Of synods, elevations and patriarchates (especially UGCC)

[Diak]

It seems to me that the Pope has only been willing to recognize Patriarchal status for Catholic Churches where there exists Patriarchal status in the complementary Orthodox Church. Indeed, as someone has pointed out, there is no canonical Ukranian Patriarchate in the EOC. I’ve never taken it to be an affront to the dignity of the UGCC (though, of course, members of the UGCC might take it differently).

Rome does recognize Patriarch Filaret as Patriarch of his own particular Orthodox Church; even the Latin Pro-Nuncio has referred to him by that title when Latin officials were present, and they do refer to +Filaret by that title in official correspondence. +Filaret was elected by Synodal vote; as a reminder the very first Patriarch of Moscow.

If the nature of “particular Church” as developed in Lumen Gentium and the prescriptions of Unitatis Redintegratio are to mean anything except words, the particular Church must be able to be just that - a particular Church and not a satellite office for the Roman Curia.

“Canonical” has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession but is an internal Orthodox disclipinary affair; neither the UGCC or the Latin Church questions the ability of any Orthodox Church to synodally elect a Patriarch. Prior to +Filaret +Mystyslav and +Dymytry were also recognized as Patriarchs of their own particular Church.

The Bulgarian Orthodox Church went decades as “uncanonical”, and at one point was declared “without grace” by Constantinople; but interestingly enough Rome recognized the Patriarch by correspondence quite soon after his election. No Pope erected any of the ancient Patriarchates; and in fact even Latin dioceses were established without the direct declaration of Rome well into the 18th century.

 

[Aramis]

No Pope erected any of the ancient Patriarchates; and in fact even Latin dioceses were established without the direct declaration of Rome well into the 18th century.

Father Deacon, sorry, but wrong, for Peter, the first pope, erected at least two of them as particular churches: Antioch & Rome. orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch

While no Patriarchal title existed, by the time of the 1st council, it was clear that the leading cities were the modern patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome, and that other churches in their regions looked to them as if still lead by the founding apostle.

St Mark the Evangelist founded the Particular Church of Alexandria, from which the Coptic Rite grew, the Ethiopian and Eritrian churches as well.

St James was the founder of the Particular church which was to become the patriarchal see of Jerusalem.

These were, except for Antioch, the places that apostles were the bishops of, and where they died in office. Antioch was in fact Peter’s see, but he, still head of the remaining apostles, appointed a new bishop, and moved on to Rome.

 

[Diak]

Peter erected no dioceses and elected no Patriarchs. Antioch predated Rome before Peter ever got to Rome ("…and they were first called Christians"). My point still stands well, namely that no Pope of Rome appointed any of the ancient Patriarchates.

 

[Diak]

Remember, however, that any formal “elevation” of Patriarch Lubomyr by Rome would mean a total collapse of dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, and possibly bring reprisal against Eastern Catholics in Orthodox lands. This is because Moscow claims jurisdiction over Ukraine, and won’t even recognize Eastern Orthodox claims for a Patriarch of Ukraine.

Rome is playing very carefully with this issue, and IMO is winning both sides by allowing the recognition of the Patriarch without formally announcing anything.

Peace and God bless!

How many Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Patriarchates of Antioch are there? Alexandria? Your post does not seem to make sense in light of existing ecclesiastical reality. I do not think “dialogue” is compromised because of an abundance of claimants to a Patriarchal see.

Regarding the situation of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, if polls mean anything, the majority of Ukrainian Orthodox now refer to themselves as Ukrainian Orthodox-Kyivan Patriarchate. The majority also seem to think that the best means towards Orthodox unity in Ukraine is also the UOC-KP. The recent addition in the last several months of over 30 parishes of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and their clergy to the UOC-KP, with more waiting in the wings, seems to indeed verify this. The recent admission of rebaptisms by the UOC-MP of either UOC-KP or UAOC faithful has not helped things, either.

