Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, the Nation-State, and the Specter of Byzantium

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, the Nation-State, and the Specter of Byzantium ANNALS OF HISTORY Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, the Nation-State, and the Specter of Byzantium George E. Demacopoulos While it is customary for Orthodox a Christian presence. The bishop was Christians to look to canonical legis- the overseer (episcopos) for a local as- lation when they seek to evaluate the sembly (ekklesia) of Christians in that challenges of the contemporary world, location, regardless of the size of com- it is rarely the case that inquirers prop- munity, and each distinct community erly account for the full context or Sitz constituted “the Church” as a sacra- im Leben of the canons. And while one mental whole. When the number of might make a case for the timeless in- Christians increased, especially after sight of canonical prescriptions when the legalization of Christianity in the dealing with dogmatic teaching or fourth century, church leaders turned moral prohibitions, it is less appropri- to Roman imperial structures to ac- ate to do so when trying to apply the commodate and regulate this growth. canons to issues of ecclesiastical juris- Individual dioceses were grouped diction, such as the question of auto- into larger metropolitanates, each cephaly. This is because ecclesiastical administratively guided by a metro- borders in the Orthodox Church have politan bishop. The Church not only always reflected broader geopolitical appropriated this concept from the realities, if somewhat belatedly, and Roman political structure, but also this is precisely the context in which adopted the map of the imperial pro- the few canons that speak to these vincial network, recognizing the same issues emerged. In other words, the metropolitan cities that the Romans canons on questions of jurisdiction do had designated to govern each prov- not offer theological verdicts but sim- ince. Whenever the Romans altered ply confirm that the ecclesiastical map the boundaries between or within of the Byzantine church should mirror provinces—as they did frequently— the jurisdictional framework of the the Church followed suit by modify- imperial provincial network. Perhaps ing its own ecclesiastical map to mir- even more problematic for the mod- ror the secular one. ern appropriation of these canons is the fact that they presume an imperial Thus, the earliest articulations of au- superstructure that no longer exists. tocephaly that survive in canonical legislation are little more than the In the early Church, the emergence of Church’s adaptation of the internal diocesan boundaries was little more structure of the Roman government, than the recognition of a sociological which afforded administrative in- reality: that there was a geographic dependence to a handful of Roman gap between towns or villages with provincial governors with super-juris- 12 dictional authority. Each of these su- Christian communities that existed © 2019 The Wheel. per-jurisdictions consisted of multiple within the empire. It was only tangen- May be distributed for noncommercial use. provincial metropolitanates under a tially concerned with the administra- www.wheeljournal.com single political leader, who reported tion of the Church beyond imperial directly to the Roman emperor. Even borders. In fact, even though a signifi- the rights assigned in canon law to the cant proportion of Christians from the Church’s autocephalous leaders mim- fourth through the seventh centuries ic the rights of provincial governors lived beyond the imperial borders, within the imperial structure. So while Byzantine canon law made no effort it is true that a handful of Church can- to establish specific diocesan bound- ons from the fifth through the seventh aries or relate external jurisdiction and centuries describe the conditions of bishops to those of the empire. For autocephaly and emphasize the inde- example, even though the Council of pendence of an ecclesiastical primate, Nicaea (325) granted—in rather vague these same canons simply presume the terms—jurisdictional authority “over existence of an overarching imperial the East” to the bishop of Antioch, structure and make very little (histori- there is no surviving evidence to sug- cal) sense without one. This is because gest that anyone took that to mean an the same canons take for granted that East beyond the Roman frontier. The each autocephalous leader is a citizen very large population of Christians on of a common political structure—the the other side of the Roman-Persian Roman or Byzantine Empire—and, as border operated independently; theirs such, is beholden to the empire (and was an ecclesiological domain beyond to the emperor) in multiple ways. To the scope of Byzantine canonical interest. put it in contemporary political terms, the super-jurisdictions were self-gov- To be sure, Canon 28 of Chalcedon erning but they were not sovereign. (451) grants the Archbishop of Con- stantinople the right to ordain and There are several reasons for caution as appoint bishops in the “barbarian we seek to