Holy Cross and Archbishop Stephen's Statements

No need for SVS to respond. Much has already been written why the Orthodox don't have an "Eastern Pope." Canon 28 DOES NOT give the Bishop of Istanbul authority over the whole world.

Canon 28 and Eastern Papalism: Cause or Effect?

George C. Michalopulos

ABSTRACT: Orthodoxy today is at a crossroads in America and
throughout the world. One of the great challenges facing us has to do
with inter-Orthodox cooperation. Specifically, how are new mission
fields identified? Which of the established churches evangelizes them?
And how are they granted autocephaly? What is the purpose of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate and by what authority does it claim primatial
honors? More importantly, is there a difference between primacy and
supremacy? The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the primatial
claims of the Church of Constantinople and specifically, Canon 28 of
the Council of Chalcedon, which has become the proof-text as it were
of recent Constantinopolitan claims which have startled many in the
Orthodox world.

I. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Its Claims

Recent events have forced the issue of Constantinopolitan supremacy to
the fore. Previously, this topic was dealt with (if at all) in essays
found in theological journals and speeches delivered at symposia, but
because of the feebleness of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (and
Orthodoxy in general) the controversy surrounding it quickly
dissipated.

Unfortunately, matters came to a head in America due to long-simmering
disputes that have existed in American Orthodoxy in part because of
the existence of multiple jurisdictions. The spark that lit the fuse
was an address given at Holy Cross School of Theology on March 16,
2009 by the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of Constantinople, the
Very Rev Dr Elpidophorus Lambriniades.1 This speech may have been
partly in response to an article written by Metropolitan Philip
Saliba, the primate of the Antiochian archdiocese in North America.
Saliba's essay questioned the validity of Canon 28 of the Council of
Chalcedon.2 Although Saliba was singled out for criticism by
Lambriniades, his speech immediately galvanized opposition to him (and
the Phanar) from almost all quarters. The firestorm was based in part
on its many criticisms of American Orthodoxy, including its unsettling
briefs regarding the speaker's perceptions of parish life, monastic
communities, and the primates of other jurisdictions. Likewise, his
vituperative comments against the OCA, and even the faculty and
graduates of Holy Cross itself were risible to the extreme.

Of course, not all of his arguments were invalid. Salient points were
made (as pointed out in this writer's own response)3 accompanied with
incendiary assertions. Many American readers saw the speech as not
only a broadside at American Orthodox ecclesiology, but also a bill of
particulars that the ecumenical patriarchate will use to make its
claims for global supremacy in the Orthodox world. If true, it is to
be viewed as a trial balloon floated in anticipation of the upcoming
pan-Orthodox synod that is tentatively scheduled for June on the
island of Cyprus.

How did we get here? The Church of Constantinople, and its patriarch
have long enjoyed primacy of honor within the Orthodox Church. This
primacy is known by the Latin formula primus inter pares, literally
"first among equals." This honorific was first attached to the Bishop
of Rome by custom and later ratified by canon.4 With the rupture
between East and West in 1054, it devolved by default to the
Archbishop of Constantinople who thanks to various canons arising from
the Second Ecumenical Council, was placed second in line in the
primatial sequence (to the detriment of the Patriarch of Alexandria).
Before the twentieth century, this insistence on primacy was viewed in
its correct light, that is primacy, not supremacy. To be sure, some
patriarchs had a rather exalted view of their office but the popes in
Rome or the Christian emperors of Byzantium usually put them in their
place.

Since the time of Patriarch Meletius IV Metaxakis (d. 1935) however,
the ecumenical patriarchate has formulated a more robust view of its
place in Orthodoxy. These new ideas, together with the high-handed
antics and startling reforms of Meletius set alarm bells off
throughout Orthodoxy. So stunning and novel were Meletius' claims to
universal jurisdiction, that St John Maximovitch, the then-Archbishop
of Shanghai, felt compelled to immediately criticize them in no
uncertain terms. 5 Nor was he alone horrified by these scandalous
claims. Indeed, criticism of Metaxakis has not dissipated over time;
they continue to this day. 6

Although Metaxakis' tumultuous career and controversial reforms have
been studiously ignored by his successors, his novel theories of
Constantinopolitan supremacy have become enshrined as the official
doctrine of the ecumenical patriarchate (as shall be examined more
fully in section 5). The basis of Metaxakis' claims rests with one
long-forgotten canon (28) that was formulated at the Fourth Ecumenical
Council held in Chalcedon, in AD 451. We must therefore look at this
canon in its entirety, that is to say its origins, context, and
validity. For purposes of brevity, it will henceforth be known as
"Canon 28," and the Fourth Ecumenical Council will be known as "the
fourth council," or simply, "Chalcedon."
II. The Fourth Ecumenical Council

Before we can actually examine the historicity and context of Canon
28, a brief word must be said about the council from which it arose.
This council was called by the Emperor Marcian to resolve a long-
festering christological dispute regarding the nature of Christ which
had been precipitated by the claims of an archimandrite named Eutychus
who taught that Jesus the man had only one nature (physis). So
powerful was Jesus' divine nature that it had totally overwhelmed His
human nature, hence this doctrine was labeled as monophysite. Its
popularity became a destabilizing factor in Byzantium within the city
of Constantinople itself as well as in the non-Greek areas of the
empire.

The monophysite teaching was a response to an earlier one labeled
Nestorianism (named after Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople, d.
431), which held that Jesus had two distinct natures. Nestorius taught
that these natures were so different that the Virgin Mary could only
rightly be called Christotokos —the bearer of Christ, rather than
Theotokos, that is to say, the Mother of God. The Nestorian heresy had
been dealt with at the Third Ecumenical Council which was held at
Ephesus in 431. It was revived shortly thereafter in the infamous
"Robber Council" of 449. This latter council was called by Patriarch
Dioscorus of Alexandria and was held in Ephesus. Dioscorus made it a
point to not invite bishops from the West; Pope Leo I however was able
to formulate a treatise detailing the orthodox views involving all
christological matters. Unfortunately the bishops who attended
suppressed his "Tome".

