Posts Tagged ‘patriarchs’

As commonly used in reference to Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism — broadly considered (I can’t speak about other Churches) — in the Western world, the informal noun jurisdiction seems to indicate a particular ethnic, national, and/or patriarchate’s Church in a given country, region, or continent(s) … considered a part of The One Single Orthodox Church [or “The Catholic Church,” in ECs’ case], completely sharing the same doctrine and Faith, “In Full Communion” and not separate “denominations.”  (However, the term may also be used, less commonly, in connection with “non-canonical” groups.)  I believe the term in this usage is so prominent in the West because, due to “overlapping” (or disagreement regarding … jurisdiction), there are so many here, more per square mile than in ‘the Eastern world’ where Orthodox Church structures are mostly integrated in one way or another.

I’m describing this very carefully.  Technically, any Ruling Hierarch’s area or class of responsibility might be (and sometimes IS) called his jurisdiction, or for Greek words, his eparchy (“to rule over”) or omophorion (his liturgical-vestment stole, essentially, symbolic of his shepherding [like a Latin metropolitan-archbishop’s pallium]).  However, I believe in common, colloquial discussion, the term is rather used as I stated above.  This may be because any local bishoprics within “a jurisdiction” are perceived as being able to “come and go” over time, as with their boundaries, while “the jurisdiction” itself — in this case a parent body if you will — has had a longer existence, and often a more stable or knowable one, especially in the eyes of people less familiar with the jurisdiction under discussion at this or that moment.

I said “a particular ethnic, national, or patriarchate’s Church” generically, too.  A “jurisdiction” in fact may be a Bishopric, a cluster of Bishoprics, or one or more parishes overseen in some other way.  To flesh this out, in the United States and Canada, the following are currently clusters of Bishoprics commonly described as (“canonical”) jurisdictions:

  • The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America (OCA), consisting of 11 “territorial” dioceses (one called an Exarchate), 3 additional “ethnic” dioceses (these latter may also sometimes be referred to as “jurisdictions,” even though they are parts of The OCA), and 3 parishes in Australia;
  • the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, structured as 9 territorial dioceses, as well as the overlapping Western Rite Vicariate;
  • the Greek Archdiocese of America, consisting of 8 metropolises (local/regional bishoprics), a Direct Archdiocesan District, the overlapping “Vicariate for Palestinian/Jordanian Communities in the USA” (which may also be referred to as “a jurisdiction”); and a Patriarchal monastery with its dependent monasteries, parishes, and missions in the U.S. and Belize, Central America;
  • the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, with 3 eparchies;
  • the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, also with 3 eparchies;
  • The Serbian Orthodox Church in North and South America, with 4 dioceses in the U.S. and one in Canada; and
  • the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), with 3 dioceses in the U.S., one in Canada, 2 in Western Europe, one each in Australasia and Russia, along with an “ecclesiastical mission” in Jerusalem, a cluster of parishes in South America, and an Old Rite (Old Believer) parish administered by a vicar-bishop (auxiliary) of the First Hierarch (primate) of ROCOR.

The following are currently single Bishoprics commonly described as (“canonical”) jurisdictions:

The following are currently other parish structures commonly described as (“canonical”) jurisdictions:

  • The Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA, administered by a vicar-bishop (auxiliary) of the Patriarch of Moscow, and
  • the Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in Canada, also administered by a vicar-bishop (auxiliary) of the Patriarch of Moscow.

How are they (within “canonical” Orthodoxy) different from denominations?  Due in part to unfamiliarity, rough analogies, and/or misinformation, Orthodoxy is widely considered “a family of churches,” compared to the Oriental Churches or the historic Anglican Communion, contrasted with the Papacy of Rome, etc.  But I believe Holy Tradition from within Orthodoxy views it as a single Church, subdivided into Patriarchates and other Autocephalous Churches, just as these are further comprised of Autonomous, Semi-Autonomous, and other local Churches — ecclesiastical provinces and bishoprics, generically speaking.  We Westerners aren’t used to thinking of a single Church including more than one ‘effective’ Patriarch, who “does not submit to another patriarch,” since the Patriarch of Rome is effectively “more equal” than his Eastern Catholic and other Latin Patriarchs … with whom most Westerners are unfamiliar anyway!  (This isn’t a put-down of Catholicism in this case, merely an observation.)  Orthodoxy has no human ‘top dog’ able to force other Bishops to his will “under pain of excommunication” the same way Rome has, “merely” a First Among Equals — the same for over 1,600 years.

