyptian, Turkish, etc.) have always been under the pastoral care of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. What reaction would occur if the Antiochian Archdiocese were to establish a vicariate for Greek communities which separate themselves from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese?!

These former "Jerusalem Patriarchate" communities separated themselves from the Antiochian Archdiocese without canonical releases, and in some cases are served by priests who are under canonical suspension. It is important to point out that since this separation occurred in 1993 we have taken extraordinary measures to reconcile these communities with The Antiochian Archdiocese and have appealed to both the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Antioch as well as others for their assistance. Unfortunately, none of our numerous appeals for intervention were answered.

As such, our directive of May 2, 2003 remains in force. To emphasize the main point or that directive, the clergy of The Antiochian Archdiocese are still forbidden from communing and/or concelebrating with any clergy who are a part of this newly-formed "Vicariate far Palestinian/Jordanian Communities in the USA" of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, whether in our parishes, their parishes, or as a part of pan-Orthodox gatherings.

We lament this action by the Ecumenical Patriarchate which further complicates the already uncanonical jurisdictional situation here and continues to undermine the efforts of all Orthodox hierarchs of SCOBA to achieve administrative unity and canonical normalcy in North America.

Praying that this urgent situation will be resolved in a spirit of peace, harmony and love, we remain

Yours In Christ,
Metropolitan PHILIP
Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of All North America

Copy to:
His Beadtude IGNATIUS IV, Patriarch of Antioch and All The East
His Holiness ALEXY, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
His All-Holiness BARTHOLOMEW, Patriarch or Constantinople
His Beatitude THEOPHILOS, patriarch of Jerusalem
All Hierarchs of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)

I Hate To Say I Told You So, But....

I'm several days behind, so this may not be news, but I post it because it relates to something I wrote years ago here.

Following the defeat of the "Superbishops" provision for conservative Anglicans, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt. Rev. Andrew Burnham, says he may lead a group of Anglicans into communion with Rome. But the Times shows ever-liberalizing Euro-Catholics are discouraging the prospect:

A spokesman for the Catholic Church of England and Wales said all new members are welcome, but added that each must join individually and parishes could not simply convert en masse.

More than a year ago on this blog (and longer ago than that elsewhere), I wondered why Orthodox never seemed to bother making their presence known to Anglicans:

When conservative Anglicans noised about their will to break away from the left-wing Episcopal Church (TEC), then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote a letter supporting their efforts. Now a major realignment may be underway, in which Anglicans may reunite with the Papacy...

Many of us wondered at the time why Orthodox made no similar attempt to establish closer relations with the more conservative Anglicans. Even a token of goodwill from a high enough source would have made an important statement, and Lord willing, it would have meant teaching them what we require for unity on our own terms. Whether the Anglicans accepted the terms or not is less important than that we had the opportunity to make it, as the Lord requires. None was made....

[W]hy did no one on this side of the Bosphorus understand that having a positive relationship with liturgical Christians with some moral values noisily seeking for another church home might be of some use?

Even at this late stage of apostasy, if there has been any Orthodox contact with the communion's remaining Anglo-Catholics (with the exception of one stouthearted priest), I am unaware of it. Even in official reaction, one finds outrage against the problem but no solution for those trapped with it. Fr. Igor Vyzhanov, secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, called the decision "painful," adding this move "is further alienating the Anglican community from the Apostolic tradition." The move, though, was "predictable because the tendency of total liberalization unfortunately dominates in many Christian Churches, including the Anglican community." Fr. Igor did observe the decision "is worsening a split among the Anglicans," which historically is "the nearest amongst the western Christian Churches." He notes with sadness, "A very serious dialogue was underway with it in a hope that good relations between the Orthodox and Anglicans would have good prospects."

Bp. HILARION, Moscow Patriarchal Bishop of Vienna and Austria, called this move "the Anglican community's next concession to the modern secular standards." He added, "Centuries-old tradition of Christian Church is denied for political correctness once again." Although Canterbury has invited Orthodox observers to the Lambeth Conference, His Grace wondered aloud if "it makes sense for Orthodox observers to participate in a forum of the Church that takes decisions invariably contradicting Orthodox ecclesiology. And to what extent bilateral Orthodox-Anglican is rational in such a situation. I suppose leaders of local Orthodox Churches should consider these questions seriously again."