This second Ephesian council did not resolve anything however.
Eutychus promoted his counter-heresy and in short order was degraded
and condemned as a heretic by Anatolius, the Archbishop of
Constantinople. Assured of the rightness of his cause, he appealed to
Pope Leo I the Great, the emperor, and his wife Pulcheria. Another
council was called, this time in the city of Chalcedon. Leo took no
chances this time and sent three papal legates to preside. The council
began with the reading of Leo's tome that had been suppressed at
Ephesus. The overwhelming majority of the bishops agreed with Leo and
upheld Eutychus' condemnation. For good measure, Nestorianism was
likewise repudiated and a new statement of faith was drawn up, one
which confirmed that the man known as Jesus had but one person with
two natures: he was both perfect God and perfect man, with the latter
not being subsumed into the former.

Unfortunately, this did not end the controversy. Bishops in Egypt and
Syria remained defiant and the first schism in Christianity occurred,
resulting in the installation of two rival popes in Alexandria, one
clinging to the monophysite doctrine, the other upholding the
Chalcedonian view. (The schism, along with the dual papacy of
Alexandria survives to this day). In addition, one of the council's
canons (28), likewise had a lingering effect, some of which we are
dealing with at present. According to the official acta of the
council, twenty-seven canons were officially recognized. Sometime
later, three additional canons were furtively inserted but one of
these, Canon 28, was hastily removed on order from Pope Leo upon the
recommendations of his legates, who coincidentally were not present
when this particular canon was drafted. For several centuries
thereafter, no more mention was made of Canon 28 and the following
ones, 29 and 30 respectively, were viewed as commentary upon other
canons and not as canons in and of themselves.

As for the offending canon, its verbiage was certainly troubling in
that it elevated Archbishop Anatolius of Constantinople to patriarchal
status and confusingly, made him overlord of three autocephahlous
metropolitan sees (Asia, Thrace, and Pontus). Both actions were
unsettling to say the least. Previous to this time, the Christian
world had only three commonly recognized patriarchates—Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch. These had been identified as such because of
their firm apostolic foundation as well as their antiquity. Now it
seemed as if by mere statute that patriarchal dignity could be
bestowed. The legality of such an action was troubling to say the
least; if nothing else, custom alone dictated against such a precedent
as far as the other patriarchs were concerned. 7 A careful reading of
this canon in its entirety indicates that its authors were quite aware
of the implications of what they were doing and went out of their way
to insert verbiage which would provide a rationalization for their
actions:

Following in all things the decisions of the holy fathers, and
acknowledging the canon which has been just read, the one hundred and
fifty bishops beloved of God (who assembled in the imperial city of
Constantinople, which is the New Rome, in the time of the Emperor
Theodosius of happy memory [AD 180]), we also do enact and decree the
same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of
Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted
privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.
And the one hundred and fifty most religious bishops, actuated by the
same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of
New Rome, justly judging that city which is honored with the
sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old
imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as
she is, and rank next after her; so that in the Pontic, the Asian, and
the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of
the dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained
by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of
Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together
with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial
bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that as has
been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses should be
ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper
elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to
him (emphasis added).

To effect the exaltation of the Byzantine archbishop, the authors of
this canon waited for a day in which the papal legates were not in
attendance (as mentioned). Even so, they had to make their case by
special pleading and excessive redundancy. Once the legates who had
actually presided over the council got wind of it, they rejected it
out-of-hand, as did Leo. It was not hard to see why; after all,
dioceses with ruling bishops were independent churches in and of
themselves. They had not heretofore looked upon the other three
patriarchs as their suzerains. In fact, Canon 2 of the Second
Ecumenical Council—the same council which elevated Constantinople to
secondary status after Rome-specifically stated that the bishops of
Alexandria, Antioch, Asia, Thrace and Pontus "alone [could] administer
their affairs." Canon 28 therefore single-handedly (and rather
suspiciously) abrogated this earlier canon to its own benefit. This of
course is curious, why for example did it not demote Alexandria or
Antioch? (Is it possible that Constantinople dared not degrade Antioch
or Alexandria because of their apostolicity?)

This warrants further investigation. In the first millennium
autocephaly was rarely given because most regional churches headed by
metropolitans were considered to already be autocephalous. Theodore
Balsamon (d. 1195), Patriarch of Antioch and one of Byzantium's
greatest canonists, wrote that "…formerly all the heads of the
provinces were autocephalous and were elected by their respective
synods." 8 The Archbishop of Constantinople himself was a suffragan
bishop of the Church of Heraklea, and he received his own honors from
the metropolitan of that city. Thus the elevation of the
Constantinopolitan archbishop to actual supremacy over and above the
three metropolitans in question was highly irregular in its own
context as can be gathered from the firestorm that erupted. The
Archbishop of Constantinople was by a furtive statute now a
"Metropolitan of Metropolitans," an ecclesiological oxymoron.

In addition, Leo objected to the fact that this canon ran counter of
both the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople (AD 381), as well as
the already established prerogatives of the various churches. Leo
grudgingly conceded that because of Canon 10 of the second council,
Constantinople had the right to claim second place in the primatial
sequence. On the other hand this new canon, with its expanded powers
over other dioceses, was an obvious violation to Canon 8 of the Third
Ecumenical Council:

None of the bishops who are most beloved by God should extend
their authority to another diocese, which had not previously and from
the beginning been under them or their predecessors.