Orthodoxy’s internal squabbles, turf battles, boundary disputes, and apparent “ethnic” divisiveness, further remind Westerners more of Protestant denominations than of a single Body.  But the institution of the o/Orthodox Ecumenical Synod (Council) makes Orthodoxy’s unity, oneness, most visible.  Before the 20th century it was not unheard of in Orthodoxy to say we had had 9 of these: the 7 commonly-considered during the first Christian millennium, an 8th in there, and the 9th during the 1300s.  It’s been a while, but the next has been in the works for most of the last century (the first that won’t be “strongly encouraged” together by an Orthodox Emperor!).  o/Orthodox Ecumenical Synods have refuted errors and the erroneous, sacked Patriarchs, even examined Popes of Rome for heresy, as well as brought greater order to disorder in the Church … all under the heard/felt, experienced, confirmed leadership of the All-Holy Spirit of God, One of the Trinity, in the meetings and among the holy ones outside the meetings — the true “guardians of the Faith” — who received their Teaching (and rejected “robbers’ synods” lacking the Spirit and misleading the Flock).  Today’s autocephalous Orthodox Churches are the true successors of the 1st millennium’s autocephalous ecclesiastical provinces, and the ante-Nicene “autocephalous” bishoprics, maintaining The Church’s conciliarity, Truth, and reasonableness for nearly 2,000 years.

So internal — if you will, inter-jurisdictional — disagreements are temporary … even if it takes a while to work them out … this seems to be God’s Most Holy Will.

(Take One is here, where I ran off at the mouth for a while!)

Patriarch is one possible title for the presiding bishop or primate of a region of The Orthodox Church comprising a number of bishoprics, and/or even a number of smaller such regions.  Currently the other two possible titles are Metropolitan or Archbishop, although not all Metropolitans or Archbishops are presiding bishops of regions.

At this time Orthodoxy generally recognizes 9 Patriarchs of the following ‘home’ regions, listed in order of honorary seniority:

  1. Constantinople: northern and western Turkey, northern and eastern Greece, Semi-autonomous Church of Crete, Autonomous Church of Finland.  NB: Often referred to as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, style bestowed during the 1st Christian millennium as C’ople was capital of the (“Byzantine”/Eastern) Empire of the Romans, ie, “the  Ecumene,” even while the Pope* and Patriarch of Rome and All the West was still First Among Equals, though most of the time outside the Empire.
  2. Alexandria: continent of Africa, excluding Sinai Peninsula
  3. Antioch: (headquartered in Damascus, Syria, since Middle Ages): southern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Persian Gulf
  4. Jerusalem: Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, (Golan Heights?,) Jordan, rest of Arabian Peninsula, autonomous monastic Church of Sinai
  5. Moscow: former Soviet Union, except part of Caucasus (see Georgia below), Estonia (shared with Constantinople by temporary agreement), Autonomous Church of China (revival under negotiation with PRC; Hong Kong shared cooperatively with Constantinople), Autonomous Church of Japan (C’ople has a couple Greek parishes there), missions in Mongolia, North Korea
  6. Serbia: former Yugoslavia; ministry to Serbs in Romania and Albania by agreement with those Churches.
  7. Romania: that country; ministry to Romanians in Serbia by agreement with that Church.
  8. Bulgaria: that country.
  9. Georgia: that country and adjoining parts of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey.  NB: Georgia’s primate is fully titled Catholicos-Patriarch, Catholicos having been an ancient primatial title in the Caucasus and Mesopotamia.

The following regions’ chief bishops are titled Metropolitan: Poland (autocephalous), Czech Republic and Slovakia (autocephalous), Orthodox Church in America (OCA, de facto autocephalous), Ukraine (Moscow Patriarchate, autonomous), Belarus (MP, autonomous), Japan (MP, autonomous), Moldova (MP, autonomous), several provinces in Romania, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (aka ROCOR: MP, autonomous), the Ukrainian Churches of the USA and of Canada (parts of C’ople).  And the following regions’ chief bishops are titled Archbishop: Greece (ie, western Greece: autocephalous), Cyprus (autocephalous), Albania (autocephalous), Finland (C’ople, autonomous), Crete (C’ople, semiautonomous), the Greek Archdiocese of America (part of C’ople).

The title employed is a matter of local ecclesiastical tradition and evolution.  And as I mentioned, many Metropolitans and Archbishops do not head regions or clusters of bishoprics, but single bishoprics, or may even be auxiliary bishops.  But according to the common law of the Church, “A Patriarch never submits to another Patriarch,” nevermind to any other Bishop … except as equals in order of precedence or honorary seniority.  For example, if two or more Patriarchs find themselves in a meeting or church service together, the senior presides or chairs, but ideally does not ‘dictate.’

*–In Orthodox faith and practice, the title pope has never carried universal jurisdiction or significance, or even necessarily episcopacy.  Orthodoxy’s senior pope is the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, “only” second-among-equals; its other popes, ie, “Fathers,” are parish priests in Greece, Romania, and Russia [hence such common family surnames as Pappas, Popp, and Popov, respectively; St. Innocent of Alaska was born into a family of Popovs in Siberia, but since there were so many unrelated Popovs when he went to school, he was assigned a byname, Veniaminov, by which he became known exclusively].  Thus, the Pope of Rome in their eyes was never more than a brother Patriarch, senior only because Rome was the first capital of the Empire of the Romans (as affirmed on paper by Ecumenical Synods).  OTOH, in its own eyes Rome’s “pope” effectively developed another, higher level of jurisdiction, even over other Patriarchs, sometimes embodied in the fuller title “Pope of the Universal Church.”  The rest of Christianity never accepted this, even if from time to time Rome took actions in the East that came to be accepted, even acclaimed with what is sometimes called “Byzantine hyperbole.”

