- May 2, 2017
- 1,725
- 1,269
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I came across the letter from Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople to Patriarch Pimen of Moscow on the granting of autocephaly to the OCA.
1970 Letter from Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras on Autocephaly - Orthodox History
In the letter, HAH Athenagoras writes some interesting things criticizing HE Pimen (and his predecessor, Alexis I) for such an action, saying some of the following things which I'll quote here, emphasis mine:
1970 Letter from Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras on Autocephaly - Orthodox History
In the letter, HAH Athenagoras writes some interesting things criticizing HE Pimen (and his predecessor, Alexis I) for such an action, saying some of the following things which I'll quote here, emphasis mine:
5. (...) it may be concluded that the granting of autocephaly is a right belonging to the Church as a whole, and cannot at all be considered a right of “each Autocephalous Church,” as is stated in the letter of Patriarch Alexis of blessed memory.
7. (...)
This same stamp of validity by an Ecumenical Synod is needed also, for their definitive and continuing autocephalous existence, by the newer autocephalous Churches because of the unfavorable circumstances in which they may at times find themselves. These include the Churches to which the Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne gave the stamp of autocephaly with the approval of the other Orthodox Churches.
8. The Ecumenical Patriarchate could do this because of its attribute as the Mother Church and its status as the “First Among Equals” in reference to the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and because it is at the center of the internal unity of the entire Orthodox Church, helping the other Churches in their needs — a duty that derives from its presiding and excelling position within the family of the Orthodox Churches.
11. If, according to the above, it is uncanonical for a local Autocephalous Church to declare autocephalous a branch Church detached from its ecclesiastical realm, not only not comprising a component part of it, but also not having had a canonical relation to it or dependence on it — then how much more uncanonical would be such a declaration of autocephaly in reference to a Church completely outside of your boundaries.
The letter certainly says much more - it addresses the granting of autocephaly to Russia from Constantinople, the need for a Holy Council, etc. However, when I read this, I couldn't help but think about the situation in Ukraine, where the EP seems to be doing the same things that his predecessor criticized the Russians for, 50 years ago. Are there similarities between these two actions? Certainly, I know there are differences - one being that the OCU-EP is formed from groups that had been excommunicated by the MP - but a lot sounds like it could have been written by the MP to the EP in 2018, instead of the other way around (the EP writing to the MP in 1970).7. (...)
This same stamp of validity by an Ecumenical Synod is needed also, for their definitive and continuing autocephalous existence, by the newer autocephalous Churches because of the unfavorable circumstances in which they may at times find themselves. These include the Churches to which the Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne gave the stamp of autocephaly with the approval of the other Orthodox Churches.
8. The Ecumenical Patriarchate could do this because of its attribute as the Mother Church and its status as the “First Among Equals” in reference to the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and because it is at the center of the internal unity of the entire Orthodox Church, helping the other Churches in their needs — a duty that derives from its presiding and excelling position within the family of the Orthodox Churches.
11. If, according to the above, it is uncanonical for a local Autocephalous Church to declare autocephalous a branch Church detached from its ecclesiastical realm, not only not comprising a component part of it, but also not having had a canonical relation to it or dependence on it — then how much more uncanonical would be such a declaration of autocephaly in reference to a Church completely outside of your boundaries.