understand the application lands.” This remains a point of inter- of these historical realities today. First, est because of its implications for the there is no evidence that the bishops jurisdictional authority of the Ecu- who drafted this legislation thought menical Patriarchate. But with respect through the ecclesiological implica- to what it meant in the Byzantine pe- tions of—or made theological argu- riod, I would note that this canon does ments for—this precise model. From a not establish specific jurisdictional historical point of view, it seems much boundaries within the “barbarian more likely that they simply appropri- lands” and it presumes that there are ated the imperial model because that no bishops currently serving the pop- was the model with which they were ulations under consideration. Thus, familiar and because church and state the canon does not refer to those com- were so completely integrated by the munities long since established but sixth century that it would not have existing outside of the empire (such occurred to anyone that the Church as the Christians of Persia or Ethio- should develop a distinct administra- pia), but rather to those communities tive superstructure. that do not presently have episcopal oversight (such as the Germanic tribes Second, the scope of Byzantine canon north of Thrace). In other words, Can- law regarding issues of jurisdiction on 28 of Chalcedon is almost surely was primarily concerned with the concerned with the rights and regu- The Wheel 17/18 | Spring/Summer 2019 13 lations of bishops within the Byzan- horizon in its articulation of imperial tine empire (Constantinople vis-à- legislation. But scholars of Byzantium vis Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch) are increasingly challenging the no- regarding expansion into new areas tion that Justinian’s contemporaries and under whose jurisdiction those shared this universalist political vi- Christians would fall. It does not at- sion and they are especially doubtful tempt to regulate the jurisdiction of that subsequent Byzantine thinkers existing bishops who reside beyond viewed their empire in such terms.1 the empire, nor jurisdictional disputes As we will see, the apparent incongru- between bishops within the empire ence of individual state interests and and those outside it. the universalist claims of Christian theology as reflected in Byzantine ca- The longstanding misapplication of nonical efforts to establish ecclesiasti- the Byzantine canonical tradition no cal jurisdictions was compounded by 1 See especially doubt stems partly from the fact that the rise of the nation-state. Anthony Kaldellis, some Byzantines had a habit of em- Hellenism in Byzantium: The ploying universalist language even The Challenge of the Nation-State Transformations of though they were seeking to regulate Greek Identity and issues inside the empire. Indeed, in In his groundbreaking work Imag- the Reception of the the modern world we often invoke the ined Communities, Benedict Ander- Classical Tradition universalist term oikoumenie when we son makes a compelling case for the (Cambridge: Cambridge discuss the early Church. The word nation-state as a uniquely modern University Press, literally means “the inhabited earth.” phenomenon. For Anderson, the na- 2007). It is precisely for this reason that we tion-state unites otherwise diverse refer to the “Ecumenical” Councils, 2 peoples through a complex matrix of Benedict Anderson, because we hold their dogmatic claims such deep imagined associations and Imagined Communi- ties: Reflections on the to be universally binding. But in the dependencies that individuals are Origin and Spread of legislation of the Roman emperor Jus- willing to wage war in order to defend Nationalism (New tinian, which provides the foundation people whom they have never met.2 York: Verso, 1983). for so much of our thinking about mat- For Anderson, this sociopolitical fidel- ters of autocephaly and pentarchy, the ity exists only in modernity because Nicolaus Germanus, Map of the world word oikoumenie functions as a stand- it is only after the Enlightenment that after Ptolemy, 1467. in for “the empire.” One might make individuals began to conceive of cit- National Library of the case that Justinian’s language, at izenship as commitment to an idea. Poland. Detail. least rhetorically, envisioned a global This notion of belonging is different from a premodern clan, kingdom, or empire, he argues, because in those arrangements, an individual’s fidelity to the group was predicated upon hi- erarchical associations involving spe- cific individuals—the clan leader, the king, the king’s representative, and so forth. In the nation-state, however, the citizen’s allegiance and identity are to the nation, the idea of the nation, and the equality that one believes him or herself to share with other citizens of the nation. For example, in premod- ern France, one’s loyalty was to the French king, and one’s standing vis- 14 à-vis the state was determined by his ethnicity, and shared history—reflect © 2019 The Wheel. relationship to the king or the king’s social, cultural, and political reali- May be distributed for noncommercial use.