Leo's championship of the canonical precedents of the first three
councils stood him on solid ground. He certainly could not be accused
of inconsistency nor was he being self-serving: he himself respected
the prerogatives independent sees, as can be evidenced by the letter
that he wrote (the "Tome of Leo") and submitted for the approval of
the council.

The invalidity of Canon 28 was therefore obvious. In a letter to
Marcian, Leo stated in no uncertain terms that Constantinople was not
an apostolic see. 9 Writing in a separate letter to the Empress
Pulcheria, he used even more forceful language: "As for the resolution
of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with
your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the
authority of the holy Apostle Peter." 10 Faced with this opposition
Anatolius quietly withdrew it, never openly bringing it up again.

Time however, was on Anatolius' side. Leo had more serious problems to
contend with, particularly trying to dissuade Attila from attacking
Rome. As far as Leo and his successors were concerned, the illegality
of the canon remained in force (at least in theory) but given the dire
straights of the see of Rome, there was little that they could do as
Constantinople quietly enhanced its grip over the three archdioceses
in question.

Further investigation of the geopolitical landscape of fifth century
Christendom would undoubtedly shed more light on this subject. For our
purposes however, it is vital to note the irregularity of Canon 28 and
how unsettling it was in its own time. Although its territorial
ambitions were strictly limited, it was obvious that an unfortunate
precedent had been set. In addition, the acquisition of the
patriarchal dignity by the Byzantines only roiled the waters further.
Not only was such an honor now bestowed by statute, thus diminishing
the luster of the three apostolic sees, but the bearers of this new
title viewed it as a first step to explore even greater avenues of
glory.
III. The Evolution of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to Ecumenical
Status

An additional black mark against Byzantium (besides its lack of
apostolic foundation) was that it could not claim that it had always
upheld orthodox doctrine. After the first council condemned Arianism,
the Flavian successors of Constantine remained resolutely Arian, as
did the bishops of that city. Indeed Arianism remained in place in
that city and its church for several decades thereafter. Thus the
bypassing of Alexandria by Constantinople did not set well with the
Orthodox parties for doctrinal reasons as well. This was no small
matter. None of the other patriarchs had heretofore promoted heresy,
whereas Byzantium provided a never-ending stream of novel teachings —
Nestorianism had been taught from the patriarchal throne of
Constantinople itself, for example. It was left to another patriarch,
John IV Neustetes ("the Faster," d. 595), to further upset the
equilibrium with his assumption of the title "ecumenical patriarch," a
term which was abrasive to its non-Greek hearers and was handily
swatted down by Pope Pelagius II and his more illustrious successor,
Gregory I (the Great).

To be sure, prerogatives and protocols have always been deemed
necessary for the good order of the Church. The canons of the first
three councils clearly reflected a profound respect for diocesan
boundaries. As well, they reinforced Christian humility in that they
did not allow bishops to usurp authority that did not belong to them.
By simple logic alone, this precluded any concept of universal
supremacy.

That being said, the patriarchal status of Constantinople remained in
place. However, the appropriation of the title "ecumenical" by John IV
("the Faster") another matter entirely. In Gregory's eyes, any such
talk of a patriarcha universalis was more reminiscent of the
antichrist than of a Christian pastor. In addition, it implied
universal supremacy, a role which even he, as the successor of Peter,
did not possess. John for his part apologetically replied that
ecumenical meant something different than its plain meaning; in other
words, the idiomatic understanding of the word had changed from that
of "universal" to "imperial," at least in the living Greek language of
the East. The Greek adjective (oikoumenekos) had nuances that were
untranslatable in Latin (which even certain Catholic critics today
admit. 11)

All this special pleading fell on Gregory's deaf ears. Gregory told
John in no uncertain terms to not call himself "universal," saying
that reference to such a title was "ill-advised." Simple logic
dictated to Gregory that if one patriarch was universal, it would deny
the very "office of bishop to all their brethren." 12 For good
measure, he wrote both the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch
regarding his concerns as well, informing them "Not one of my
predecessors ever consented to the use of this profane title, for to
be sure, if one patriarch is called 'universal,' the name of patriarch
is denied to the others." 13 Nor did he stop there: in a letter to the
emperor, Leo flatly stated that such a title amounted to "blasphemy."
14 In any event, John, like Anatolius before him, decided that
discretion was the better part of valor, and refrained from using that
title again, at least in correspondence with the West. This was true
of most of his successors as well.15

The controversy surrounding the very title itself merits some mention
at this point. There is sufficient contemporaneous evidence that it
was hardly ever used even in Constantinople. As shocking as this
sounds, evidence for this assertion is not lacking. As noted above,
John IV himself never used it again in public, nor did the majority of
his successors. Even Photius the Great (d. 867), whose irregular
elevation to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople precipitated a
schism with Rome and who enjoyed the full support of the emperor in
his rivalry with the pope dared not use it in his correspondence with
the pope.

Surprisingly, this appears to have been the case even after the Great
Schism. After the Fourth Crusade (1204) for example, the Byzantine
Empire split into three successor-states: Nicaea, Epirus, and the
Trebizond, each with their own imperial court and hierarchy. The
Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople relocated to Nicaea and one of
its incumbents, Patriarch Germanus II, sent a letter to the John
Apocaucus, the Metropolitan of Epirus, which he signed as "ecumenical
patriarch." This provoked the recipient to remark that he had never
heard of such a thing, even though he had served for years in the
offices of the patriarchate of Constantinople itself.16 To be sure,
real tension existed between the rival empires of Epirus and Nicaea, a
fact that certainly exacerbated tensions between these two churches.
Yet Apocaucus' rebuke is unequivocal and his knowledge of the inner
workings of the patriarchate must be accepted as valid. Certainly the
fact that he was not rebuked for this retort to the patriarch in
Nicaea is probative as well.