Why Patriarch at all?  By the middle of the 1st millennium the 5 most important or regionally-influential bishoprics in Chalcedonian Christendom had been accorded recognition as ecclesiastical “country-rulers,” or from the Greek, patri-archs: Old Rome, New Rome (C’ople), Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.  (This among several hundred Ecclesiastical Provinces, and thousands of bishoprics!)  This usage spread with Byzantine Christianity among the Serbs and Bulgarians, and eventually to the Empire of Russia, to Romania, and to Georgia.  Sometimes a new Local Orthodox Church’s primate was not called Patriarch, but “just” Metropolitan or Archbishop, only to have the higher honor of Patriarch bestowed upon him later in history.  The others listed above have not yet been “elevated” to Patriarchal status, and perhaps never will, since in modern times it seems established that a Local Orthodox Church can be autocephalous without having to be a patriarchate; in fact, Cyprus was formally affirmed as autocephalous by the Third Ecumenical Synod (the Council of Ephesus) in the 5th century, and has never been a Patriarchate.

By comparison, AFAIK Metropolitan as a distinct title was never used in Western Europe, although most Latin prelates called Archbishop are actually defined as metropolitan archbishops, that is, as chief bishops of ecclesiastical provinces.  But most Latin provinces have long since lost most of their significance in Church life to Vatican agencies and the relatively-new national and regional Bishops’ Conferences.  In my own state, the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference includes resident ruling hierarchs not only of the Latin Church, but also the Ukrainian and Ruthenian (aka “Byzantine”) uniate Churches.  Similarly, some Anglican primates or archbishops are defined as metropolitans, but not as a title.  OTOH, the most historically significant Latin Patriarchs other than Rome developed thanks to the Crusades’ introduction of the Latin Church into the Near East, and continued with later honorifics for bishops in Venice, Lisbon, the West Indies (ie, colonial Spanish America), and the East Indies (ie, colonial India and vicinity); but there has never been any question of the strictly subordinate character of these other Latin patriarchs to the Pope of Rome.

[In re: “Patriarch of the West”: The page just referenced at Giga-Catholic.com actually graphically illustrates the elevation of Rome above Patriarchates, just as this one does not list Rome AS a Patriarchal See — just as some Orthodox commentators feared when Benedict XVI disused his most influential ancient title, Patriarch of the West, a couple years ago.  What they critiqued is that from the o/Orthodox perspective, far from humbling Rome’s Papal office, this move sought to rely ever more on the unaccepted claim to “Pope of the Universal Church.”  Again ISTM the Orthodox and Rome are talking past one another without realizing it.]

Historically the Latins in many countries had national Primates.  Often these were the bishops of those nations’ oldest Sees, sometimes their most important even if not oldest — and then there are England and Ireland, each with TWO primatial Sees, Canterbury and York, and Armagh and Dublin, respectively!  Baltimore was kind-of considered primatial see of the United States, although the status never developed into as big a deal as in some European countries.  These primacies were usually honorific, sometimes real chairmen of their episcopates, although sometimes in local ecclesiastical politics, or even in dealings with civil rulers, they became real leaders of their peoples.  They are now said to be on the wane worldwide, again in exchange for Bishops’ Conferences.

(“Oops, I did it again.”  Oh well, live and learn!)

What’s a Patriarch?

The election just announced (“Новым Патриархом стал митрополит Кирилл” — with an icon streaming myrrh right there in the church in Moscow! More here and here temporarily. Good short biography here.) of a new Patriarch for around half of the world’s quarter-billion or more Eastern Orthodox Christians (after the repose last month of His Holiness Patriarch ALEXEI II of Moscow, All Rus, “and the Far North” as it was classically described at least once) — Metropolitan KYRILL of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, Russia, widely considered the “frontrunner” (God grant you Many Years, Your Holiness!) — might raise the question of what an Orthodox Patriarch actually is.

And myself coming from a Latin background and living in the West, addressing mostly others living in the West, in English, very familiar with the Pope of Rome — if you’ll permit me, I’ll start off by saying that an Orthodox Patriarch is not normally a “little Pope” whose word is law among those whose Patriarch he is.  Although like all Orthodox Bishops he is officially a leading teacher of Orthodoxy, he does not “develop doctrine,” alone or with anybody else, but merely teaches together with his brother Bishops “that which was handed down from the Apostles,” ie, Holy Tradition (traditio, handing down), including Holy Scripture.

The Orthodox Church is organized into clusters of dioceses, a Tradition established after the First Ecumenical Synod aka the Council of Nicea in AD 325.  No Orthodox Bishop in communion with The Orthodox Church stands alone, but with his brother Bishops, normally on a geographic basis.  (The best comparison for our purposes might be the Anglican Communion’s normative structure, with separate Church Provinces in different countries or regions, each led by its bishops collectively as equals, based on this tradition.)  Such a cluster might be called an ecclesiastical province, a catholicosate (historically), a patriarchate, or other terms such as National Church, Local Church (with a big-L and a big-C), jurisdiction, or simply Church.  And some of these may be ‘clusters of clusters.’