Why would the remaining Druids care if "reactionaries" from the East turned away? His Grace is right that it does Orthodox no good to "observe" the Anglican Communion's descent into paganism. In fact, all these statements are true as far as they go. But why be reactive instead of pro-active? What if, instead of merely noting the outrage of Canterbury's long-term apostasy and questioning the future of a moribund ecumenical dialogue, these two statements had included a phrase along these lines (I am trying to stay as close to their original wording as possible): "This latest concession to secular trends calls into question the extent to which bilateral relations with Canterbury remain rational. However, we have long recognized the High Church tradition of Anglo-Catholicism as the closest theology to Orthodoxy among the Western churches. We welcome a very serious dialogue with those unable to consent to this liberalization, who cling to this part of Apostolic tradition, and we believe good relations between Orthodox and conservative Anglicans will have good prospects for our eventual unity."

There was, and is, no such statement, not even a letter expressing sympathy for the Anglo-Catholics' unenviable position. As I wrote last year:

The accord is far from a settled reality. But it's much closer than any similar, massive concordat with Orthodoxy, whether Eastern or Western.

There is not a trace of glee whatever in my saying, "I told you so."

One Down...

The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, is retiring after 20 years.

The Crusaders established the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem in 1099 as part of their self-imposed imperial kingdom. (Pope Urban II had launched the First Crusade to free Byzantines from Muslim rule, at the express request of Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus.) The Crusaders took the campaign as an opportunity to establish independent spheres of influence, complete with their own episcopacy. Their ecclesiology demanded the establishment of new patriarchates, as Orthodox bishops who did not recognize the Pope as head of the church and font of all holy orders were regarded as "schismatic." For centuries, most of the Latin "patriarchs" of Jerusalem were resident in Rome, but in the last 160 years, they have returned to the Holy Land.

Nowhere has this view of the episcopacy been taken to more extravagant lengths than in Antioch. The Crusaders established their own patriarchate a year before that of Jerusalem and appealed to the pope to personally take the throne. (What was to become of the current resident patriarch, H.H. JOHN IV, they didn't say.) Further schisms have fed the tangled web of overlapping Antiochian patriarchal claimants in communion with Rome. In the city where "they were first called Christians," one could find Roman Catholics under the leadership of:

1. Melkite Patriarch Gregory III (Laham)
2. Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir
3. Syrian Catholic Patriarch, formerly Ignace Pierre VIII (Abdel-Ahad). He resigned in February and has yet to be replaced (to my knowledge).
   

There had been a Latin Patriarch of Antioch since the time of the Crusades (est. 1098), but the office was allowed to expire in 1964, having been vacant for more than a decade. What bearing that happy example may have upon the current Jerusalem vacancy, I'll leave to my readers to draw.

Readers may also be interested in a related post: "Why Not an Orthodox Pope of Rome?" (For the record, I wrote that in favor of appointing one.)

Speaking of Sedevacantists

Richard's perceptive comment, point two. (Here's point one.)

Although I know this will drive some of my readers crazy, as I often joke with traditionalist Roman Catholics: We Orthodox are sedevacantists, too; we just disagree on the time of the vacancy. :)

Yes, I recognize friends of mine have other ideas...and that's their right, as it is my right not to share their views. It's not a cause for ill-will or reaction. In my far-from-perfect reading of the Church, I simply do not at this time believe their concepts reflect the historical mainstream of Orthodoxy. I believe membership in the visible Church requires the three-fold unity of doctrine, faith, and communion. (And if my friends can demand that of the vagantes, they can demand it of Rome.) As such, Rome lacks a pontiff, and we ought to get about supplying the vacancy.

The Pope and the Patriarch

The Pope's recent visit with the Patriarch of Constantinople has caused some confusion in the media, not only about his alleged "concelebration," but also about it being a "meeting of equals." Friends have told me, "You Orthodox have a Pope, too; you just call him a 'Patriarch.'" In light of this, I was happy for this clarification written by Fr. James Deschene of Christminster Monastery (a Benedictine Western Rite monastery under ROCOR) in a letter a few years ago:

[The media] perpetuate the widespread but erroneous notion that Patriarch Bartholomew is to the world of Orthodox Christianity what the pope of Rome is to Roman Catholicism. To call the patriarch the spiritual leader of all Orthodox Christians is about as accurate - and as meaningful - as calling the American president the moral leader of the free world. The label has a symbolic meaning, and the position has even some influence. But in neither case does the man have any legal power or authority outside his own jurisdiction. Another nation may freely affirm support for some policy of the American president. But the American president is not otherwise entitled to speak for other nations or to determine their policies apart from their conceding to him their agreement, which they are always and rightly free to withhold.

This is almost exactly parallel to the situation of the ecumenical patriarch. He may express his own mind and policy, but this is of no legal authority or effect in any Orthodox church outside his own (i.e., of Constantinople) unless and until those Orthodox churches freely affirm that policy and support it. He does not, in any legal or official sense of the term, speak for the Orthodox world, any more than George Bush legally speaks for the free world...