Recommended publications
  • Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA Church Assembly—Sabor 800 Years of Autocephaly of the Serbian Orthodox Church: “Endowed by God, Treasured by the People”
    Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA Church Assembly—Sabor 800 Years of Autocephaly of the Serbian Orthodox Church: “Endowed by God, Treasured by the People” August 1, 2019 Holy Despot Stephen the Tall and Venerable Eugenia (Lazarevich) LIBERTYVILLE STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCH ASSEMBLY-SABOR REGARDING THE CONSTITUTION AND RELATED GOVERNING DOCUMENTS To the Very Reverend and Reverend Priests and Deacons, Venerable Monastics, the Members and Parishioners of the Church-School Congregations and Mission Parishes of the Serbian Orthodox Dioceses in the United States of America Beloved Clerics, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, As we have received numerous questions and concerns regarding the updated combined version of the current Constitution, General Rules and Regulations and Uniform Rules and Regulations for Parishes and Church School Congregations of the Serbian Orthodox Dioceses in the United States of America, that was published and distributed to all attendees and received by such on July 16, 2019 during the 22nd Church Assembly-Sabor, we deemed it necessary and appropriate to provide answers to our broader community regarding what was updated and why. The newly printed white bound edition is a compilation of all three prior documents, inclusive of past amendments and updated decisions rendered by previous Church Assemblies and the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church. This was done in accordance with the May 7/24, 2018, HAB No. 45/MIN.171 decision of the Holy Assembly of Bishops of our Mother Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, to whom we are and shall forever remain faithful. In terms of updates, there are two main categories: 1) the name change (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beginnings of the Romanian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
    Proceedings of SOCIOINT 2019- 6th International Conference on Education, Social Sciences and Humanities 24-26 June 2019- Istanbul, Turkey THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ROMANIAN AUTOCEPHALOUS ORTHODOX CHURCH Horia Dumitrescu Pr. Assist. Professor PhD., University of Piteşti, Faculty of Theology, Letters, History and Arts/ Centre for Applied Theological Studies, ROMANIA, [email protected] Abstract The acknowledgment of autocephaly represents a historical moment for the Romanian Orthodox Church, it means full freedom in organizing and administering internal affairs, without any interference or control of any church authority from outside. This church act did not remove the Romanian Orthodox Church from the unity of ecumenical Orthodoxy, but, on the contrary, was such as to preserve and ensure good relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and all other Sister Orthodox Churches, and promote a dogmatic, cult, canonical and work unity. The Orthodox Church in the Romanian territories, organized by the foundation of the Metropolis of Ungro-Wallachia (1359) and the Metropolis of Moldavia and Suceava (1401), became one of the fundamental institutions of the state, supporting the strengthening of the ruling power, to which it conferred spiritual legitimacy. The action of formal recognition of autocephaly culminated in the Ad Hoc Divan Assembly’s 1857 vote of desiderata calling for “recognition of the independence of the Eastern Orthodox Church, from the United Principalities, of any Diocesan Bishop, but maintaining unity of faith with the Ecumenical Church of the East with regard to the dogmas”. The efforts of the Romanian Orthodox Church for autocephaly were long and difficult, knowing a new stage after the Unification of the Principalities in 1859 and the unification of their state life (1862), which made it necessary to organize the National Church.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mesopotamian Origins of Byzantine Symbolism and Early Christian Iconography
    The Mesopotamian Origins of Byzantine Symbolism and Early Christian Iconography BY PAUL JOSEPH KRAUSE The eagle-god is a prominent iconographic symbol of ancient Mesopotamian religion which wielded tremendous power in the Mesopotamian imagination. The eagle-like gods of Mesopotamia eventually evolved into double-headed gods whose depictions became widespread in imperial and religious symbolism and iconography in Sumer and Akkad.1 These symbols now have common misapprehension as in the common public as being tied to Byzantine Empire of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Rather, the Byzantines most likely inherited these Mesopotamian symbols and employed them in a similar manner as the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Hittites did. Likewise, the iconographic symbols of the moon god Nanna-Sin, who had the power to render the fate of humans,2 re-appeared in early Christian iconography depicting Christ in the Last Judgment. To best understand the iconographic practices and symbols used by the Byzantine Empire and emerging early Christian Church is to understand the foundational contexts by which these symbols first arose and the common religious practice of transferring and re-dedicating prior religious shrines to new deities. “Today the Byzantine eagle flutters proudly from the flags of nations from Albania to Montenegro, and though each state has its local version of the church, the heritage they all bear 1 C.N. Deedes, “The Double-Headed God,” Folklore 46, no. 3 (1935): 197-200. 2 See Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 132; Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq (New York: Penguin Books, 1992), 88.
