The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church : a review article of the recently published monograph by Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis
Main Article Content
Abstract
A critical examination of the Rev. Maximus of Sardis’ treatise on the
Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church reveals that the author has
set forth in six chapters an attractive account of the development of the See of Byzantium between the years 330-451, when her «primacy of honour» was
established upon an eternal canonical basis; that is, when Canon 28 of the
Fourth Oecumenical Council was passed as an extraordinary resolution and
she was declared Archiepiscopate and Patriarchate of Constantinople and, as
the See of Rome was in the West, the 'final arbiter’ of the East. The Metropolitan of Sardis is already widely known for his writings; in this present work of some 389 pages, including summaries and a full bibliography, he displays his command of both the primary and secondary sources that bear upon this momentous subject, be they historical in the general sense or more specifically related to the history of creeds and the canonlaw of Eastern Orthodoxy. From the pages of this work emerges a lucid portrait of the processes which culminated in the proclamation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as head of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and chief representative of their liberal spirit—as an Oecumenical Throne founded upon the principle of «unity through identity» in belief, government and worship of the bishops ; as the embodiment of «catholicity», of the democratically-based «synodical system» and of the spirit of the Orthodox Catholic Church; and as the perpetuator of the tradition of the Ancient Catholic Church. The illustrious role of the See of Constantinople since the fourth century is also brought out; from its very inception the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was Christian, and it was through the Church that it became a Greek and Christian Empire with world-wide influence and activity (witness the spread of Christianity and civilization amongst the Slavs by the Greek missionaries Cyril and Methodius). It was this Church that led to the formation of autonomous autocephalous Churches. In fulfilling the responsibility that it had assumed for the guidance of new Churches and the defence of Orthodoxy during the Byzantine, post-Byzantine (Turkish) and modern eras, the Oecumenical Patriarchate combined with its oecumenical character the role of Mother Church of the nations, fostering the Churches’ unity in Orthodoxy whilst respecting their autocephalous status and without intervening in their internal lives. This was evidenced upon many occasions during the revolutions that accompanied the emergence of the principle of nationhood. In the spirit of sensitivity proven through experience, the leading See of the East, the «first - among - equals» of Orthodoxy dealt capably with the problems that arose from time to time in the relations between the Churches, not only throughout the extremely exacting years of Turkish occupation, when it fulfilled a threefold ethnico-national, panorthodox and oecumenical mission, but also more recently during the rise of nineteenth-century racial nationalism. The present work witnesses eminently to the fact that, in times that were difficult for itself and for Orthodoxy, the Oecumenical Throne was able (a) to successfully demonstrate and to strengthen the consciousness of unity in faith, government and liturgical life within Orthodoxy; (b) whilst always respecting the «primacy of honour», to impose canonical order and defend its institutions successfully and with resourcefulness; and further (c) to combine moderateness in its decisions with the fulfilment of its role as leader on a panorthodox and panChristian scale (1902-1920-1974), especially during the last fifty years (see Abstracts 421 particularly pages 320-333), and to cause a constructive spirit to prevail within the Churches. This constitutes a highly significant contribution to a contemporary issue in that it re-establishes once again the historical truth that the «primacy of honour» of the occupant of the First See of the East, the Oecumenical Patriarch, functions successfully in practice; and in our own day he has proved his effectiveness as a panorthodox and pan-Christian leader.
Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church reveals that the author has
set forth in six chapters an attractive account of the development of the See of Byzantium between the years 330-451, when her «primacy of honour» was
established upon an eternal canonical basis; that is, when Canon 28 of the
Fourth Oecumenical Council was passed as an extraordinary resolution and
she was declared Archiepiscopate and Patriarchate of Constantinople and, as
the See of Rome was in the West, the 'final arbiter’ of the East. The Metropolitan of Sardis is already widely known for his writings; in this present work of some 389 pages, including summaries and a full bibliography, he displays his command of both the primary and secondary sources that bear upon this momentous subject, be they historical in the general sense or more specifically related to the history of creeds and the canonlaw of Eastern Orthodoxy. From the pages of this work emerges a lucid portrait of the processes which culminated in the proclamation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as head of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and chief representative of their liberal spirit—as an Oecumenical Throne founded upon the principle of «unity through identity» in belief, government and worship of the bishops ; as the embodiment of «catholicity», of the democratically-based «synodical system» and of the spirit of the Orthodox Catholic Church; and as the perpetuator of the tradition of the Ancient Catholic Church. The illustrious role of the See of Constantinople since the fourth century is also brought out; from its very inception the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was Christian, and it was through the Church that it became a Greek and Christian Empire with world-wide influence and activity (witness the spread of Christianity and civilization amongst the Slavs by the Greek missionaries Cyril and Methodius). It was this Church that led to the formation of autonomous autocephalous Churches. In fulfilling the responsibility that it had assumed for the guidance of new Churches and the defence of Orthodoxy during the Byzantine, post-Byzantine (Turkish) and modern eras, the Oecumenical Patriarchate combined with its oecumenical character the role of Mother Church of the nations, fostering the Churches’ unity in Orthodoxy whilst respecting their autocephalous status and without intervening in their internal lives. This was evidenced upon many occasions during the revolutions that accompanied the emergence of the principle of nationhood. In the spirit of sensitivity proven through experience, the leading See of the East, the «first - among - equals» of Orthodoxy dealt capably with the problems that arose from time to time in the relations between the Churches, not only throughout the extremely exacting years of Turkish occupation, when it fulfilled a threefold ethnico-national, panorthodox and oecumenical mission, but also more recently during the rise of nineteenth-century racial nationalism. The present work witnesses eminently to the fact that, in times that were difficult for itself and for Orthodoxy, the Oecumenical Throne was able (a) to successfully demonstrate and to strengthen the consciousness of unity in faith, government and liturgical life within Orthodoxy; (b) whilst always respecting the «primacy of honour», to impose canonical order and defend its institutions successfully and with resourcefulness; and further (c) to combine moderateness in its decisions with the fulfilment of its role as leader on a panorthodox and panChristian scale (1902-1920-1974), especially during the last fifty years (see Abstracts 421 particularly pages 320-333), and to cause a constructive spirit to prevail within the Churches. This constitutes a highly significant contribution to a contemporary issue in that it re-establishes once again the historical truth that the «primacy of honour» of the occupant of the First See of the East, the Oecumenical Patriarch, functions successfully in practice; and in our own day he has proved his effectiveness as a panorthodox and pan-Christian leader.
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles