NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm probably in a tiny minority of (in my case occasional) NSG posters out there who care, but for the record:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7766625.stm

I've always admired the Russian Orthodox Church, if for nothing but their bling.

EDIT: Do you know how they choose a new Patriarch?

Well, I don't see how this affects the Finnish Orthodox Church.

I've always admired the Russian Orthodox Church, if for nothing but their bling.

EDIT: Do you know how they choose a new Patriarch?

Yeah, the Lutheran church of Järvenpää is pretty much a bunker. A concrete bunker. Now the Orthodox church on the other hand...

I've always admired the Russian Orthodox Church, if for nothing but their bling.

EDIT: Do you know how they choose a new Patriarch?

That's right... we Orthodox have the best bling.

More seriously, there'll be a session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on December 6 to elect a temporary Patriarchal Locum Tenens who will also chair the Memorial Commission.

Following Alexy's funeral, the Holy Synod (of Russian Orthodox bishops) will meet to elect a new Patriarch under the chairmanship of the senior hierarch of the church, who currently happens to be Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev.

The new Patriarch should be elected by May of next year.

The Moscow diocese (eparchy, strictly speaking) will be temporarily led by Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna until the new Patriarch is elected.

If it were something I felt gambling on - if indeed I gambled at all - my money would be on Metropolitan Kyrill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad.

Well, I don't see how this affects the Finnish Orthodox Church.

The Finnish Orthodox Church / Suomen ortodoksinen kirkko has been independent from Moscow since 1923, and is currently an autonomous (but not autocephalous) Orthodox archbishopric of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

So no, it doesn't impact you at all, except in so far as the Finnish Church is in communion with Moscow as a canonical Orthodox jurisdiction, and therefore might want to send someone to the funeral.

That's right... we Orthodox have the best bling.
Your bishops have fucking crowns.

:tongue:

Following Alexy's funeral, the Holy Synod (of Russian Orthodox bishops) will meet to elect a new Patriarch under the chairmanship of the senior hierarch of the church, who currently happens to be Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev.
In a similar fashion to Rome?

In a similar fashion to Rome?

Apologies for the delay in replying - I was commuting home, and then I had to actually go and look a couple of things up to make sure I didn't get any minor details wrong.

The only real similarity between the election of the Pope and the election of an Orthodox Patriarch is that the election is done by the bishops of the church.

The primary differences are:

1) Only Cardinals below a certain age can vote for a Pope; election of a new head of an autocephalous (self-governing) Orthodox jurisdiction is typically undertaken by all bishops in a jurisdiction (though the election of the current Patriarch of Jeruselem, Theophilus III, was more complicated).

2) There is no overall head of the worldwide Orthodox Church in the same sense as the Pope has jurisdiction over the worldwide Catholic Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople has a primacy of honour, but not of jurisdiction; he remains purely primus inter pares, and is elected separately by his own Holy Synod. In this case the full Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate will be electing a new head of the Moscow Patriarchate only, without input from other Orthodox jurisdictions, though his election will be recognised throughout the Orthodox Church (barring some calamitous scandal - like the one that overtook Theophilus III of Jerusalem's predecessor).

3) As far as I'm aware, the election of a patriarch isn't subject to the same convoluted rules as accompany the election of a Pope, though I'm not sure what sort of majority a putative new Patriarch of Moscow would need in the Synod.


The situation in Russia is slightly complicated by the fact that the Patriarchate was abolished (originally by Peter the Great) between 1721 and 1918. During that period, the church was ruled by the 'Most Holy Synod' - but since the latter included laypeople appointed by the Tsar, it wasn't a synod of bishops as would be understood to the modern Orthodox.

Then, the Bolsheviks refused to allow the election of a Patriarch between Patriarch Tikhon's death in 1925 and the election of Sergius in 1943. The period between 1925 and 1943 is deeply controversial, especially as regards then-acting Patriarch Sergius' controversial support of the Soviet state (possibly following torture) in 1927. I lack time and space to go into the details.

This will also mark the first election of a new Patriarch since the end of the schism between the Moscow Patriarchate and the (post-Revolution) Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. It may prove interesting to see what influence, if any, the ROCOR bishops have in the forthcoming election.

Do you know how they choose a new Patriarch?

They whip out a ouija board and ask it who the next guy should be. :p

I care! Thank you for posting this! It's a huge loss for Russia, Patriarch Alexey II was a great leader who allowed the Metropolitans and Bishops under him freedom to act as was best for their Congregations and he guided the Russian Orthodox Church through a nototiously hard period. He deserves respect, one of the few men in our society that truly deserves respect.

I'm hoping that Metropolitan Kirill gets elected. He is highly intelligent, and not superbly traditional, and is someone whom every Orthodox Christian can embrace. Also his reforms in Smolensk and Kaliningrad made those regions thrive. "The conservative wing in the church has criticized Kirill for ecumenism throughout the 1990s. In 2008 conservative Bishop Diomid of Anadyr and Chukotka openly blamed him for communion with the Catholic Church." So he's likely to face opposition from that end.