Normally the Ruling Hierarch of the political capital, largest city, or leading diocese, serves as ex officio chairman of the Bishops of that cluster of dioceses — First Among Equals — as well as overseeing its central administrative offices and functionaries, providing stability and focus for the whole Church in that cluster.  Traditionally his diocese was called that cluster’s metropolis, and he, its Metropolitan, or Metropolitan Archbishop.  Today some are instead called Archbishop, primate, or Patriarch.*  In a cluster of clusters, still one of the primates is traditionally ex officio presiding bishop of the whole, with seniority over fellow Bishops of equal rank … although often in such a case the chief bishop is titled Patriarch, so it’s clear.  Orthodox have never recognized any Bishop with greater seniority than a patriarch, and maintain the ancient dictum, “A patriarch never submits to another patriarch,” but takes his turn in the traditional established order of seniority even among patriarchs, as an equal.

(This, naturally, is the [big-T] Traditional problem — ecclesiopolitically if you will — with the claim of the Patriarch of Rome to jurisdiction over other Patriarchs, even back when he was First Among Equal Patriarchs.  “Pope” was never recognized as a rank higher than Patriarch outside the Western Patriarchate; in fact, Christendom’s other Pope, he of Alexandria, Egypt — no unimportant city in the Roman Empire or the later Church — has never aspired to what Orthodox have come to call papalism, that universal, immediate, ordinary, supreme, full jurisdiction over every Christian, asserted by Rome.  Nevermind all the other problems with Rome’s claims, which are not the topic of this post!  BTW, Orthodox Bishops have differing titles, “ranks,” and seniority, only for purposes of order, honor to the dioceses they lead, and varying responsibilities.  That is to say, at every meeting of them their speaking order and chairmanship is predetermined, with the aim of making things run smoother than otherwise; also who presides at a Liturgy with more than one Bishop present.  And a Bishop’s basic responsibilities may be as an auxiliary bishop, or else a Ruling Hierarch, which latter may along with that serve as provincial primate, or primate of a cluster of provinces.)

Today 9  of Orthodoxy’s local primates are Patriarchs, those of Constantinople (Istanbul), Alexandria, Antioch (resident in Damascus), Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia (this last titled Catholicos-Patriarch).  Each is the lead Bishop for Orthodox in the area around his city or country, and some also elsewhere because of 20th-century expansion in Orthodox evangelization and mass migration.  As such, a Patriarch’s (or other primate’s) exact responsibilities vary from place to place.  Besides administering his own diocese, chairing local meetings of synods and councils of Bishops and other churchmen and -women, and overseeing central Church administration and institutions, he often visits throughout his Local Church and other Local Orthodox Churches to maintain ties of fellowship / communion (Greek koinonia) in person, serves high-profile Liturgies, preaches, writes, advocates for public wellbeing and improvement and traditional, Orthodox-influenced culture(s), meets with governmental and non-Orthodox religious leaders, provides overall leadership in his Church, leads in the Church teaching and formation of young people and future churchpeople, and overall tries to help his people be saved….  In short, it’s the work of any Orthodox Bishop, ‘writ large’ if you will.  But normally in a far more collaborative spirit than many Westerners might expect considering Orthodoxy’s ‘oldness’ and ‘conservatism,’ “long beards, robes, and services,” headscarves (often), lack of “praise bands,” dearth of agitation, exhortations to piety and humility, ‘cloistered’ or semi-cloistered monasticism….

It’s a commonplace in the field of  Church History that a Bishop’s “job one” was to ensure the unity of his local flock, protecting it from the divisions of heresy and schism.  A Patriarch’s (or other primate’s), then, is to also ensure the unity of his Patriarchate or Province.  This is similar to the role of ruling bishops and primates in other Churches similarly structured, such as Anglicanism, Catholicism (Western and Eastern, papal and “independent”), the Oriental Churches (ie, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac, Armenian, Asian Indian, etc.), and the Assyrian Church.  In this way, it’s not unique to Orthodoxy.  Even the title of Patriarch is used by other “Eastern” Churches besides us.

And why the title Patriarch?  Really, Patriarch is ‘just’ a primate and Local Church granted more honor and seniority by the Church, for whatever reasons.  It’s not strictly theological or ‘necessary.’  All Orthodox Churches are equal.  Another irony is that Pope Benedict XVI of Rome the other year dropped the one of his many historic titles — Patriarch of the West — that o/Orthodox Tradition can theoretically deal with!

Also, a Patriarch (or Primate, or any Bishop ideally) is revered by Orthodox Tradition as a sacrament, symbol, sacred embodiment of his Church, hence their vestments and their hand-kissing by laity.  He is in a sense the father of his Church; episcopal consecration is part of the “Mystery” of Holy Orders, after all.  The ultimate ‘icon’ of a Church is its primate presiding over Divine Liturgy alongside his clergy, surrounded by the faithful.  After all, it’s not just about pushing pencils!

(*–BTW, an Orthodox Patriarchate is not in the first place what feminist theorists refer to as a patriarchal structure.  In Orthodox usage the word patriarch derives not from Greek words for father-ruler, but country-ruler [in broad and religious senses] … patria as fatherland or motherland, meaning simply a sizeable territory.)