At any rate, by the late thirteenth century, no such reticence
existed. Patriarchs used this term in profligate fashion and with the
crumbling of the Byzantine Empire, no one called them to task for it.
What accounted for this change in attitude? The answer lies in the
changing dynamic between Byzantine church and state. It is a paradox,
but the See of Constantinople maintained its dioceses while the empire
was losing land to the Seljuk Turks. In addition, the newly
established churches of Serbia and Russia looked to the ecumenical
patriarch for support. Their history and interaction with the
ecumenical patriarchate has implications for us today, specifically in
the matter of evangelism and autocephaly.
IV. Evangelism and Autocephaly

One of the glories of the Roman Empire was its ability to promote the
Christian faith among its many peoples. Even the barbarian tribes that
struck fear in the hearts of Romans were eagerly converting to
Christianity, usually to Arianism. With the quashing of Arianism, many
of these nations just as eagerly accepted Orthodoxy. Once such nation
was the Khanate of Bulgaria, and in the ninth century, its church
received autocephaly and a concomitant patriarchal status. The shoe
was now on the other foot and the Patriarch of Constantinople found
himself to be objecting to the granting of patriarchal honors to a see
that was neither ancient nor apostolic. Although there would be
jostling between these two patriarchates for the remainder of the time
of the First Bulgarian Empire and the suppression of its patriarchal
dignity for a time, the autocephaly of that church was never revoked.

Byzantium's most successful evangelistic mission began somewhat later,
during the reign of St Photius the Great. It was because of this
brilliant man (who began his career as a bureaucrat in the civil
service) that the two Thessalonican brothers Cyril and Methodius were
able to establish the first mission in Moravia. Though modest in
scope, it planted the seeds of Christianity among the Slavs and within
two centuries it would bear much fruit.

Unlike the experience with Bulgaria, relations with Serbia were not as
contentious. St Sava, the founder of that church was on excellent
terms with Byzantium and the other patriarchates as well, having
traveled extensively to Jerusalem and Mt Athos for many years. He
received his consecration as archbishop of the autocephalous Serbian
church in 1219 from the aforementioned Patriarch Germanus II at Nicaea
(where the patriarchs of Constantinople were still in exile). When the
Latin Empire of Byzantium was overthrown and Orthodoxy restored in
that city, the title of ecumenical patriarch came to be openly used
and its bearers started looking at their role in a more robust
fashion. One such patriarch, Philotheus Coccinus (d. 1376) wrote a
letter to the princes and dukes of Russia, describing his office
thusly:

Since God has appointed Our Humility as leader of all Christians
found anywhere in the oikoumene, as protector and guardian of their
souls, all of them depend on me, the father and teacher of them all.
If that were possible, therefore, it would have been my duty to walk
throughout the cities and countries everywhere on earth and teach in
the Word of God, doing so unfailingly, since such is our duty. But
since it is beyond the capacity of one weak and helpless man to walk
around the entire oikoumene, Our Humility chooses the best among men,
the most eminent in virtue, and sends them to the ends of the
universe. One of them goes to your country, to the multitudes which
inhabit it, another reaches other areas of the earth, and still
another goes elsewhere, so that each, in the country and place
appointed to him, enjoys territorial rights and episcopal see, and all
the rights of Our Humility.17

In contrast to the startled reaction of the Metropolitan of Epirus in
the prior century, such a high-handed view did not appear arrogant to
the various daughter churches. Indeed, it was welcomed: in his
biography of St Sava written a century later, the Serbian writer
Domentijan uses the title "ecumenical patriarch" liberally and calls
this ecclesiarch "the father of the fathers of the whole oikoumene."18
The Russian princes likewise accepted the ecclesiastical sovereignty
of the Byzantine patriarch-albeit through the mediation of the
Metropolitan of Kiev-with scarcely a thought. There were practical
reasons for this, in the case of the Serbs, the Byzantine hierarchy
respected the ethnicity of the Serbian nation and after a few
altercations involving the forcible removal of Greek bishops from
Serbia, accepted as a fait accompli the creation of sovereign Serbian
dioceses. As for the Russians, the Metropolitan of Kiev was viewed as
the focal point of Russian unity and an honest broker, beholden to
none of the princes in particular. Even if a metropolitan were
Russian, just the fact that he had been chosen by Constantinople made
him appear unbiased.

More to the point, the above self-description of the Byzantine
patriarch was not viewed in its own time as supremacist. As Aristeides
Papadakis points out in his monumental study of the Eastern church in
the post-schism period, "…[a]lthough these forceful affirmations are
reminiscent of western papism [sic], the resemblance is unintentional.
The patriarchs were by no means attempting to redefine or change their
ecclesiological position…For the Orthodox Church the nature of
episcopal power was vastly different, as its repeated condemnation of
the papacy's extreme claims to universal dominion indicate."19
Moreover, there were practical considerations that mitigated against
the rise of an Eastern papalism besides the plain and universally
accepted theological ones. If nothing else, the catastrophic events of
the Fourth Crusade must have opened their eyes to the dangers of
assigning supreme ecclesial authority to one man.

Evangelism is one thing, however the maintenance and growth of a
native church is necessary if it is to prosper. Autocephaly therefore
is to be desired, not suppressed. Though Photius and his successors
reacted tactlessly to Bulgaria's independence, in the grand sweep of
the history of Orthodoxy this was anomalous, at least previous to the
twentieth century. Byzantium could not have been known for its
greatest legacy had it not been willing to grant independence to its
missionary endeavors that it carefully nurtured time and time again.
One of the hallmarks of Orthodox Christianity is the tenacity with
which it is maintained by the various native cultures that have
embraced it. Often this can erupt in a xenophobia and tribalism, but
that is the dark side of an otherwise glittering coin.