In the end, if the largest and very mature (by mature meaning we have our own Catechetical, Liturigical, Priestly Formation, and various other standing Patriarchal Synodal committees all comprised of persons on multiple continents, as well as a strong and functional Synod) particular Eastern Catholic Church cannot be herself in terms of full synodal particularity while remaining in communion with Rome, especially after the offering of millions of martyrs even in the last century to retain that communion, I believe that will also impact “dialogue” as Orthodox Churches will see how Rome treats her own.

 

[malphono]

Rome does recognize Patriarch Filaret as Patriarch of his own particular Orthodox Church; even the Latin Pro-Nuncio has referred to him by that title when Latin officials were present, and they do refer to +Filaret by that title in official correspondence. +Filaret was elected by Synodal vote; as a reminder the very first Patriarch of Moscow.

Of course they do. My suspicion is that it’s mainly for political and diplomatic purposes.

If the nature of “particular Church” as developed in Lumen Gentium and the prescriptions of Unitatis Redintegratio are to mean anything except words, the particular Church must be able to be just that - a particular Church and not a satellite office for the Roman Curia.

“Canonical” has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession but is an internal Orthodox disclipinary affair; neither the UGCC or the Latin Church questions the ability of any Orthodox Church to synodally elect a Patriarch. Prior to +Filaret +Mystyslav and +Dymytry were also recognized as Patriarchs of their own particular Church.

The Bulgarian Orthodox Church went decades as “uncanonical”, and at one point was declared “without grace” by Constantinople; but interestingly enough Rome recognized the Patriarch by correspondence quite soon after his election. No Pope erected any of the ancient Patriarchates; and in fact even Latin dioceses were established without the direct declaration of Rome well into the 18th century.

With respect, I don’t see it as being “satellites” of Rome. Nor do I necessarily agree with the authority of a local Synod to declare itself a patriarchate.

It all goes back to the unilateral usurpation of patriarchal status in Russia, and the subsequent erection of “national patriarchates.” Until the Moscow action, such had been reserved to Oecumenical Councils. And the fact remains that the Orthodox Churches in Greece and Cyprus, which are equally autocephalous, retain the ancient and more “orthodox” practice of being headed by an Archbishop Primate.

At this stage, I rather doubt that any of the “national patriarchates” would even consider reverting to the ancient practice, in large part because of Russia. But let’s look at the UGCC in terms of Ukraine in the days before it was involuntarily shifted from Constantinople to Moscow. In doing so, the presumption would be that it is autocephalous under Constantinople, and as such, the ancient practice of its head being Archbishop Primate (as is the official status-quo, albeit under the contrived title “Major Archbishop”) becomes a non-issue.

Please understand that I’m not in the least denigrating the UGCC or its august head. What really bothers me is the whole concept of “national patriarchates” which I see as (a) unnecessary, and (b) very contrary to Tradition.

 

[Diak]

Please understand that I’m not in the least denigrating the UGCC or its august head. What really bothers me is the whole concept of “national patriarchates” which I see as (a) unnecessary, and (b) very contrary to Tradition.

How is patriarchal governance “very contrary” to “Tradition”? Rather it is the fullest traditional expression of governance of a particular Church. That statement leads to the false anachronism that only the Pentarchy deserves the patriarchate. Since Rome herself has recognized (and even erected) some Patriarchates since the Pentarchy, she does not seem to hold this opinion.

Regarding statement (a), the idea that a particular Church that has eparchies in North and South America, Australia, and Europe with an Exarchate in the far East is anymore a “national” church is inaccurate at best. This situation rather begs for the encompassing governance of a patriarchate - simply because the task of governing a multicontinental Church not only deserves but strongly needs such a thing.

St. Peter Mohyla was in the process of proposing a Patriarchate for Kyiv and was preparing for this to be done synodally in conjunction with Constantinople upon his untimely death. The political situation that developed with Moscow thwarted any efforts of his successors until recently, beginning with +Mystyslav.