New OCA Primate ex-Episcopalian; Serbia Patriarch staying on; new Mexican ruling hierarch

On the 1st of this month Abbot Jonah (Paffhausen) from California was consecrated Titular Bishop of Ft. Worth, Texas, and Auxiliary Bishop in the OCA’s Diocese of Dallas and the South — probably the newest Bishop in the entire Orthodox Church.  Yesterday (Wed.) he was elected Primate of the OCA, quite possibly the first convert Patriarch or Autocephalous Primate in Orthodoxy in over a thousand years, succeeding Metropolitan HERMAN, who retired for health reasons in September.  Some say clergy and laity taking part in the OCA’s 15th All-American* Council in Pittsburgh, PA, this week, were really impressed when Bishop JONAH presented theological as well as frank responses, at the Synod’s request, to some poignant questions raised regarding the financial scandal of the last few years – the main topic of the Council apart from the primatial election – attracting several standing ovations.  (I’ve never heard him speak before, but after listening to a couple other excerpts of him, and hearing in this brief Ancient Faith Radio interview that he got only about 5 minutes to prepare his remarks, and that things were getting a bit unruly in the hall just prior, I think it’s reasonable to think he was just nervous and/or maybe a little emotional.)  His banquet speech after being elected is moving.  (I wonder if he slept, or was up all night pondering it, and everything else!!)  If you want to hear his sermon right before the election, use this audio MP3 link (availing yourself of the opportunity to use your own, more flexible, software), and advance to about 41 minutes in; the sermon is about 11 minutes long.  (The whole Liturgy is about 2 hours [“…Blackwood!’].  NB: The Scripture Readings used, Metropolitan JONAH says, were those of the day, and not specially chosen for the occasion of the Council or the Election.  Through the Fathers of the Church who composed the Orthodox Lectionary, the Lord moves in mysterious ways!)

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the local newspaper of record, provides their version of coverage (although at 62, Archbishop JOB of Chicago is hardly “elderly”!!!  Though DMITRI of Dallas, who’s 85 and has been trying for a few years to get an Auxiliary, certainly qualifies, and not as a put-down: his place in history starts with the Warren Commission investigation, in 1964, of the JFK assassination, since he was ministering to Russians and others in Dallas and vicinity, with whom Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian wife might have interacted.).  This link includes details about the election procedure.  Briefly, the clergy and lay parish representatives nominate candidates, and the Synod elects them, or if one receives two-thirds support from the clergy and laity, may only reject him with stated reasons why.  A Provincial (or Patriarchal) Synod prerogative or requirement to confirm the election and translation of Bishops was established I believe around the middle of the first Christian millennium.  Later lower clergy and laity corporately – not counting Orthodox (or Muslim) Monarchs – mostly lost the right to nominate or elect Bishops, but the Moscow Council of 1917-18 attempted to re-establish it there in some form.  Although the Patriarchate was prevented from going forward with this plan by Bolshevik rule, those in North America followed through with it; also owing to their early developmental stage, and the importance lower clergy and laity had in swelling the size and structures of the North American Diocese (‘proto-OCA’) with the conversions and immigration from the late 1800s.  (It should be noted that in the final decades of the Ottoman Empire, the Patriarch of Constantinople was chosen by a “mixed council” of Bishops and laity, though this council was abolished after the fall of the empire.  Also, I believe I have read that the actual Synod of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem includes some lower clergy, who participate in Patriarchal elections.  And in Romania, as we recently saw, lay reps also take part.)  God Grant Metropolitan JONAH Many Years!

I’ve been busy with politics the last few weeks, so I didn’t know Patriarch PAUL of Serbia (Serbian PAVLE) asked to retire on account of physical disability.  But his Assembly of Bishops has just gotten him to agree to stay on.  I believe he’s been ailing for quite some time.

At the time I did note the election of the OCA’s Bishop ALEJO (Pacheco-Vera) of Mexico City to be Ruling Hierarch there, but didn’t make it over here to post it.  Fascinating story here.  In 1972 now-Archbishop DMITRI of Dallas was instrumental in bringing into the canonical Orthodox Church (a contingent from?) the Mexican National Catholic Church — an “independent Catholic” group that IIUC has been the source of Westernly-“valid” episcopal consecrations for many independent, uncanonical, or vagante groups — and as the OCA news brief notes, adding their bishop, JOSE (Cortes y Olmos), to the Holy Synod after Orthodox consecration.  (JOSE was even a Rome-trained canon lawyer before joining the MNCC.)  In fact 2008 is the 25th anniversary of JOSE’s 1983 repose.  (Memory Eternal!)  The MNCC’s discovery of Orthodoxy foreshadowed that of the Evangelical Orthodox who in ’87 were received into the Antiochian Archdiocese en masse after study:

The new bishop and his clergy became gradually convinced, through study and reflection, that the Old Catholic ecclesiological principles did not conform to the criteria of the One, True, Catholic Church. They came to identify with Orthodox Holy Tradition, and adopted the designation “Orthodox” – Iglesia Ortodoxa Catolica en Mexicao (Orthodox {Catholic} Church in Mexico).

