The
_________________
The chart that appears below is designed to convey the fundamental structure of the Apostolic Christian Church in an early historical setting. It does not reflect the later expansive and varied development of the Church produced by the Protestant movement, nor does it elaborate on the ecclesiastical structures of the Roman Catholic Church or of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates—except in general terms for that of Constantinople.
Emphasis on the latter is suitable to the theme of this Web Site, evidenced by the site's content and title, NEW BYZANTIUM.
The enhancement of the Greek Church revealed by the chart and expressed in jurisdictional and administrative terms supports the notion of a horizontal expansion. In the case of the Latin Church, the expansion is perceived as vertical, insofar as there is a centralized jurisdictional and administrative authority. The outstanding characteristic of the proliferating nature of the Eastern Church is the binding force of the common Faith that unites the followers. The various branches in the structure prefer to maintain their individual identities intact—ethnicity, culture, language, traditions, etc. An overriding power of shared conviction amalgamates them into a sustaining union despite radical differences that otherwise cause them to separate. Such separations occur even within the same cultural or ethnic settings. A ranking clergyman once challenged this writer with the question of how worrisome should the divisions within the Greek Church be. The response was: They are not, because division is the reciprocal of multiplication; and in a sustained environment this represents growth. [Cf., well-positioned investors in the financial markets vis-à-vis stock splits of potential subsequent growth.]
The chart mentioned and subsequent comments elaborate further on the above remarks:
It is a natural condition in human behavior for differences to exist among individuals or groups. It appears that what is involved is a constant dynamic of competitive confrontation that through the process of elimination produces creative change. This condition should not be surprising in human behavior, since change is a constant in every other aspect of the known universe. Advanced civilized societies have the ability to reconcile the demands of this process in an efficient way at a minimum of destructiveness. The result of obstinacy or unreasonableness on the part of one or more of the participants, however, may lead to progressive discord ranging anywhere from mere disagreement to physical violence. The plethora of differences and the mental and emotional complexities that evoke them do not always seem possible to define or to quantify, considering the unpredictable nature of human beings. Nevertheless, within that very complex setting, an instinctive ability exists that makes possible the survival of human society. The prevailing element in this is more likely the innate need of each individual for safety and comfort obtainable best through social interaction.
The need for such interaction brings about the formation of social groups. Whether these groups are international organizations, nations, religious bodies, commercial enterprises, political parties, educational organizations, or fraternal societies, they are all intended for the ultimate benefit and satisfaction of the members comprising them and to a smaller or greater degree they exist in a constant state of change. The common characteristic that defines them is the adaptability of their constituency to accept compromise and mutual accommodation. Among sophisticated societies the best may be those that accept change on a deliberate basis for progress and improvement: not those affected by random external influences without specific purpose.
The example of the Apostolic Christian Church speaks to this fact, when considering the changes that the Church has experienced since the inception. Observe, for example, the uniqueness of part of the historical record of the Church of Jerusalem and the said Church's consistent stability within the Eastern fold. Likewise, the focus of this writing is on the Church of Constantinople, as evidenced in the above chart. The essence of Orthodoxy has been preserved, while the structure of the Church has proliferated and while the spiritual preeminence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been honored and maintained. The inevitable but practical means by which the Patriarchate facilitated the change is the implementation of four basic branches under its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, a) the Metropolises, b) the Eparchies, c) the Autonomous Churches, and d) the other Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches.
Besides the issue of the expanding structure of the Church, there also exist the conditions that impel that structure. These conditions vary and may stem among other possibilities from the desire for cultural identity or from ethnic, linguistic, economic, and political preferences of the congregations involved. The establishment of the Russian Patriarchate, for example, was a case of ethnic pride and economic reasons backed by political pressure that caused Constantinople to grant that status. Greece and Cyprus became autocephalous Churches [it is noted here that within Greece also exists an eparchial presence of the Greek Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople]. In America today, the issue of an American cultural identity is very strong among members of the Greek Orthodox population. Attached to the sentiment of American pride is the linguistic concern that is present with second, third, and fourth generation Americans of Greek descent. Unlike the parallel quandary of the Roman Catholic Church and the Latin language, the Greek language is a living tongue practiced with full vigor in various places of the world today. For Russians or Bulgarians, for example, to demand their Orthodox Liturgy in their own language is easier to understand, whether they live in their respective ancestral countries or in America. For the Greek person, however, this creates an inner conflict: That is to say, the Eastern Church is the Greek Church because of the Greek language (the Western Church is the Latin Church). The issue is evident as to the pride of heritage from the two richest sources—American and Hellenic—so well intertwined. Yet, the realities are that the Greek language is becoming ever more distant for second, third and fourth generation Greek scions living in America, Australia, and other parts of the world.
There is beauty and truth in the spiritual message of the Church, regardless of the language in which it is conveyed. The need of the faithful, however, is that the message must be understood in order for it to be effective. The demand of the non-Greek-speaking follower, therefore, is valid when seeking to understand the words spoken by the officiating priest, chanted by the deacon, or sung by the choir. Of equal importance, nevertheless, is the imperative of the Church and of the culture that sustains the Church, which means the Greek language must survive. The synchrony and artistic beauty of the Divine Liturgy is the product of the euphony, enunciation, balance, rationale, connotation, and sensitivity of the words in the Greek language. Such cannot be lost for reasons of lack of opportunity to learn or for indifference, indolence, and even envy. The religious connection to the language notwithstanding, it is significant that the Greek language is the fundamental instrument in the basic formation of Western Civilization and much of what is enjoyed in America today.