Communion does not necessitate submission in non-theological disclipinary matters. It’s a bit thick when one looks at (just for starters) the chaotic state of the Roman liturgy, recent developments with Fr. Maciel, the SSPX and many other things going on in the Latin church, that a Church that has survived the sort of holocaust as the UGCC with millions of martyrs, has come from the catacombs and fully developed a worldwide Synodal church cannot be allowed to take care of her own ecclesiastical affairs in the governance she sees fit.

I don’t think “satellite” is too strong of a word; if Rome decides unilaterally on matters other than faith or morals then that particular Church is indeed Roman.

I suppose I am also a bit confused that someone who professes to belong to an Eastern Catholic Church established actually as a sub-national patriarchal Church (Maronite) that was definitely not of the Pentarchy would oppose the full development of governance of another particular Eastern Catholic Church.

 

[malphono]

How is patriarchal governance “very contrary” to “Tradition”? Rather it is the fullest traditional expression of governance of a particular Church. That statement leads to the false anachronism that only the Pentarchy deserves the patriarchate. Since Rome herself has recognized (and even erected) some Patriarchates since the Pentarchy, she does not seem to hold this opinion.

Regarding statement (a), the idea that a particular Church that has eparchies in North and South America, Australia, and Europe with an Exarchate in the far East is anymore a “national” church is inaccurate at best. This situation rather begs for the encompassing governance of a patriarchate - simply because the task of governing a multicontinental Church not only deserves but strongly needs such a thing.

St. Peter Mohyla was in the process of proposing a Patriarchate for Kyiv and was preparing for this to be done synodally in conjunction with Constantinople upon his untimely death. The political situation that developed with Moscow thwarted any efforts of his successors until recently, beginning with +Mystyslav.

Communion does not necessitate submission in non-theological disclipinary matters. It’s a bit thick when one looks at (just for starters) the chaotic state of the Roman liturgy, recent developments with Fr. Maciel, the SSPX and many other things going on in the Latin church, that a Church that has survived the sort of holocaust as the UGCC with millions of martyrs, has come from the catacombs and fully developed a worldwide Synodal church cannot be allowed to take care of her own ecclesiastical affairs in the governance she sees fit.

I don’t think “satellite” is too strong of a word; if Rome decides unilaterally on matters other than faith or morals then that particular Church is indeed Roman.

I suppose I am also a bit confused that someone who professes to belong to an Eastern Catholic Church established actually as a sub-national patriarchal Church (Maronite) that was definitely not of the Pentarchy would oppose the full development of governance of another particular Eastern Catholic Church.

Whoa! Excuse me, but I take exception to that last paragraph. First of all, Antioch is of the Pentarchy. Yes, as a matter of fact, I am one who subscribes to Pentarchy theory, in case that wasn’t clear from my prior posts in this thread. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly for the purpose at hand, the term “sub-national” is more than offensive, as well as being historically inaccurate. You have taken this matter to another level and have evidently lost sight of history and the neglect of the mighty Byzantine Empire which gave rise to establishment of the Maronite Patriarchate. Perhaps a few lessons in the history of both the Levant and the Syriac Churches might help.

Whether there was any proposal to erect a patriarchate for Kiev I don’t know, and will take your word for it. Had such a patriarchate been erected synodally with Constantinople, it might just be considered legitimate. Such a synod would have had, at least, a similar weight to the 14 or so so-called “Ecumenical Councils” convened by, and for, Rome. But in any event, that did not happen. What did happen was Russia’s unilateral action, and the forced shifting of Ukraine. And the establishment of the “national patriarchates” mostly subservient to Russia.

My intention was to offer an opinion with the utmost respect for the UGCC and its head, as well as the orthodox tradition of Archbishop Primates for autocephalous Churches. That particular tradition is more in the Byzantine realm than any other. (The concept in the Oriental Churches was more toward Catholicosates, but I have neither the interest or will to discuss that differentiation further at this point.) In any case, I should by now know better than to ever get involved in any thread that bears on Slav Byzantines matters and, ultimately, sensibilities. They always seem to end up the same way.