"He was ordained in 1969. Upon graduation from the seminary in 1970 he became secretary to Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad. In 1971 he was appointed representative of the Moscow Patriarchate at the World Council of Churches and has been actively involved in the ecumenical activity of the Russian Orthodox Church since then."

I've always wondered, how are the different Orthodox churches different from one another? I know there was a split from the Roman Church around 1000, but how did a distinct Coptic or Russian one pop up?

I recall his role in helping thwart the August coup in 1991 and speaking out in favor of perestroika and reform in the Soviet Union. His role in bringing about a free Russia, fighting the resurgence of anti-Semitism and helping to preserve religious freedom in the country are all great things that should be immortalized. A truly great man that did a lot of good in his position.

I've always wondered, how are the different Orthodox churches different from one another? I know there was a split from the Roman Church around 1000, but how did a distinct Coptic or Russian one pop up?

The Copts aren't part of the the Orthodox Church, but are rather non-Chalcedonians - I'll get back to that in a second.

The Russian Orthodox Church is part of the worldwide Orthodox Church, which happens to be split into several self-governing but mutually-recognising jurisdictions which nonetheless follow identical theological principles.

The Roman and Orthodox churches split from each other (trying to be as neutral as possible here) in 1054 following a dispute between the Papal legate to Constantinople and the Patriarch of Constantinople, which ended with them declaring anathema on each other. It wasn't the first break between Constantinople and Rome, and at the time it's doubtful that anyone thought it would be the last. While here we get subjective, it's arguable that the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the 4th Crusade marked the point where the schism became irreversible; no Byzantine Emperor could ever force through more than a temporary union of the church after the sack, and after the Ottoman conquest, the Orthodox east was largely fragmented and/or under non-Christian rule until the rise of Muscovy (Russia was converted to Orthodox Christianity by the Byzantines in 988 AD).

The phenomenon of 'national' Orthodox churches is a largely 19th-century development. Prior to the 16th century, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were the only Orthodox Patriarchs (there had been temporary Bulgarian Patriarchs in the Byzantine period). After the fall of Constantinople, the rising power of Muscovy - the only major Orthodox jurisdiction not controlled by the Ottomans - decided to name its own Patriarch in the 16th century. All Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire continued to be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who doubled as a religious leader and as ethnarch of the Ottoman Christian population.

As the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, newly independent Orthodox nations such as Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. wanted their own independent Patriarch rather than leave their church hierarchy dependent on a church leader who was still under Turkish control. The Patriarchs of Constantinople initially resisted this development, but in the end acceded to the fait accompli.

But this shouldn't hide the fact that the Orthodox churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Russia, Georgia, etc. are all part of the same worldwide Orthodox church, where each regional jurisdiction recognises the canonicity of each other.

This tends to get obscured somewhat in non-traditional Orthodox countries, particularly the USA, Canada, and Australia, where there are large immigrant populations who have established separate 'Greek Orthodox', 'Russian Orthodox' and other churches, often in the same city. These names, however, merely reflect the ethnic origin of the parish and which Patriachate they're controlled by; they're still all Orthodox.


And you had to bring up Copts, didn't you?

The Orthodox Church recognises Seven Ecumenical Councils, dating from the 4th through 8th centuries, which form the basis of Orthodox theology. The Coptic Church of Egypt, however, only recognises the first three Councils. The Copts (and Armenians) broke away from the Orthodox Church following the Council of Chalcedon (the Fourth Council) in 451 AD, so that's a schism which pre-dates the Great Schism by 600 years.

The precise nature of the Chalcedonian schism between the Orthodox and Copts relates to what would seem to most to be an incredibly arcane argument about whether Christ has two separate human and divine natures united in a single person, or a single nature which is simultaneously human and divine.

Hope that helps!

*snip*
Okay, I think I get it. So the Russian Orthodox church is no more different from the Greekthan the American Catholic Church is different from the French?


And you had to bring up Copts, didn't you?

The Orthodox Church recognises Seven Ecumenical Councils, dating from the 4th through 8th centuries, which form the basis of Orthodox theology. The Coptic Church of Egypt, however, only recognises the first three Councils. The Copts (and Armenians) broke away from the Orthodox Church following the Council of Chalcedon (the Fourth Council) in 451 AD, so that's a schism which pre-dates the Great Schism by 600 years.
I never knew that. I always thought the theological disputes were silenced by the sixth century, and there was no large schism until 1054.
The precise nature of the Chalcedonian schism between the Orthodox and Copts relates to what would seem to most to be an incredibly arcane argument about whether Christ has two separate human and divine natures united in a single person, or a single nature which is simultaneously human and divine.
Hope that helps!
It does, thank you. Is this the dispute that was literally a difference of an iota?