Or put more chronologically, the EOs’ conversion echoed the Mexicans’.  Now, ALEJO was considered ‘only’ Titular Bishop of Mexico City before last month, serving as Auxiliary Bishop and Administrator for the Exarchate of Mexico under Abp DMITRI and/or Metropolitan HERMAN.  As Ruling Hierarch he now becomes actual Bishop of Mexico City.  And why “Exarchate”?: I believe the OCA doesn’t consider Mexico part of its ‘proper’ canonical territory … only the U.S. and Canada, as reflected in its Autocephaly documents.  IIUC they call Mexico an exarchate in the sense that it is a ‘jurisdiction-outside,’ the literal meaning of exarchate from the Greek, and akin to what they often call the exarchates of other Patriarchates here in the Western world outside their canonical territories as commonly understood.  I know of Greek, Antiochian, Moscow Patriarchal, and Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) institutions also in Mexico; I’m not sure if there are others there.  And while Orthodoxy doesn’t encourage us non-Bishops to play Canon Lawyer at home, ISTM functioning outside your canonical territory is considered OK if it isn’t anybody else’s canonical territory, “according to the ancient Fathers” as I believe it says somewhere, probably in the spirit of evangelizing new lands sooner or later — think of it as ecclesiastical Common Law perhaps … though preferably there’d only be one jurisdiction in each place embracing all Orthodox of all languages and cultures and identities, etc….  Anyway, Many Years to Bishop ALEJO of Mexico City!

(*–The expression “All-American” here isn’t necessarily meant to evoke patriotism or non-ethnicity, simply that it covers all of “America” in the East European [not Latin American] sense of all North America, including Canada.  [So technically it wasn’t ironic to have the previous All-American Council in Toronto.]  The precedent comes from the OCA’s mother Church of Russia, which has “All-Russian” councils; in fact, there are many “all-Russian” things, even non-religious, and this habit even survived during Communism, when instead they were “all-Union” as in Soviet Union-wide.  Similarly, the biggest gatherings of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia [ROCOR] are “All-Diaspora” Councils.  ISTM possible this usage came from the Greeks, who even today have numerous “Pan-Hellenic” entities and organizations, pan being Greek for all.  The same for the OCA Primate’s title, Metropolitan of All America and Canada, parallelled by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus … which is similar but not the same as “Tsar of All the Russias,” where historically you had Great Russia, Little Russia, White Russia, etc., hence, “All the Russias.”  Unless this is simply a translation issue, where I’m sure I’ll welcome correction!)

Sometimes you will see Orthodox refer to a liturgy as pontifical.  Naturally, this has nothing to do with the Pope of Rome, among whose titles are “Pontifex Maximus” and “Sovereign Pontiff.”  I believe a more commonly-used synonym among English-speaking Orthodox is hierarchical, as in Hierarchical Divine Liturgy.  Actually pontifical has been traditionally used this way in the Latin Church also: a pontifical Mass was an extraordinarily ceremonial one presided over by a bishop – any bishop, not just the Pope.  I.e., a Hierarchical Divine Liturgy.  And you haven’t seen “smells and bells” till you’ve been present or worshiped at an Orthodox “HDL”!  They seem to have levels of solemnity even within this one variety of Liturgy, though it’s the same Divine Liturgy, just with extra ‘bishop-y’ ceremonies added, such as:

  • greeting the Bishop at the entrance of the temple, the back doors, His Grace wearing his longest and most colorful top-robe, the mantia, embroidered with his initials at the hem, such as M and T for Metropolitan THEODOSIUS, M and H for Metropolitan HERMAN, or B and T for Bishop TIKHON of Philadelphia, all from the OCA (the three Orthodox Bishops at some of whose HDLs I’ve been present while visiting St. Tikhon’s Monastery Church for Liturgy)
  • repeated choral / congregational chants of “Many Years, Master” – even the Russians never translated this from Koine Greek: “Eis polla eti, Despota,” pronounced “EES-pull-ah ETT-ee DESS-poh-tah”
  • long minutes of one or two deacons swinging censers, sweet smoke filling the temple  (Orthodox don’t cough at incense as much as post-Vatican II Latins do, as little as they experience it!  The former must have lead-lined windpipes!)
  • ceremonial vesting of the Bishop for Liturgy by one or two subdeacons
  • after the vesting, everyone present kissing the Bishop’s hand in turn while he blesses them
  • the Bishop literally “presiding” from the cathedra while other priests (and/or Bishops!) begin the actual Liturgy in the altar.  Although the word means seat/throne, at St. Tikhon’s the cathedra is actually a small platform in the midst of the congregation, adorned with an eagle rug symbolizing the diocese, on which the Bishop stands whenever he officiates – when he’s standing still, anyway!  (St. Tikhon’s also has a couple high-backed chairs at the right-front of the temple for Bishops to sit on or stand at when present but not serving the Liturgy; other jurisdictions may place these inside the altar.)
  • the other clergy ‘liturgizing‘ with him processing from the altar out to the cathedra several times to do some prayers/chants there with him
  • the Bishop processing into the altar to lead the serving himself there
  • the Bishop repeatedly blessing the congregation thrice, to his left, center, and right, with two long lit candles in one hand and three in the other, which he crosses like an X
  • an extra-solemn Trisagion Hymn
  • if a Patriarch or Autocephalous Primate is serving, several chantings of The Diptychs by him, deacon, and/or choir, praying for the other Patriarchs and Autocephalous Primates with whom he is in Communion  (NB: The linked version of the diptychs is as they stood last Fall; Greece has since gotten a new Primate.)
  • and probably other sights and sounds I can’t remember!