 

[Diak]

First of all, Antioch is of the Pentarchy.

Perhaps you may want to check your Church’s particular history as well. The Maronite Catholicosate/Patriarchate (whichever term is preferred) was not established until long after the original Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch, something like the seventh century, long after even the Council of Chalcedon.

Yours is certainly not of the original Patriarchates of the Pentarchy, nor was any Maronite Catholicos likely even consecrated by a standing Syriac Patriarch of Antioch at the time. In fact no one really knows “how” the first Catholicos of the Maronites was consecrated at all, other than the historical links to the monastery of St. Maron. The “legitimate” Catholic holder of the historical Patriarchate of Antioch liturgically speaking would arguably be the Syriac Catholic holder of the title, as there are three (Syriac, Melkite and Maronite) who hold claim to that title, each of a differering ecclesiastical lineage. If the Pentarchy theory is valid, there cannot be three holders of the same Patriarchal See. That would make more than five in my accounting.

I did not intend any “elevation” at all, but was rather answering and asking questions that I had hoped would openly discuss the historical implications. If there are indeed only five Patriarchates, then yours would not be included since the Syriac Catholic Patriarch of Antioch has that lineage.

I used the term “subnational” because the Maronites were never a national Church of either Syria or Lebanon. It was not meant in a deragotory way, I assure you, and I apologize if it caused offense without the explanation. I would hope all Eastern Catholics would support their brethren striving for full Eastern Catholic particularity while remaining in communion with the Church of Rome. As my brother Marduk will attest, I have frequently stood up for the rights and recognition of my Oriental (non-Byzantine) brethren on more than one forum and have great, great respect for them (in addition to using some of the spiritual riches of the Agpeya).

 

[malphono]

Perhaps you may want to check your Church’s particular history as well. The Maronite Catholicosate/Patriarchate (whichever term is preferred) was not established until long after the original Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch, something like the seventh century, long after even the Council of Chalcedon.

Thank you, but I know the history better than you might think. I’ve forgotten more than most will ever know, and trust me when I say I haven’t forgotten much.

Yours is certainly not of the original Patriarchates of the Pentarchy, nor was any Maronite Catholicos likely even consecrated by a standing Syriac Patriarch of Antioch at the time. In fact no one really knows “how” the first Catholicos of the Maronites was consecrated at all, other than the historical links to the monastery of St. Maron. The “legitimate” Catholic holder of the historical Patriarchate of Antioch liturgically speaking would arguably be the Syriac Catholic holder of the title, as there are three (Syriac, Melkite and Maronite) who hold claim to that title, each of a differering ecclesiastical lineage. If the Pentarchy theory is valid, there cannot be three holders of the same Patriarchal See. That would make more than five in my accounting.

I did not intend any “elevation” at all, but was rather answering and asking questions that I had hoped would openly discuss the historical implications. If there are indeed only five Patriarchates, then yours would not be included since the Syriac Catholic Patriarch of Antioch has that lineage.

First of all, the term Catholicos has no bearing on the Maronite Church, nor has it ever had. Never was a Maronite Patriarch referred to as Catholicos. No one, least of all me, has claimed that the Maronite Patriarchate is the Patriarchate of Antioch. But it’s rather difficult to accept that the Syriac CC patriarchate is the sole legitimate claimant, particularly because it was established by Rome in the 18th century. That’s at least 1200 years after the Maronite Patriarchate. If one wants to come right down to it, it’s the Syriac Orthodox. The Melkite (and/or Greek Orthodox) Patriarchate of Antioch is a Byzantine political creation that has the least claim of legitimacy of any.

As far as the Pentarchy, Antioch, yea Syria, is quite a unique case due, primarily, to the neglect of the Byzantine Empire. If not for same, (and, most likely, the later imposition of a Byzantine “patriarch” by Imperial Constantinople), there would probably be no Maronite Patriarchate. But there is. History plays in strange ways, and such is the history of the Levant. Perhaps only a Levantine is capable of understanding and dealing with it.