Given Orthodox resilience, it is impossible to believe that
autocephaly is not only desired, but enduring. It is not in fact a new
phenomenon but as already mentioned above, the normal state of affairs
in almost every local church of the first Christian millennium.
Certainly this was true of the regional metropolitan archdioceses,
whose prerogatives were respected by the patriarchal sees. Given that
during this same time period Christendom was defined by the borders of
the Roman Empire, this was to be expected. The special place of the
pope was accommodated within this scheme as well: that of first among
equals, primatial within the Church but not supreme over it. With the
creation of the Bulgarian and Serbian churches however, a new element
arose in the definition of autocephaly, that of the church as the
defining characteristic of the nation-state itself. With the creation
of the Bulgarian, Serbian, and later Russian patriarchates,
ecclesiastical independence came to mean political independence, but
more importantly, it defined the political identity of the inhabitants
of these lands as well.20 Nation and state, throne and altar, came to
be viewed as two sides of the same coin. An entirely new paradigm that
was unknown in early Byzantium but which prevails today.

The Slavic experience of a national church was not lost on the Greek
successor state of Epirus, whose emperor likewise demanded that his
autocephalous metropolitan be given patriarchal dignity as well. If
the Bulgars and Serbs could (because of this new theory) enjoy the
privileges of a church that defined their nation, so should the Greeks
of the West to his mind.21 Their request was rejected out-of-hand by
the patriarch-in-exile in Nicaea who reasoned otherwise: just as these
other nations should have a patriarchate that defined their polity
(thereby ratifying their nationality), it made no sense for Greeks to
be represented by two different patriarchates since they were one
nation (albeit one that was unfortunately divided into two different
states). Notice for our purposes that the idea of autocephaly based on
culture was upheld here by the very ecumenical patriarchate that seems
at present to deny the legitimacy of churches based on culture. Irony
abounds: both the Bulgarian and Serbian churches continued in their
autocephaly until 1767, when they were suppressed by the Ottoman
Empire, much to the sorrow of those two nations.
V. Present Claims for Canon 28

The crux of the problem today however, is that claims of primacy that
are virtually indistinguishable from supremacy; hence the very real
fear of papalism. Clearly, the archbishops of Constantinople had
always had a rather exalted view of their archdiocese that was
perfectly understandable given the glory of that city in late
antiquity. Beginning with Anatolius, the patriarchal claim was first
promoted and in the following century, the unfortunate adjective
"universal" was appended to it. On the other hand, it was just as
clear that neither of these claims were wholeheartedly accepted. Even
after the Schism of 1054, it was only the slow decline of the office
of emperor that made the title "ecumenical patriarch" normative in the
Orthodox East. And even then, the exact meaning of the term
"ecumenical" was very much open to debate, as even the Byzantines
themselves admitted in their hasty explanations to Gregory I.

To its credit, the website of the ecumenical patriarchate begins an
exposition of the role of bishop in a non-controversial fashion,
rightly stating that bishops are supreme within their dioceses. It
also rightly quotes the relevant passages in Canon 28 (although never
once mentioning its less-than-glittering conception). Nor for that
matter does it explain how one archbishop can now possess sovereignty
over independent archdioceses (the aforementioned Asia, Pontus, and
Thrace). More to the point, it does not explain how the plain text of
Canon 28 which mentions these same provinces and their respective
bishops who are "situated in barbarian lands" means all barbarians,
that is to say throughout the whole world. The text is specific in
this regard: it plainly states that only those bishops who reside
within these provinces—albeit among "barbarians"-likewise owe their
ultimate sovereignty to Constantinople.

Interestingly enough this is not lost on the partisans of the Phanar.
They hastily add that the "…adjective 'barbarian' modifies the noun
'nations,' which is omitted from the text of the canon, but which is
inferred." But is this interpretation correct? The writer of this
essay attempts to prove this point by mentioning the fact that in
another time, the respected Byzantine canonist Zonaras equated
"barbarians" with "nations."22 We are not told however what
specifically Zonaras was referring to, was this his understanding of
the term barbarian or was it the accepted understanding of this term
among the Greek-speaking population? This raises other questions since
languages change over time: did barbarian mean at the time of
Chalcedon or the time of Zonaras? The website does not answer this
question.

Such sleight-of-hand gives away the game: by means of a clever but
false syllogism, the case of Phanariote supremacy is propagated. First
the canon is accepted as non-controversial (it wasn't). Then by a
careful bit of legerdemain, when it mentions the "bishops of these
aforesaid provinces" who are "situated in barbarian lands," we are to
take it to mean that these bishops are somehow adjacent to barbarian
lands. And finally, by an equally clever stroke, barbarians in general
are made to be synonymous with nations since a much later canonist
stated that this was so (even though we are not sure if he was
referring to this canon). Since there were no doubt barbarians
adjacent to the aforesaid Thracian, Pontic, and Asiatic barbarians we
must therefore believe that all barbarians equal all nations, hence,
those areas that have not been evangelized by already established
churches belong to the ecumenical patriarchate.