Why?  From one perspective an Orthodox Bishop represents Christ in his diocese (and a Primate or Patriarch, also in his “jurisdiction”).  Again, the Bishop embodies / represents his diocese, symbolizes it, is a “sacrament” of it, idealizes it.  Yet again, the Bishop is looked upon as his diocese’s husband, and the diocese his wife, as Christ has the Church for His bride.  (A diocese whose Ruling Hierarch has reposed is traditionally referred to as widowed.)  In another way, the Bishop is his diocese’s ultimate spiritual father, teacher, guide, protector, president (in Greek they still say lord, kyrios … sometimes awkwardly translated Mr., ie, Mister, online!), disciplinarian, chief liturgical presider (whom his priests represent in their parishes), high priest, archpastor, leader….  As intimidating as all that sounds, he is ideally also looked upon affectionately enough to deserve terms of endearment like his people’s actual fathers – Greek Despota mou, My master (dating from before “despot” took on negative connotations); Slavonic Vladyka (pronounced VLAH-di-ka); Arabic Sayidna/Sayedna; etc.  A Holy Orthodox Bishop is clearly much more to devout Orthodox than an administrator, stated clerk, moderator, chairman, governor, faction leader, etc. – yet ideally not “over” his Church as if not part of it himself, but WITHIN it, “episcopus in ecclesia.”  So ideally all this is what’s being manifested in an Orthodox Hierarchical Divine Liturgy.

However, sometimes a Bishop serves Liturgy very plainly too.  Once at St. Tikhon’s, I think it was right after something big there, ie, alot of work for the Bishops and clergy and monks, I attended liturgy and Metr. Herman was the only cleric on hand, and except for a couple plain run-throughs of the diptychs, it was pretty much a normal Liturgy.  IIRC even the choir was minimal.  So apparently it’s not always considered a requirement that if a Bishop serves, it has to be ‘slam-bang.’

No, I don’t mean two icons linked side-by-side with a hinge to stand on your mantelpiece, although that’s very nice!

These Diptychs (misspelled on the actual PDF linked from this page!) play an important role in Church history, but most (canonical) Orthodox never actually see or hear them, because they’re only part of Liturgies served by a Patriarch or other Autocephalous Primate … and even then, of course, mostly in languages they don’t speak, such as Koine Greek, Church Slavonic, or Old Arabic, although if you have any familiarity with Modern Greek, a Slavic language, or Modern Arabic, you may be able to ‘decode’ what you’re hearing if present … especially if you know to expect it when it comes around.

I’ve been present at a number of Liturgies served by The OCA’s Metropolitans THEODOSIUS and HERMAN in recent years (at St. Tikhon’s Monastery in Pennsylvania), and it’s always neat to hear such evocation of the whole Orthodox Church, in person as it were. IIRC the Diptychs actually come up at least twice during a Hierarchical Divine Liturgy served by a Patriarch or Autocephalous Primate. Usually I’ve heard them chanted by the Primate himself, read from a large book held by a deacon in front of the Holy Doors in the middle of the iconostasis. But at the 2002 St. Tikhon’s Monastery Pilgrimage HDL on Memorial Day (Monday), at least once they were chanted by the deacon and echoed by the choir, I believe in the form listed on the PDF, ie, with the words “Many Years” at the end of each one. That was majestic!

A year ago when the Pope of Rome visited Istanbul, the Liturgy with Patriarch BARTHOLOMEW on TV included the Diptychs also, but not in a form I could follow well with my year of Protestant seminary Greek!

‘Diptych politics’? (aka “poli(dip)tychs”):