But I don’t deny the actual legitimacy of any of them, and I daresay most Levantines would agree. Again, perhaps it’s the unique history. Whatever.

I used the term “subnational” because the Maronites were never a national Church of either Syria or Lebanon. It was not meant in a deragotory way, I assure you, and I apologize if it caused offense without the explanation. I would hope all Eastern Catholics would support their brethren striving for full Eastern Catholic particularity while remaining in communion with the Church of Rome. As my brother Marduk will attest, I have frequently stood up for the rights and recognition of my Oriental (non-Byzantine) brethren on more than one forum and have great, great respect for them (in addition to using some of the spiritual riches of the Agpeya).

I have no idea what is meant by “national church” in the context of the Levant. Here again, one needs to understand Levantine history before making a blanket statement like that. In any case, I’m sorry, but I still find the term used offensive.

As well, I don’t know what “full Eastern Catholic particularity” means. You yourself used the term “satellite” and really that’s what we have. Oh yes, some more so than others, but satellite by another name is still satellite.

And all of this is totally and completely off-topic. Sorry if I offended Slavic sensibilities by the mere suggestion that … oh, what’s the use. End of my involvement in this discussion.

 

[dixibehr]

Does the UGCC belong to one of the original ancient patriachates? if so which one?<<

Originally it was part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, what does “belonging to an ancient patriarchate” have to do with anything?

Is it Canonicaly recognised as a patriachate? if so where?<<

The UGCC Synod considers its actions canonical. I’m not a canonist, and can’t go beyond that.

Did the Holy See or any Council recognise or elevate the Church to the dignity of a patriachate? if so when?<<

Neither is necessary in historical Eastern praxis.

Does a Synod have the power to elevate it’s head to the level of a patriarch? <<

If it takes such an action, and there being no disapproval from the Holy See, I guess it does have that power.

if so then we must accept the the heads of all synodal Churches are Patriarchs<<

Wouldn 't be a bad idea in my opinion.

 

[Ghosty]

The Melkite (and/or Greek Orthodox) Patriarchate of Antioch is a Byzantine political creation that has the least claim of legitimacy of any.

Awww, c’mon. We’ve got to at LEAST be ahead of the (now defunct) Latin Patriarchate of Antioch.

Peace and God bless!

 

[malphono]

Awww, c’mon. We’ve got to at LEAST be ahead of the (now defunct) Latin Patriarchate of Antioch.

Peace and God bless!

But of course … Truth to tell, defunct or not, I never even considered the Latin pseudo-patriarchate in the mix. It was fake from the start and never even crossed my mind.

 

[Diak]

Awww, c’mon. We’ve got to at LEAST be ahead of the (now defunct) Latin Patriarchate of Antioch

That still makes more than five.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am one who subscribes to Pentarchy theory, in case that wasn’t clear from my prior posts in this thread.

So, again, if there are more than five, that theory becomes difficult to maintain when there are multiple claimants with differeing ecclesiastical lineages.

As well, I don’t know what “full Eastern Catholic particularity” means.

The Catechetical Directory of the Ukrainian Catholic Church states :"…the rite, language, liturgy, liturgical traditions, spirituality and worship, theology and structure of the Church (ed. note - referencing an earlier defition by Patriarch +Josyp of blessed memory). The Ukrainian Catholic Church needs to research, deepen and develop these aspects of a particular Church." I would further add that “full particularity” specifically for the UGCC includes Patriarchal governance specifically because of the multinational and multicontental nature of the current UGCC. That is not by any means an official definition and is only my personal interpretation.

Your previous statement was “The concept in the Oriental Churches was more toward Catholicosates…” and I was merely using the term *Catholicos * as that seemed to be preferred again out of respect from your previous post.

But since that was mentioned, you also mentioned

Never was a Maronite Patriarch referred to as Catholicos.