What is surprising is that even with the grandiose claims of
Philotheus Coccinus who saw himself as a universal pastor, the idea
that the ecumenical patriarchate could evangelize in areas where there
were already established churches strains credulity. A careful reading
of Philotheus' self-understanding of his office shows that his role as
universal teacher was to send bishops to the "ends of the earth" and
that they were to be accorded the same honors and dignity that he
himself enjoyed. This bears repeating: they were not to be his
auxiliaries but rulings bishops in their own right, enjoying
"territorial rights and episcopal see, and all [the] rights of Our
Humility." If this insistence upon full episcopal prerogatives is
plain (and it is), then can autocephaly be far behind? Coccinus'
comments lead inexorably to this conclusion. After all, had he wanted
to do so, he could have revoked the autocephaly of Serbia and Bulgaria
if he were truly a patriarcha universalis rather than merely a
primatial one.

Be that as it may, none of the patriarchs before the twentieth century
ventured into the areas of other churches. Coccinus himself was
writing to the Russian princes who belonged to an ecclesiastic
province of the See of Constantinople. On the other hand,
circumstances under the Turkish occupation precluded any evangelistic
activity at all. Yet even within the primatial mindset of
Constantinople during this time, the prerogatives of the other
churches were upheld. Although the autocephalous patriarchates of
Serbia and Bulgaria were unfortunately quashed, those of Antioch,
Jerusalem, and Alexandria were resolutely—and with great difficulty-
maintained (albeit as dependencies of Constantinople).

Even outside of the boundaries of the four ancient patriarchates
scrupulous attention was paid to ecclesiastic protocols. For example,
as far as Constantinople was concerned, the vast Siberian expanse was
the evangelistic responsibility of Moscow, even though it had yet to
be annexed politically to the Russian state. According to the modern
interpretation of Canon 28, the ecumenical patriarchate should have
been able to evangelize that area since it was essentially a no-man's
land. Likewise it could have established missions in Japan and the Far
East, where Russia had influence but no political control whatsoever.
It did not. Later, Russian prerogatives in North America were accepted
as well even when Greek Christians came under its fold, as the letter
of Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople to the Holy Synod of Moscow
attests.23

What then accounts for the lack of seriousness of the present claims?
The answer lies with the remarkable career of Patriarch Meletius IV
Metaxakis, a brilliant reformer whose own allegiance to the canonical
order and conciliar norms of the Orthodox Church was shaky at best. It
was during his reign that the term ecumenical was given its present
hyperbolic meaning. Part of the answer lies in the tumultuous times in
which Meletius lived. Because of his familial relationship with
Eleutherios Venizelos, the equally brilliant reformist prime minister
of Greece, Metaxakis was elected as Archbishop of Athens by usurping
the throne. Like his relative, he was enamored of the West and tried
to push through audacious reforms.24 Like Venizelos he was a member of
a Masonic lodge, a startling and embarrassing revelation to say the
least.25 (Venizelos had been excommunicated because of his membership
in this fraternity.) Upon the restoration of the previous archbishop
whom he had earlier displaced, Metaxakis went into exile in America,
where he had an enthusiastic following among that portion of the Greek-
American community that despised the monarchy and viewed Venizelos as
their champion. While in America, he established a separate
jurisdiction called the "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South
America" to the extreme displeasure of the Metropolia, the successor
of the Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Archdiocese of North America.
The new archdiocese was to be an eparchy of the Church of Greece, to
which he anticipated returning to someday. However by some twist of
fate, Metaxakis was instead proclaimed Patriarch of Constantinople
(even though he was in the United States). In a move that can only be
seen as extremely expedient, he rescinded the Church of Greece's claim
on the new archdiocese and made it an eparchy of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, whose head he now was.

Meletius, who actively sought allies in Western religious circles, saw
himself as the focal point of unity in the non-Catholic Christian
world by dint of his new title. Whereas "ecumenical" in previous ages
had meant "imperial," and then later universal pastor of he Orthodox
oikoumene, in Metaxakis' eyes it now truly did mean "universal." He
could not be universal however while Moscow's patriarchate was being
reestablished in 1918 by Tikhon Bellavin (who had earlier been
archbishop in America). Metaxakis therefore began negotiations in with
the so-called Renovationist Church, a Soviet puppet that was
established as a counter-church to the Patriarchate of Moscow. Like
Metaxakis, the Renovationists believed in many of the same reforms.
Their activities of course were to the detriment of Patriarch Tikhon
who was bravely trying to maintain the Russian church in the face of
overwhelming odds and unspeakable terror. If the Russian patriarchate
could be quashed, then Metaxakis' overlordship of the Orthodox world
would have been complete. (The Renovationists for their part were also
at odds with the Metropolia, bringing lawsuits against them in the
American court system for the express purpose of seizing their
property.)

In the end, the aftermath of the First World War ended Metaxakis'
career on the patriarchal throne. The "Catastrophe" (as it is called
by the Greeks) was the result of the rout of the Greek armies by
Mustapha Kemal. It led to the massive exchange of populations between
Greece and Turkey. The Turks forced Metaxakis, who was an enthusiastic
supporter of Prime Minister Venizelos, into exile. Following his
tumultuous tenure, the Turks degraded the patriarchate considerably.
To this day, it does not accept the ecumenical title for the Patriarch
of Constantinople. Unfortunately, even in spite of his disastrous
tenure, his successors accepted his grandiose claims and acted upon
them, thus further alienating the other Orthodox Churches, primarily
those of Serbia and Russia.
VI. More on Autocephaly

The problem of autocephaly was dealt with in the previous "Response"
by this author, however impending events gives this issue new urgency.
In the opinion of the Phanar, absent an ecumenical council, only the
ecumenical patriarchate has the right to bestow eccelesiastical
independence. In the opinion of Moscow and its daughter church in
America, this is true as far as it goes. Moscow maintains however,
that in addition to these methods, a mother church can bestow
autocephaly as well.