    [Show full text]
  • Among the Religious Functions Social Is One of the Most Important One
    Demuri Jalaghonia , (Georgia) PhD, Professor at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Faculty of Humanities; Head of the Academic-Research Institute of Philosophy; Head of the Chair for Political Philosophy. GEORGIAN THEOLOGISTS ON THE INTITUTION OF MARRIAGE Among the religious functions social is one of the most important one. Religion actually influences the society, persons’ consolidations and individuals by means of belief, religious feelings and cult activities. Confessions, of course differ from each-other according to their aims and the means of implementation though each of them accomplish their specific social destination functions. Emil Durkheim points out that religion depicts not only the society structure but it supports to make it stable, religion has a uniting function as it concentrates men’s attention and inspires them with hope1. In traditional minor cultures, Durkheim proves, all the sides of life are precisely described by the religion. On the one part religious habits create new ideas and thinking categories, on the other part make the already established valuables steady. Religion is not only consecutive feelings and activities but it actually defines the rule of thinking of a man in traditional cultures2. As Michel Mill points out in spite of in what way the religious dimension will be displayed in social life we must always remember that the decrease of the religion political role do not at all mean an eradication of religious personal belief or social functions. Religious belief does not recently define functioning rules of states though it plays a vast role not only in personal but also in social lives. Very often theories of secularization meticulously define the place of religion in the present society and identify the weakening of traditional institution with the end of religion3.
    [Show full text]
  • Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a Case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian Group in Toronto
    Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a Case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian Group in Toronto By Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Trinity College and the Theological Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College © Copyright by Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar 2016 Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian group in Toronto PhD 2016 Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar University of St.Michael’s College Abstract This study explores how the Macedono-Bulgarian and Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox churches in Toronto have attuned themselves to the immigrant community—specifically to post-1990 immigrants who, while unchurched and predominantly secular, have revived diaspora churches. This paradox raises questions about the ways that religious institutions operate in diaspora, distinct from their operations in the country of origin. This study proposes and develops the concept “institutional vernacularization” as an analytical category that facilitates assessment of how a religious institution relates to communal factors. I propose this as an alternative to secularization, which inadequately captures the diaspora dynamics. While continuing to adhere to their creeds and confessional symbols, diaspora churches shifted focus to communal agency and produced new collective and “popular” values. The community is not only a passive recipient of the spiritual gifts but is also a partner, who suggests new forms of interaction. In this sense, the diaspora church is engaged in vernacular discourse. The notion of institutional vernacularization is tested against the empirical results of field work in four Greater Toronto Area churches.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses Methodios I patriarch of Constantinople: churchman, politician and confessor for the faith Bithos, George P. How to cite: Bithos, George P. (2001) Methodios I patriarch of Constantinople: churchman, politician and confessor for the faith, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4239/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 METHODIOS I PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE Churchman, Politician and Confessor for the Faith Submitted by George P. Bithos BS DDS University of Durham Department of Theology A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Orthodox Theology and Byzantine History 2001 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published in any form, including' Electronic and the Internet, without the author's prior written consent All information derived from this thesis must be acknowledged appropriately.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolutionsofthe2020diocesan