  • First of all, this is what various accounts mean when they talk about “commemorating;” actually it’s praying for each other by name, as you can see on the PDF … a version of what every priest or Auxiliary Bishop does when he prays for his Ruling Hierarch (and sometimes also his jurisdictional primate or Patriarch, and any other Bishops who may be present at that Liturgy) by name … or every Ruling Hierarch, his primate/Patriarch, etc. In the Diptychs, Patriarchs and Autocephalous Primates pray for others with whom they consider themselves in communion, representing other Local Churches with whom they consider themselves in communion. They also delete them when they consider themselves not in communion with them, as Rome and Constantinople did after the mutual excommunications in 1054, as Moscow did with C’ople for a while in the 1990s during their dispute over jurisdiction in Estonia, and as C’ople did with Greece briefly a couple years ago over Greece’s administration of C’ople’s churches in the “New Lands,” in the north of that country.
  • Conspicuous by his absence from Patriarch Bartholomew’s Diptychs last year would’ve been OCA Metr. Herman, not recognized as an Autocephalous Primate by Constantinople, but as merely a Bishop within the Patriarchate of Moscow, the OCA’s original mission-sending Church (and hence “canonical” in C’ople’s eyes since its recognition in 1990, after the OCA and MP reconciled in 1970). I noted when Herman visited Bartholomew in 2003, that for reasons never specified by the OCA, the two never served services together as I would expect; instead, they “attended” a couple services together, and Herman “received Holy Communion” at one, at the closed seminary on Halki Island, presumably with a small worshiping congregation … although I would expect an Orthodox Bishop even ‘merely attending’ a service to be commemorated by the cleric serving it, as I have witnessed many times at St. Tikhon’s with Liturgies served by priests in the presence of different Bishops non-serving. I wonder how they handled that?
  • On the PDF, it seems the OCA commemorates Bartholomew as “His Holiness,” to my knowledge following the usage of Moscow, and not “His All-Holiness” according to the usage of the Greeks under Constantinople’s jurisdiction.
  • Some of the names on the PDF are Anglicized, others are not, and some AFAIK do not lend themselves to Anglicization (Christodoulos, Anastasios).
  • Since the Primate of Georgia in the Caucasus actually has two titles, Catholicos and Patriarch, I’ve seen him referred to elsewhere as “His Holiness and Beatitude,” or vice-versa, but the PDF just uses Holiness. (Georgia seems to have deleted the brief English version of its website.)
  • Sometimes hearing the Diptychs is like stuff “torn from today’s headlines,” such as when I witnessed Herman having deleted the just-deposed Patriarch Irenaios of Jerusalem in 2005. (Temporary administrators or locum tenentes of vacant patriarchal or primatial Sees apparently aren’t commemorated.)
  • Since the century-old Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t mention this kind of diptych usage, it seems that the Popes of Rome hadn’t done it in many centuries, not even with Eastern Catholic full patriarchs in communion with them, ie, Maronite, Melkite, Syrian, Armenian, and Coptic. I’m not certain about today though.
  • Sometimes non-canonical groups claim to be in communion with Orthodoxy, and some even commemorate Bartholomew in their own services. But the proof is in whether they are commemorated *by* recognizable Orthodoxy, whether directly by the name of their “primate,” or indirectly through the name of the recognizable Patriarch or Autocephalous Primate who acknowledges them as part of his Local Church. If not, they are not considered any part of recognizable Orthodoxy *by* recognizable Orthodoxy.** This is why the ultimate question to ask a group is Who is your Ruling Hierarch? or Who is his Patriarch or Autocephalous Primate? If they’re not listed on the PDF, they are not considered any part of the recognizable Orthodox Church.**
    • (**–Normally, that is! In cases of hopefully temporary deletion as above, get back to them – or someone else – after a little while to see if there’s any ‘clarification’ of the situation, if you can’t find a more reliable, ‘safe’ jurisdiction near you. Of course, C’ople considered Bulgaria in schism from the 1870s till the 1940s [though Russia did not], and Russia for a century and a half after it rejected the Union of Florence as noted above. Sometimes The Truth is a matter of process in Orthodoxy, not always cut-and-dried instant ‘black-and-white’ answers. I’m no spiritual father, monk, priest, or Bishop, so consult around with reliable sources, and basically just Do Your Best. Consider the traditional rule of journalism: Check every story with at least two sources! BTW, this isn’t what one famous writer once called “ecclesiology of subordination” or words to that effect, like asking “Who are you ‘under’?” as in “under C’ople” or “under Moscow” or “under Romania” or whatever – though it’s often still expressed that way. I think that talk comes from the expression “under a bishop’s omophorion,” that is to say, his authority or archpastorship or leadership. Usually it comes down to a Church overseas, or a Patriarch overseas, as if not all [big-C] Churches are equal but some are “under” others, or as if Patriarchs do anything that significant on their own authority without their Synods. But a real Orthodox parish is a subdivision of a bishopric with a Ruling Hierarch, and all bishoprics – dioceses, metropolises, etc. – are part of a larger Local Church; canonical Orthodoxy has no stand-alone parishes or dioceses! This is all you’re asking. The Ruling Hierarch embodies his diocese; the Patriarch or Autocephalous Primate embodies his cluster of dioceses … and through the Diptychs all are ‘represented.’
      • A further problem, if you don’t consult widely or rightly enough, is exemplified by the fact that I don’t see a whole lot of discussion on the WWW [apart from here] about why or how certain Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches consider The OCA “canonical but not autocephalous.” I once had a Web discussion with someone I thought was well-informed, who seemed genuinely surprised to learn that the OCA “traces its orders to Russia” or words to that effect – as though he’d thought they were some start-up ‘Internet jurisdiction’ or something. But others, particularly some older cradle Orthodox, simply seem not ‘updated’ on the OCA’s recognition by C’ople et al. since 1990.
      • Yet again, some groups claim past or even ongoing relationships of various kinds with canonical jurisdictions or bishops, “concelebration” or their “orders recognized,” or that their priests or bishops even provided vacation relief for a canonical jurisdiction’s priests, etc. I don’t have any explanation for any of this – that’s Bishops’ responsibility – except to say Play It Safe.)