- At the Pray Tell blog, Nicholas Denysenko, an Orthodox deacon and theologian, provides more details as to how this split came about, and what it means for Orthodoxy (h/t Tom Blackburn). "The rest of the world’s Orthodox Churches are now under pressure to pick a side. Faithful people who are ambivalent about the Ukrainian issue might be prohibited from partaking of communion in Church. This issue hits home in America, where Orthodox plurality is the norm ..."
- In the NY Times, Nikos Konstandaras, a Greek newspaper columnist, does a deeper dive into the geopolitical dimensions of the dispute. Orthodox churches intermix religious identity and national identity, perhaps to a greater extent than we in the contemporary religious West are accustomed to (although it seems to me that the admixture is still latent in Catholicism), and so it's not surprising that in Orthodoxy, disputes between nations may result in disputes between churches, and vice-versa.
-----
A dismaying development: it seems that the Russian Orthodox Church is very near the breaking point in its communion with the Greek Orthodox Church. Whether this break will be permanent, and what this will mean for the two churches and the other churches in Orthodoxy, is not yet clear.
Naturally, there is a lot of history that led to this point, but the immediate cause seems to be disputes over the status of Ukraine's various Orthodox churches. From the New York Times article:
Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, who as the ecumenical patriarch is considered the “first among equals” in church affairs, took several steps last week toward creating an autonomous church in Ukraine. He has yet, however, to issue a Tomos of Autocephaly, the formal ordinance that would create an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Those steps included revoking a decision from 1686 that effectively put the Ukraine church under Moscow. Constantinople maintains it merely granted Moscow the right to approve the patriarch in Kiev and since it granted the right initially, it is within church law to take it back.There is also a geopolitical aspect to these events: Ukraine is de facto at war with Russia right now; and Russian President Vladimir Putin has cultivated an alliance with Russian Orthodoxy for many years now, perhaps because of genuine faith, and perhaps in part to leverage the church's influence for purposes of domestic and foreign policy.
This split is being described as the biggest in Christianity since the Orthodox communion and Catholicism split in 1054. That probably is true from the Orthodox point of view; whether it's "bigger" in any real sense from the series of fractures that we cover under the umbrella term "The Reformation" isn't clear to me, but we can all agree that this is a major and grievous development. But it seems the parties haven't yet passed the point of no return, and the Russians and Greeks have been on collision courses in the past and managed to repair the breach.
And we Catholics should bear in mind that our view of ecumenism would insist that there is no true "point of no return"; "That they may all be one" is both divine prayer and promise, and we should continue to hold out hope, and work hard, for unity across Christianity.
"Big," of course, is a relative term. There are about 270 million Orthodox congregants, and Russia has more than half of them. But Moscow is only fifth in the order of autocephaly, among bishops who don't report to a higher bishop. Being first in the order makes Bartholomew -- who appears to be a big buddy of Pope Francis -- first among equals. But he is Kirill's equal, not his boss.
ReplyDeleteThe Russian Orthodox Church is a subject about which I know only enough to be dangerous, but what I do know can all be explained by the fact that its leader has always had to find a way to live with tsars followed by commissars followed Putin, who is a combination of the two. Putin wears a cross on a chain around his neck, but so did most of the tsars, and theirs were bigger. If you had to deal with what Patriarch Kirill has to deal with, you'd do things that look strange, too.
In this case, he is fighting against letting Ukraine have a bishop who doesn't have to report to him. Putin would approve of Kirill's stance, and may be pressuring Kirill to take it, since Putin thinks Ukraine is part of Russia. He may just be waiting for our midterm elections to be over before he proves it. In which case, it would be no fun to be an autocephalus Ukranian bishop. Or so it seems to me.
Little known fun fact about Russian Orthodoxy: Joe Stalin won a scholarship to a monastery school because of his terrific singing voice. Sort of the way Notre Dame recruits football players. Just sayin'.
Schism strikes me as a weird word for this.
ReplyDeleteIt's a geo-political dispute in which the Russian Church wants to retain Ukraine and, thereby, its position as the biggest of the Orthodox branches.
But there's no dogmatic dispute here.
This is more akin to some Episcopal churches leaving ECUSA and seeking to realign as missions of the Ugandan Anglican Church. Like it or not, they're still in the Anglican communion, simply represented at Lambeth by Uganda rather than the U.S.
Also, retaining Ukraine helps perpetuate the Putin line that Ukraine is part of Russia.
DeleteThis looks like a good 'splainer from Pray Tell:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2018/10/15/crisis-in-orthodoxy-separating-fact-from-fiction/
Again, no sign of what the Western churches would recognize as doctrinal differences.
But thinking about the Great Schism and the Reformation would we wish to claim that there wasn't a geopolitical aspect?
ReplyDeleteThey apparently disagree on the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Whether that is doctrinal I don't say. Of course, in the West, the sort of analogous case of the pope would be considered doctrinal. But that's us.
To a point, Jim, but only to a point. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not a pope because one of the distinguishing features -- "marks," we might say -- of orthodoxy is that it recognizes no pope; it is organized around ancient bishoprics. So Orthodoxy only hangs together if everybody plays nicely with each other. If not, they get what they have now.
ReplyDeleteYeah, more like the Anglican communion than the RCC.
DeleteIn the explainer you posted (thank you), it did mention that the rift could lead to excommunication among different Orthodox churches. (This would not occur in the Anglican communion. If you're a baptized Christian, you are welcome at the table. But Anglican churches that get too far off the beam are no longer represented at Lambeth.)
Splits like this have occurred in the Anglican communion. Often it's over one doctrinal or liturgical matter, but then "rogue" church then begins to evolve doctrinally making the rift larger and irreparable. Saw this happen in our former parish, which the priest tried to move into the Anglican Catholic Church (which is now neither Anglican nor Catholic).
A true schism might occur if the Russians leave and begin tinkering with Orthodox teaching.
A little trivia; it appears that Patriarch Kirill's father may have baptized Putin as an infant.
ReplyDeleteAnd here is footage of Putin taking part in a ritual commemorating the Baptism of the Lord by plunging in an icy lake north of Moscow. (I'm thinking the Jordan was warmer than a Russian lake in January.)
This statement by a Kremlin spokesman can be taken more than one way: "I want to say again: this isn't Vladimir Putin's first experience. He has been participating in bathing annually for many years."
I started to think about that statement, and I got images I'll never be able to un-see.
DeleteMany thanks to all of you for the comments and links. Thanks to your insights and references I was able to tweak the first paragraph of this post and make one or two other changes to, I hope, make it more accurate.
ReplyDelete