Again, I would respectfully suggest you look at the historians of your own Church; Bishop +Yusuf Deryan of blessed memory strongly maintained the leader of the Maronite Church was indeed a “Catholicos”. But, as I also mentioned, there is no consensus even within the Maronite community; furthermore Tal-Mahri also documents that the Melkites and Maronites were always, in his assessment, different groups even before the Melkite acceptance of the Constantinopolitan tradition. Tal-Mahri also maintains that the Melkites had a Patriarch, and the Maronites did not have one. Some Maronite scholars have oppined that the Maronites received episcopal lineage from either of the two Patriarchates of Antioch (Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian) long before there was any Maronite Patriarch.

When Theophylact marched against the monastery of St. Maro in the mid- 8th century there was apparently no Patriarch at the time, only bishops and monks. Were there a Patriarch/Catholicos, he certainly would have been residing there. Again, that makes the “Pentarchy theory” tendentious when applied to the Maronite Church as the direct claimant of the Pentarchal Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch.

Perhaps only a Levantine is capable of understanding and dealing with it.

But I don’t deny the actual legitimacy of any of them, and I daresay most Levantines would agree. Again, perhaps it’s the unique history. Whatever.

Legitimacy of the Patriarchate or episcopal lineage of the Maronites was never the issue in this thread - I certainly never questioned it. If the “Pentarchy theory” is valid, then the Maronites really do not have a claim to being a Patriarchate of the original Pentarchy. The historical Patriarch of Antioch? No. Descended from the Syriac liturgical tradition? Definitely. A legitimate particular Catholic Church? Absolutely.

This leaves the UGCC in essentially an analgous situation. A legitimate claimant of the Patriarchate of Constantinople? No. Descended from a Patriarchate of the Pentarchy? Most definitely. But perhaps one must be a Byzantine Slav to understand that unique history as well.

I know many Levantines (especially Melkites) who are fully supportive of the UGCC Patriarchate (including Patriarch Gregory himself who addresses His Beatitude by the title of Patriarch).

There is more than one Maronite historian who believes the monks of St. Maro elected their own bishops, who in turn elected their own Patriarchate. In any case Rome does not appear to have been consulted, and the particular Church appears to have done all of the electing and elevating.

I suppose if one also wants to consider that there is still a very pro-nationalist movement amongst the Lebanese Maronites (the Phalange come to mind), it could arguably be considered a “nationalist Patriarchate” in some sense of the term.

 

[Hesychios]

…

 

[malphono]

… There is more than one Maronite historian who believes the monks of St. Maro elected their own bishops, who in turn elected their own Patriarchate. In any case Rome does not appear to have been consulted, and the particular Church appears to have done all of the electing and elevating.

And again it’s all in the history. Yeah, the Melkites had a Byzantine “patriarch” appointed by the Empire. Still all in the history. Take whatever position you prefer. As will I. As I said earlier, my involvement in this pointless discussion is over.

Oh, and by the way, the only time Mor Moroun is referred to as “Maro” is by Greek Orthodox historians.

 

[malphono]

I suppose if one also wants to consider that there is still a very pro-nationalist movement amongst the Lebanese Maronites (the Phalange come to mind), it could arguably be considered a “nationalist Patriarchate” in some sense of the term.

I suggest you don’t even go there. It’s quite obvious you know SQUAT about that issue.

 

[Diak]

And again it’s all in the history. Yeah, the Melkites had a Byzantine “patriarch” appointed by the Empire. Still all in the history. Take whatever position you prefer. As will I. As I said earlier, my involvement in this pointless discussion is over.

Oh, and by the way, the only time Mor Moroun is referred to as “Maro” is by Greek Orthodox historians.

Perhaps then we both should use Moosa’s preferred term, “Mar Marun” or another common spelling often used in Lebanon, “Mar Maroun”.

 

[malphono]

Perhaps then we both should use Moosa’s preferred term, “Mar Marun” or another common spelling often used in Lebanon, “Mar Maroun”.

I need no lessons or suggestions in this. I have used, and will continue to use, the transliteration from the Syriac.