Okay, I think I get it. So the Russian Orthodox church is no more different from the Greek than the American Catholic Church is different from the French?

Broadly speaking, yes. Though important differences remain; for example, while part of the same church which mutually recognises each other's leaders, the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople are in an ongoing dispute over which Patriarch should have control of Estonia. Catholics tend not to have the same disputes over territorial jurisdiction.

A particularly confusing example comes in North America, where several historically Russian parishes declared themselves, with Moscow's blessing, the autocephalous [self-governing] Orthodox Church of America, with the intent of being the 'national' jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere. Unfortunately, the Greek and Antiochian (and several smaller) Patriarchates have never recognised the autocephaly of the OCA, and continue to run parallel jurisdictions in the Americas. Even more confusion, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which recently reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate as an autonomous, but not autocephalous, jurisdiction of Moscow, and has a large presence in North America, also fails to recognise the OCA's autocephaly despite the latter being recognised by Moscow. All of these separate jurisdictions do, however, recognise the OCA bishops as canonically-appointed bishops in communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church.

So in the Americas we have a situation where one jurisdiction of the worldwide Orthodox church is recognised as canonical even while its self-proclaimed independence is denied.

There's probably nothing quite so baffling to the outsider as Orthodox jurisdictional disputes, but the different Patriarchates guard their rights jealously even while recognising each other as part of the same Church.

Cooperation does happen, however. After the previous Patriarch of Jerusalem was caught selling Palestinian Christian church property in the Old City to Jewish settler groups, the Patriarch of Constantinople convened a Pan-Orthodox meeting of all the Patriarchates to depose Irineos and replace him with current Jerusalem Patriarch Theophilus III.



I never knew that. I always thought the theological disputes were silenced by the sixth century, and there was no large schism until 1054.

It does, thank you. Is this the dispute that was literally a difference of an iota?

Regrettably, yes. There were several major fifth-century disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean over Christ's nature that led to several schisms that are with us today. Over the last century the Oriental Orthodox churches (Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians) have been in talks with Orthodox jurisdictions, and some 1600 years later there's been some agreement that maybe the dispute wasn't as serious as thought in 451AD. Reunification is still some distance off, though.

For more information than I have time to type out here, read the Wiki page on Miaphysitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysitism), and then follow the links to Monophysitism and Nestorianism.

We have to remember that 5th-century Byzantines lived in a very different world than we do today. Where disputes over the precisenature of the union of the human and divine in Christ may strike us as esoteric and arcane today, these were issues that shook the Empire to its very core in their day, and that almost everyone - from Emperor to peasant - cared about. They mattered in a way we find it hard to understand in the 21st century.

Hmm I had though the Copts or at least some of them and the Armenians had joined the Catholic church as one of the different 'Rites' or traditions of the Catholic church of which are 20 odd number of, the roman being the largest. I didin't realize there was even still an Armenian Orthodox church in existance. From what I gathered of the split between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church it was as much political as religious in nature steming in part from the split between the western and eastern Roman empires. But then the relationship between the orthodox churches and the catholic church at time confuses me.

Some of them did join, AFAIR.

Yeah, the Lutheran church of Järvenpää is pretty much a bunker. A concrete bunker. Now the Orthodox church on the other hand...
I can't speak about the Lutherans of other places, but in the US, Lutherans are famous for their hideously ugly churches. Basically, if you are driving through the suburbs, and you come upon some eye-popping shocker of a fugly building that has no apparent function with, optionally, some bizarre shit stuck up on the roof for no reason at all, and you guess "Lutheran church", you will probably be right.

As you say, the Orthodox churches on the other hand...

<snip> ...Over the last century the Oriental Orthodox churches (Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians) have been in talks with Orthodox jurisdictions, and some 1600 years later there's been some agreement that maybe the dispute wasn't as serious as thought in 451AD....<snip>
I. Laughed. Out. Loud. :D

This is why, although I despise organized religion, I still love organized religion. :D

You know, you could always take the Jewish approach. We haven't had a proper religious hierarchy since the Temple was destroyed.

Anyway, after skimming the Patriarch's Wiki entry, I offer my condolences to the Russian Orthodox Church, and to the people of Russia. He was a good man, and his passing will be mourned.

RIP, Alexei.

We have to remember that 5th-century Byzantines lived in a very different world than we do today. Where disputes over the precisenature of the union of the human and divine in Christ may strike us as esoteric and arcane today, these were issues that shook the Empire to its very core in their day, and that almost everyone - from Emperor to peasant - cared about. They mattered in a way we find it hard to understand in the 21st century.
I understand; I didn't mean to make light of the difference. I would be annoyed if someone said transubstantiation and consubstantiation were basically the same thing. And if lawyers can argue over a comma, I see no reason why theologians shouldn't be able to debate a difference of a small letter.

I haven't said anything yet about the patriarch. I can't say I know much about him, but he seemed like a good guy from the article. Condolences are offered.