Added to the above issues of cultural identity and of language—at least in America—there exists another issue of the desire for ecclesiastical administrative independence. This, as shown in the chart, translates into two possible options, one of which is autonomy and the other is autocephaly or patriarchal status. A third variation is the metropolitan option that is seen as a local conciliar presence exclusive to Patriarchal Constantinople. The fourth is the eparchial option under which the Greek Orthodox Church in America now exists in relation to Constantinople.
All three issues, namely, cultural identity, language, and administrative status interact with each other and are often viewed together. That type of concurrent evaluation, however, causes confusion and the muddling of focus. The results of that process, or the process itself, may generate emotional reactions that have a negative impact on deliberations and decision-making. The issues are best evaluated on an individual basis. This approach makes it easier to appraise the conditions that affect each issue, and when juxtaposed, a comparison of their relative importance can be made and a weighted value assigned to each. This helps determine the optimum position for the Greek Church in America.
Following are few examples of pertinent points raised on each issue and possible responses that may apply:
Cultural Identity
Is the cultural makeup in America distinct from that in Constantinople or Greece? Yes.
Is Constantinopolitan or Greek clergy in all cases suited for the American scene? No.
Should American seminarians be sent to Constantinople and Greece in particular for ample cultural exposure? Yes.
Should the American Greek Orthodox Seminary be staffed in part with competent Constantinopolitan or Greek faculty? Yes.
Will the above suggested interchange mitigate otherwise irreconcilable cultural differences? Yes.
Will the influence of such interchange permeate the following at all levels? Yes.
Is the said influence detrimental to either host? No.
Etc.
Language
Is the Greek language an imperative in the Greek Community in America and elsewhere? Yes.
Is the Greek language understood by all congregants during the Liturgical functions? No.
Is it productive for the congregation when the language of the spiritual message is not understood? No.
Is the Greek language preserved because of its singular Liturgical usage? No.
Should all traces of the Greek language be eradicated from the Liturgical text? No.
Should an intensive, strong, and coordinated effort in teaching of the Greek language preempt other social and Church-connected external events? Yes.
Should the Greek Government assume a very active and responsible role in cooperation with American Greek Communities in teaching the Greek language? Yes.
Will the people of Greece who work and contribute to the above task feel a stronger affinity and friendship toward America? Yes.
Will the reverse be true? Yes.
Etc.
Administrative Status
Is Constantinople the preeminent Spiritual See among equals of all of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Yes.
Is historical integrity based on the leadership contribution of Saints Constantine and Helen preserved for all Christianity through the sustained presence of Patriarchal Constantinople? Yes.
Is the Orthodox Church in America ever to disavow the preeminence of and break the Spiritual tie with Constantinople? No.
Is there need for the Greek Orthodox Church in America to assume patriarchal status? No.
Has the Constantinopolitan Patriarchy a presence in America through the existence of the American Greek Orthodox Church? Yes.
Does the creation of other American patriarchal entities sponsored by Patriarchates other than Constantinople ever negate the Patriarchal preeminence of Constantinople anywhere, including in America? No.
Will autonomy of the American Greek Orthodox Church granted by Constantinople ever negate the above expressed preeminence of Constantinople in America? No.
Is a blend of Episcopal assignments—including competent candidates from abroad—to the American Greek Orthodox Church acceptable? Yes.
Etc.
CONCLUSION. Given the above analytical approach, obscure problems that cause confusion and emotional entanglement may be brought to light for an unencumbered, objective and critical evaluation. The three issues named, as well as the questions posed, are only examples that may be contradicted, modified or further expanded to produce different or additional findings. These findings can then be coordinated, in order to fashion a final and realistic result. The object is to allow for the expansion of the Church in a rational and meaningful manner, while retaining the original integrity of the Church as intended by The Founder.
____________________________________
Five religious heads comprise the leadership of the one original Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ in the world. They are:
The Patriarch and Pope of the Church of
Alexandria;
the Patriarch of the Church of Jerusalem; the Patriarch of the
Church of Antioch; the Patriarch of the Church of Constantinople; the Pope of
the Church of Rome. A sixth head was added in 1589 under the suffrage of
Constantinople, and it is the Patriarchate of Moscow; because of the great
growth and influence of the of Church of Russia since its inception in 988.
All of the Patriarchates constitute the leadership of the
Eastern Catholic Church that is known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church of Rome is
known as the Western Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church. Therefore,
the word Catholic is not exclusive to the Roman Church.
All such
Christians are Catholics.
[the word catholic comes from the Greek καθολικός that means entire or universal]
All the Patriarchs and the Pope are equal in their Episcopal standing, with honorary primacy (certainly not sovereignty) ascribed to the Roman Pope, because of the chronological precedence of Rome to Constantinople (or New Rome). The same principle is in force among all the Orthodox, whereby the Patriarch of Constantinople holds honorary primacy but not sovereignty with reference to the other hierarchs.
By: Mark A. C. Karras, Ph.D.
|
Expansion of Western Civilization: from Constantine the Great to Constantinople and Byzantium and onward to America |
NEW BYZANTIUM
is The AMERICAS