Westerners, influenced by the sovereign and monarchical nature of the Roman papacy, are too ready to assume an equivalent authority and power to be vested in one Orthodox figure - i.e., the ecumenical patriarch. But Orthodoxy, unlike Roman Catholicism, believes in the sovereignty and authority of each independent Orthodox church (such as the Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian, etc.) and its college or congress of bishops.

Thus, while the Roman pope is, by the law and constitution of his own church, empowered to act in a sovereign and absolute manner over all of Roman Catholicism, no one figure in the Orthodox world possesses such authority or power. Hence, while the pope, if he wished, could unilaterally decree that he considers the schism with the Orthodox world to be ended, there is no one person on the Orthodox side who could unilaterally do the same, or even accept in the name of all Orthodoxy the pope's decision.

Admittedly, this makes certain decisions and policies hard to arrive at since the Orthodox must achieve a consensus of the whole Orthodox body. But it has also protected the treasury of Orthodox belief and worship from the kind of tampering and dilution one has seen in the western churches over the last few generations. Orthodoxy, in the words of the psalmist, does not put its trust in princes - even spiritual princes - but in the Lord who, being himself the Truth ("I am the way, the truth, and the life") guards his people from error and falsehood.

For more on the Orthodox Church's ecclesiology, see this essay by Bp. HILARION of Vienna (Moscow Patriarchate), though not all Orthodox would agree with all he has to say. (The same could be said of any theologoumenon in any essay by anyone.)

It Ain't No Concelebration

Before going to bed tonight, I'm catching some of the Patriarchal Divine Liturgy in St. George Cathedral in Constantinople, which the Roman Catholic commentators on EWTN insist on terming a "concelebration" between His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch BARTHOLOMEW I and Pope Benedict XVI. I was pleased that the chanters had not completed the Great Doxology before guest commentator Fr. John Chryssavgis (Greek Orthodox) "clarified" what was happening: the Pope isn't concelebrating. He didn't wear his welcome thin by indicating to the other commentators on his network that the Pope is not concelebrating, because Orthodox canon law would not permit it. But remember, no matter what you hear, it positively is not a concelebration.

Why Not an Orthodox Pope of Rome?

The Orthodox Church has appointed a bishop to fill an ancient patriarchate She considered vacant in Alexandria. Why not in Rome? Some fascinating discussion has broken out on Huw Raphael's blog on this very topic. A "Matt" wrote:

The thing I don't understand is why we don't declare the see of Rome vacant, and install a new Orthodox bishop of Rome.

"Bob Koch" wrote:

The sad thing is, that the Orthodox in Rome don't have the guts necessary to *be* Orthodox there. If there was actual courage, the faithful would have a *local* bishop. He would be Bishop of Rome. Yes, Pope. The Patriarch of Contantinople: instantly second fiddle. The Orthodox have simply taken for granted the lack of an Orthodox Pope. They dance around the hole in the Dyptichs, and the operating plan is for it to continue. If not Pope, what exactly *is* a bishop over the Orthodox in Rome?? No guts at all. The basis of Ecumenism.

Finally, our friend Jean-Michel wrote:

The fact being that Vatican is NOT in Rome. It's an independant State, with independant laws, police, secret service, banks, and so on. So there is not the least problem for Orthodoxy to have a bishop in Rome. Maybe yes, one, major: how to have a bishop celebrating in a foreign, alien rite, in the city of saint Gregory the Great?

A dashing, handsome chap posted the same question earlier on another forum.

The answer? Many will differ, but I believe it stemmed from practical, rather than theological, causes. Orthodoxy was in no position to appoint a new Patriarch of the West by the time the Great Schism was completely realized; it often had trouble replacing Eastern patriarchs martyred by the Religion of Peace. Most of the West willingly followed the Pope, leaving one to ponder for and by whom the See would be administered; until recent times, insufficient numbers of indigenous Orthodox existed to justify reconstituting a patriarchate. Orthodox feared a "proselytism battle" with the better-funded Roman Catholics. And finally, the (by then) more senior patriarchs may have bristled at the notion of seeing a newly reconstituted, "johnny-come-lately" patriarch becoming head of the Church, as well.

I'd be interested in hearing your answers -- but tell Huw first. If necessary, I'll listen in.

A What-If

If the Serbian Patriarchate accepts the remnant of L'ECOF parishes under its protection in France, what will happen to the former L'ECOF parishes in the United States? I understand there are at least two, though one is presumably vacant. Will they become Serbian Orthodox? Will the Serbs accept other Western Rite parishes in America?

I was inspired to ask by a discussion on this blog; a Serbian WR might give Old Calendar WRO a canonical home, if certain areas of ROCOR are not amenable.