    IN THE NAME OF THE HOLY AND LIFEGIVING TRINITY! We, the clergy, monastics, and representatives of the people of God, ordained and elected members to the Annual Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Eastern America, of the Serbian Orthodox Church, have gathered together at the Church of Saint Sava of Serbia in the God-protected City of Saint Petersburg, Florida on February 27 and 28, in the Year of Our Lord 2020. Today, as we celebrate the memory of Saint Onesimus, Apostle of the Seventy, and Venerable Paphnutius the Recluse of the Kiev Caves, the Holy Spirit has gathered us in the community of the Body of Christ that He might bring us closer to our Heavenly Father. Having announced the fullness of God’s Church, gathered around our Bishop, Father and Archpastor Irinej, we greet the fullness of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the person of His Holiness, the Archbishop of Pec, Metropolitan of Belgrade-Karlovac, and Serbian Patriarch Irinej and his Delegation. We also greet the members of the Episcopal Council of the Serbian Orthodox Church in North, Central and South America, as well as the members of the Central Church Council of the Serbian Orthodox Dioceses in the United States of America, Canada, and Central and South America. From this place we greet His Royal Highness, Crown Prince Alexander, Heir to the Throne, and his wife, Her Royal Highness Princess Katherine. We express our steadfast support for His Grace our Bishop Irinej, the Diocesan Council and the Diocesan Executive Board of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Eastern America, as well as the leadership of our Holy Church in our Serbian Fatherland, in the Region, and in the Diaspora, and to all persons of good will.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Eastern Christian Churches
    UNDERSTANDING THE EASTERN CHRISTIAN CHURCHES John M. Samaha SM Introducing the Question When you think of the Church, what image comes to mind? What image do you think the average Catholic forms when the Church is mentioned? Usually the image is that of a highly centralized, worldwide institution with headquarters in Rome. Or, of one's neighbourhood parish church. All in the West who share the heritage of European civilization tend to identify the Catholic Church with the Latin Rite (Roman Rite). Similarly, Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Christians may think of the church of their own country of origin with its chief bishop and centre in the ancient capital city. Seldom do we think of the church as the Mystical Body of Christ, the Head united with his many, diverse groups of members comprising the People of God. Attitudes among Eastern Catholic and Orthodox peoples not only stem from their strong national feelings, but are also deeply rooted in their ecclesiastical history and religious thought. For while the one, holy, catholic, arid apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ is unified, the Church certainly is not uniform in all aspects. Basic Understandings To understand clearly the situation it is important to establish basic understanding of some fundamental points. In the context of studying the Church, a rite refers to a local Church or specific tradition, not to ceremony or ritual. A particular Church means a style or way of living Christianity, a cultural mentality toward practicing the Gospel, a community of faith with a distinct, ancient tradition. 18 John M.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgian Autocephaly and the Ethnic Fragmentation of Orthodoxy
    Acta Slavica Iaponica, Tomus 23, pp. 74-100 Georgian Autocephaly and the Ethnic Fragmentation of Orthodoxy Paul Werth* On the morning of 28 May 1908, the Exarch of Georgia, Nikon (Sofiiskii), was gunned down on the stairway of the church administration building in Tbilisi. His murder apparently represented the culmination of a struggle, initi- ated in 1905, between proponents of Georgian ecclesiastical independence and advocates of the continued subordination of all Orthodox believers in Transcau- casia to the Holy Synod in St. Petersburg. Waged for the most part in the press and church committees, the struggle reached this violent stage when consider- ation of autocephaly stalled in St. Petersburg and when indications appeared that Nikon was preparing to eliminate even the small remnants of Georgia’s special ecclesiastical status that still existed. Although the precise links of the autocephalists to the Exarch’s murder remain unclear, the initial police inves- tigation concluded that it had been carried out “by an autocephalist organiza- tion of the Georgian clergy” in order “to express in a sharp, bloody form its protest against the non-restoration of the Georgian church’s autocephaly.”1 To the extent that the tsarist autocracy institutionalized diversity in its vast realm, it did so principally along religious lines. From the late eighteenth century into the 1830s, the regime created a series of institutions and statutes designed to regulate the religious affairs of Russia’s “foreign confessions,” in most cases through the establishment
    [Show full text]