Contrary to the claims of some Phanariote apologists, this is not a
self-serving claim by Moscow. In the first millennium the Church of
Georgia according was granted autocephaly by Antioch, its mother
church. Although the actual history of the inception of this church is
vague, that it was a province of Antioch is undisputed. Balsamon of
Antioch clearly stated that one of his predecessors had earlier
granted autocephaly to Georgia merely through a "local" council.26 As
far as he was concerned there was nothing controversial about this. In
his opinion, autocephaly was statutory, that is to say it could be
granted by councils, imperial decree, or grants by mother churches.27
(Coincidentally, the position of the Moscow patriarchate its partisans.
28) His commentary in this regard shows that the bestowal of
autocephaly was itself an unremarkable event. Thus it is incumbent
upon Constantinople to prove its allegations in this regard; that is
to say that only two methods exist for granting ecclesiastical
independence (rather than three). If this is true, then the Church of
Georgia is by definition uncanonical.

Interestingly enough, even the views of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople have not been as rigid as they seem to indicate at
present. That is to say, that only it or an ecumenical council can
bestow autocephaly on a local church. In 1879 the Serbian royal house
and the Metropolitan of Belgrade approached Patriarch Joachim III of
Constantinople, asking for the reinstatement of Belgrade's
autocephalous status. Belgrade did so because Constantinople was its
mother church. Joachim for his part assented, using the various canons
at his disposal, including Canon 28. Be that as it may, Joachim's
statements regarding the recognition of Serbian autocephaly indicated
that there were many models that governed the birth and maturity of a
local church, not just ecumenical councils. In particular, the life
and well being of the nation—that is socio-political considerations-
could be taken into account. For his part, Joachim:

…recognized that Local Churches may be established "not only in
conformity with the historical importance of the cities and countries
in Christianity, but also according to political conditions of the
life of the people and nations." Referring then to Canon 28 of
Chalcedon and other canons, as well as the opinion of Patriarch
Photius…he reaffirmed: "The ecclesiastical rights, especially those of
parishes, usually conform to the structure of the state authority and
its provinces."29

These words clearly recognized that the history of late antiquity was
one of dynamic church formation. The canons of the first councils
(local as well as ecumenical) clearly took into account the hustle and
bustle that was apparent in these times. As was well known, many of
these canons antedated the See of Constantinople's elevation to
patriarchal status. Perhaps the most important canon for recognition
of a local church's independence was Apostolic Canon 1 which mandates
that at least two bishops be present for the consecration of a new
bishop, and canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council which states that
the appointment of a new bishop can only be made by election of at
least three bishops sitting in a local council.

These canons reflected the fact that the independent status of the
many local ecclesiastical regions found in antiquity. The existence of
these canons therefore begs an important question: by what sanction
were bishops granted the right to administer their own affairs (as
stated for instance in canon 8 of Ephesus) and to consecrate other
bishops (Apostolic canon 1)? As stated earlier, these churches were
"already autocephalous." That is all well and good, but how did they
receive their independence? No doubt some were of apostolic origin—
Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, Rome, Corinth-spring instantly to mind.
But not all were. The proliferation of new ecclesiastical regions
(such as Hippo, Ancyra, Lyons,) throughout the first half-millennium
precludes this possibility. It stands to reason therefore that
autocephalous churches themselves founded many of these regional
synods.30 Some may have started out as missions; others were formed
because of political exigencies (i.e. the redrawing of imperial
diocesan boundaries, the loss of a region to war, etc.). Yet all of
them possessed the canonical prerogatives that inured to all churches,
despite their relative youth.

Therefore Joachim's general statements about "political
considerations" must be viewed in this light. Yes, Constantinople may
be a grantor of independence, but many of the canons that governed the
life of the Church were anterior to Constantinople's own foundation.
To put not too fine a point on it, historical and political
considerations very often do play a significant role in the
establishment of an independent church. As such, churches can bestow
autocephaly on regions adjacent to them. The only consideration was
that the new ecclesiastical regions have at least three contiguous
dioceses.

More to the point, Constantinople had been Serbia's mother church. It
was Patriarch Germans II who consecrated St Sava as Archbishop of Pec,
the then-capital city of Serbia. It stood to reason therefore that
Serbia's elite should beseech Joachim for reestablishing this honor.
Indeed, the Serbs took a real risk in going to the Phanar since it was
a subject of the Ottoman Empire (as had been Serbia). There was no
guarantee that Turkey would allow the Phanar to bestow a tome of
autocephaly on Serbia. It was not in Turkey's interests to see its
breakaway provinces become independent nation-states with vigorous
churches. One of the methods the Turks had used in subjugating their
Christian subjects was the threat of excommunication that the
Patriarch of Constantinople could level on any incipient rebellion.
This threat would be removed if the Serbian patriarchate was
reestablished. It would have been far more expedient for the Serbs to
approach the Holy Synod of Moscow which was free of foreign domination
and with whom the Serbs had excellent relations.
VII. Conclusion

This validity—indeed, legality-of Canon 28 is therefore troubling to
say the least. The fact that it was excised from the official drafts
of the Council of Chalcedon should tell us something. It was conceived
during a time of great turmoil in the West, and its unsettling nature
was apparent to many in its own day and context. It was never accepted
by Rome and only surreptitiously in the East. Thus it is impossible to
take it seriously given its origins; one can only do so by means of
tortuous logic (as was demonstrated by the language used by Phanar's
own apologist—see section 5 above).

Likewise, the evolution of the Archbishop of Constantinople to
patriarch, and then to ecumenical patriarch, was done in fits and
starts and only when popes or emperors were unable to contain the
ambitions of these bishops. This should tell us something about its
provenance and those who stake ecclesiastic claims on it would do well
to reconsider their position. If this title had little legitimacy when
it was first proposed, then it strains logic to believe the passage of
time has made it more so.