Ciao baby.

 

[mardukm]

Where are the primatial Sees of the different Patriarchs of Antioch? I mean, where do the Patriarchs reside?

Also, I think there is a difference between the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and the Major Archbishopric of the UGCC. I alluded to this earlier. The Pope seems to be willing to recognize Patriarchal status for Catholic Churches that have a corresponding Patriarchal status among the EOC.

I would like to test my theory. I am wondering if the Romanian Catholics, or the Bulgarian Catholics, or Czechoslovokian Catholics or other Catholics in the former Sovient block have their own Patriarchs. My real question is - there are several new Patriarchates in the former Soviet Block. Do Catholics in those areas have a corresponding Catholic Patriarchate, or are they Metropolitan Sees?

If the corresponding Catholic Churches in the former Soviet block do not have Patriarchs, then I would need to refine my theory to align with what brother Malphono has already stated - that the model the Catholic Church follows is the original and ancient Pentarchy.

If that is the case, then perhaps members of the UGCC should not be so quick to accuse the Pope of disrespecting them - for the Holy Father is merely following the Tradition of the Ecumenical Councils, and what possible fault can there be in that?

In any case, I don’t think there is anything wrong with there being different Patriarchs of distinct Traditions in Antioch. I think once we divest ourselves of any notions of nationalism, then one is more likely to see the propriety of having different Patriarchs of distinct Traditions in Antioch. In that sense, also, I don’t see a comparison between the situation of the Maronites and the situation of the UGCC.

In short, Orientals are more likely than Easterns to adhere to the model of the Pentarchy. The Eastern experience is certainly not the same as the Oriental experience in this regard.

I further want to add (if I have interpreted my readings correctly) that it does not seem as though Russia actually BECAME a Patriarchate until it was recognized as such by its mother Church in Constantinople. There was about a 150 year difference between the time Russia declared its ecclesiastical independence, and the time it was given actual Patriarchal status by Constantinople. As brother Malphono has pointed out, this lag time seems to have merely been an exigency because of Moslem rule in Turkey - in effect Moscow and Constantinople were cut off from each other. In other words, I don’t think this can be seen as an actual example of self-declaration.

I would like to repeat that I, for one, recognize that according to Canon law, in the absence of any explicit rejection by the competent authority, then the UGCC would de facto have Patriarchal status 30 years from the time HB Lubomyr explicitly accepts the title of Patriarch.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

WhereIn short, Orientals are more likely than Easterns to adhere to the model of the Pentarchy. The Eastern experience is certainly not the same as the Oriental experience in this regard.

And before anyone criticizes this statement, I would like to say that I understand and recognize that there are other Patriarchates within Oriental Orthodoxy beyond the original five. But I believe there is a difference. Earlier, someone noted that among the Easterns, there is the notion of “autonomy functioning as autocephaly.” Among Orientals, it is the opposite - it is “autocephaly functioning as autonomy.” I’ll give an example from my own Coptic Tradition. When the Eritrean OOC first sought independence from the Ethiopian OOC, and rather uncanonically at that, the first thought in many peoples minds was immediately, “who is COC willing to hold communion with?” This is very similar to the way of it when the Church was undivided, except that back then, it was the See of Rome who was the focus of orthodoxy (and those who regard themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome” wish for others to come back to that reality in the early Church). So though there are other Patriarchates in Oriental Orthodoxy, the centrality of the original Patriarchates is still very much recognized. Any distinct jurisdictions from the Mother Sees of Alexandria (Coptic Orthodox) or Antioch (Syriac Orthodox) are truly “satellites,” not absolutely independent of their Mother Sees (regardless of whether they are known as Patriarchal Sees, Metropolitan Sees, ArchMetropolitan See, etc,). The Armenians are a different matter. Though it is one of the centers of OO’xy, her head bishop is known as a Catholicos, not a Patriarch, which itself indicates that paradigm under which the OO operate (i.e., the ideal of the original Pentarchy).

Blessings,
Marduk