  • The Autocephalous Churches and the Institution of the 'Pentarchy'
    The Autocephalous Churches and the Institution of the ‘Pentarchy’ Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and St Vlassios Translation of the article in Greek Οἱ Αὐτοκέφαλες Ἐκκλησίες καί ὁ θεσμός τῆς «Πενταρχίας» Much has been written recently as a result of the Ukrainian issue, both positively and negatively, from whichever side one looks at it. In particular, there has been very harsh criticism of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Prompted by this, it has been necessary for me to write articles so as to explain some aspects of the subject as a whole, without dealing with it exhaustively. In particular, I have clarified that the regime of the Church is not papal, neither is it a Protestant confederation, but it is synodical and hierarchical at the same time [‘The Regime of the Orthodox Church’]. I insist on this subject, because I consider that it is the basis of the problem that has arisen. There are certainly many sides to the Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue. The most fundamental aspect, however, is that many people have not understood what ‘autocephaly’ means in the Orthodox Church; what ‘Autocephalous Churches’ are; how the sacred institution of the Church functions; to what extent ‘Autocephalous Churches’ can function independently of the Ecumenical Throne, which is the first throne and presides over all the Orthodox Churches, and has many powers and responsibilities; and also how the Ecumenical Throne operates in relation to the ‘Autocephalous Churches’. Unless someone has an adequate understanding of the way in which ‘Autocephalous Churches’ function, the way in which the Pentarchy worked in the first millennium, but also of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch during the second millennium in relation to the more recent Patriarchates and the new Autocephalous Churches, he will not grasp the essence of this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • POCKET CHURCH HISTORY for ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS
    A POCKET CHURCH HISTORY for ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS Fr. Aidan Keller © 1994-2002 ST. HILARION PRESS ISBN 0-923864-08-3 Fourth Printing, Revised—2002 KABANTSCHUK PRINTING r r ^ ^ IC XC NI KA .. AD . AM rr In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. GOD INCARNATES; THE CHURCH FOUNDED OME 2,000 years ago, our Lord Jesus Christ directly intervened in human history. Although He S is God (together with the Father and the Holy Spirit), He became a man—or, as we often put it, He became incarnate —enfleshed. Mankind, at its very beginning in Adam and Eve, had fallen away from Divine life by embracing sin, and had fallen under the power of death. But the Lord Jesus, by His incarnation, death upon the Cross, and subsequent resurrection from death on the third day, destroyed the power death had over men. By His teaching and His whole saving work, Christ reconciled to God a humanity that had grown distant from God1 and had become ensnared in sins.2 He abolished the authority the Devil had acquired over men3 and He renewed and re-created both mankind and His whole universe.4 Bridging the abyss separating man and God, by means of the union of man and God in His own Person, Christ our Saviour opened the way to eternal, joyful life after death for all who would accept it.5 Not all the people of Judea, the Hebrews, God’s chosen people (Deut 7:6; Is 44:1), were ready to hear this news, and so our Lord spoke to them mostly in parables and figures.
    [Show full text]
  • A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, Monastics and Faithful of the Orthodox Church in America on Autocephaly
    A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE CLERGY, MONASTICS AND FAITHFUL OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA ON AUTOCEPHALY Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. Ephesians 2:19-22 The Orthodox Church in America is autocephalous not in order to be self-sufficient and isolated, but in order to be in living communion and close contact with all Orthodox Churches… The Orthodox Church in America received autocephaly not in order to be master of Orthodox unity in America but in order to be a servant of this unity. Bishop DMITRI Bishop of Dallas and the South Address to Patriarch Pimen on the Occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Restoration of the Patriarchate Holy Trinity- St. Sergius Monastery, 1978 To the Clergy, Monastics, and Faithful of the Orthodox Church in America: Forty years ago, the Orthodox Church in America received its autocephaly from the Russian Orthodox Church and soon after glorified the first North American saint, our Venerable Father Herman of Alaska. The Holy Synod of Bishops gives thanks to Almighty God for the prayerful intercessions of St Herman and of all the saints who shone forth on this continent and likewise celebrates and affirms the gift of autocephaly.
    [Show full text]