In the final analysis, such posturing stands in stark contrast to the
Gospel. The legitimacy of any bishop is his fidelity to the Gospel of
Jesus and not to grandiose titles that were arrogated during a time
that no longer exists and by legalisms that are only tenuously related
to the spirit of the Gospel. As Pope Gregory the Great said in
reaction to John IV, the only title he wanted for himself was servus
servorum Dei ("servant of the servants of God.")

_________________________________________

ENDNOTES

1. www.ocl.org
2. Metropolitan Philip Saliba, Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical
Council—Relevant or Irrelevant Today? (The Word, Feb 2009).
3. The address was given by the Rev Elpidophorus Lambriniades on
March 16, 2009. The reply was written by this author and published on
March 25. Both can be accessed on www.aoiusa.org and www.ocl.org.
4. Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, AD 325).
5. St. John Maximovitch, The Decline of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople delivered at the Second All-Diaspora Sobor of the
Russian Church, Srmski Karlovtsy, Yugoslavia, 1938.
6. See for example Archbishop Gregory Afonsky, The Canonical Status
of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church (Mar 24,
2009); Patiarch Alexii II of Moscow and All Russia, A Letter to the
Ecumenical Patriarch Concerning the Situation of the Diaspora (Feb 2,
1005). For a contemporaneous Greek response to the idea of
Constantinopolitan overlordship, see footnote no. 16 below.
7. John J. Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium (London: Penguin,
1997 ed.), p 48.
8. John H. Erickson, The Challenge of Our Past: Studies in Orthodox
Canon Law and Church History, (Crestwood, SVS Press, 1991), p 92.
9. Leo the Great, Epistolarum 104
10. Ibid., Leo the Great, Epistolarum 104.
11. John the Faster, www.newadvent.org.
12. Gregory I, Epistle 18.
13. Ibid., Epistle 43.
14. Ibid. Epistle 20.
15. John the Faster, www.newadvent.org.
16. Erickson, Op cit., p 108.
17. Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the
Papacy: The Church 1071-1453 A.D (Crestwood: SVS Press, 1994), p 309.
18. Erickson, Op cit., p 108.
19. Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the
Papacy: The Church 1071-1453 A.D (Crestwood: SVS Press, 1994), p 309.
20. Erickson, Op cit, p 107. (See also W Bruce Lincoln's The
Romanovs: Autocrats of All the Russians [New York: Dial Press, 1981],
p 7.)
21. Ibid.
22. www.ec-patri.org/discdisplay.php?lang=en&id-2878&;a=en.
23. Mark Stokoe, Orthodox Christians in North America 1794-1994 (in
collaboration with Leonid Kishkvosky, OCPC: 1995), p 32.
24. He believed priests should be clean-shaven and wear Western
garb, that bishops should be allowed to marry, and that fasting rules
should be relaxed. As patriarch, he instituted the adoption of the
Gregorian Calendar.
25. Although there are no canons which expressly condemn membership
in the Lodge, this is because Freemasonry is a relatively recent
development. In 1933 however, Archbishop Damascene of Athens
commissioned a study of this fraternity and subsequently the Church of
Greece issued a strong statement which reiterated the long-held views
of the Orthodox Church regarding this organization. (Cf
www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/masonry.aspx.)
26. Balsamon
27. Erickson, Op cit., p 102.
28. Alexander Bogolepov, Toward an American Orthodox Church: The
Establishment of an Autocephalous Church (Crestwood: SVS Press, 1963,
[2001 ed.]), pp xvi-xix, 10-11.
29. Ibid., pp 14-15.
30. Ibis., pp 9-10.


_________________________________________



George Michalopulos is a layman in the Orthodox Church in America. He
is married to the former Margaret Verges of Houston, Texas, and the
father of two boys, Constantine and Michael. Together with Deacon Ezra
Ham, he is the author of The American Orthodox Church: A History of
Its Beginnings (Salisbury: Regina Orthodox Press, 2003), as well as
several articles and essays published on the Orthodox Christian Laity
website. He has served as parish council president of Holy Trinity
Greek Orthodox Church in Tulsa, OK, and twice was a lay delegate to
the Clergy-Laity Congress of 1998 and 2002. He helped found Holy
Apostles Orthodox Christian Mission, a parish of the OCA in 2003 and
continues to be active in pan-Orthodox events in the greater Tulsa
area.

The Holy Cross statement is the largest pile of ..... so far found on this site. The Truth is, the Bishop of Istanbul has "NO" authority over North America. And how grateful the OCA should be that the Phanar hasn't broken communion with the OCA - ridiculous. Foreign bishops cannot control local churches - Orthodox Canon Law.

And, according to the statutes of SCOBA, the leader of SCOBA is a ROTATING role between all the hierarchs of SCOBA - not just the GOA leader. After + Bartholomew threw + Iakovos out, he demanded that only the head of the GOA be chairman of SCOBA. To keep the peace, the other hierarchs agreed, but this is contrary to the statutes of SCOBA.

No doubt all the "foreign bishops" who wish to maintain their control over North American Orthodox has been increasing, not diminishing. The Phanar; the Antiochians; the Russians; the Romanians; etc. WHY? Economic pressures must surely be one reason. The worldwide recession/depression puts pressure on "old country" patriarchs to look for more & more $$$. Rich Americans, of course. Besides this, the prestige of being and remaining an "international" entity proclaiming the fallacy of the "Orthodox Diaspora." Anyone reading here planning to go back and live in the land of their ancestors? Want to be a goat herder? How about a serf?
The absolute stupidity of the claims of foreign bishops should incite North American Orthodox to UNITE and tell them all to stick it. Yet, we have many who want to keep the foreign bishops ruling over them.