Inaugural Patriarchate Lecture
Archimandrite Dr.Elpidophoros Lambriniadis delivered the Inaugural Ecumenical Patriarchate Lecture at the Chapel of Hellenic College-Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology on Monday March 16, 2009.
Fr. Nicholas Triantafilou,President of HC-HC, warmly welcomed Fr. Elpidophoros once again to the School.He reminded all that Fr. Elpidophoros knew the School well because he had been a distinguished visiting professor in the spring semester of 2004.
Fr. Nicholas stated that that the community was very honored to have with us again such a distinguished theologian from the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Fr. Thomas FitzGerald, Dean of Holy Cross, then introduced Fr. Elpidophoros to the faculty and students who filled the chapel. He spoke of the importance of the visit of Fr. Elpidophoros as a means of strengthening the relationship between the School and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople led by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.
Fr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis is the Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. From this position he serves as a very close assistant to His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.
He received his doctorate degree in Systematic Theology from the School of Theology of the University of Thessaloniki. He also studied at the University of Bonn, in Germany, and theUniversity of Balamand, in Tripoli Lebanon.
Fr. Elpidophoros has served as the secretary for all the recent pan-Orthodox synods and for the recent bishops' conferences of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
He has represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate at consultations of the World Council of Churches and the Council of European Churches. He serves as the secretary for the Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Lutheran World Federation.
He served as a Distinguished Visiting Professor of Theology at Holy Cross in 2004 when he taught a course on the History and Witness of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Fr. Elpidophoros was recently elected as a professor of Ecumenical Theology and Inter-Orthodox Relations at the School of Theology of the University of Thessaloniki.
During his stay on campus, Fr. Elpidophoros had many opportunities to meet with faculty and students. On Thursday, March 19, he met with about one hundred students of theSchool of Theology, many of whom were part of the classes on Church History andCanon Law.
The purpose of the Ecumenical Patriarchate Lecture at Hellenic College-Holy Cross is to focus attention on the singular withness and ministry of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church today.
The Rev. Fr. Dr. Alkiviadis Calivas, Emeritus Professor of Liturgics, The Rev. Nicholas Triantafilou, President of Hellenic College and Holy Cross, The V. Rev. Dr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and The Rev. Dr. Thomas Fitzgerald, Dean of Holy Cross School of Theology, at the reception given in Fr. Elpidophoros' honor on Tuesday, March 17, 2009.
The Rev. Dr. Thomas Fitzgerald, Dean of Holy Cross School of Theology, The V. Rev. Dr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Dr. Lily Macrakis, Dean of Hellenic College, at the reception given in Fr. Elpidophoros' honor on Tuesday, March 17, 2009.
Challenges of Orthodoxy in America
And the Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
By
Very Reverend Archimandrite
Dr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis
Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod
(Chapel of the Holy Cross, March 16, 2009)
***
ReverendProtopresbyter Nicholas Triantafyllou, President,
ReverendProtopresbyter Thomas Fitzgerald, Dean of the School of Theology,
Reverendand Esteemed Members of the Faculty and staff,
DearStudents,
Itis an exceptional honor and a great joy for me to be here today, among you,with the blessing and permission of His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarchand the consent of His Eminence the Archbishop of America, in order to sharewith you some thoughts regarding the present condition of Orthodoxy in Americaand our Ecumenical Patriarchate’s position towards it.
You have, my brothers and sisters, theprivilege to be citizens of a country which determines to a great extent thefate of many people on our planet; a country where pioneering technologies aswell as ideas and philosophies have been discovered and disseminated. Thecultural peculiarities and characteristics of the United States find also areflection in, as it is only natural, and exercise an influence on thereligious communities of this country. It is far from accidental that none ofthe “traditional” religions (coming either from Europe or elsewhere), remainedthe same once they were replanted on American soil.
The same change can be of course observed inthe case of Orthodoxy, whose appearance and development in America wasinfluenced by certain indeterminable factors.
The first and main challenge that AmericanOrthodoxy faces is that it has been developed in a region which, from anadministrative and technical point, is that of diaspora. By the term “diaspora”we indicate that region whoseecclesiastical jurisdiction is been unfortunately claimed by a variety of“Mother” Churches, which wish to maintain their pastoral care over theirrespective flocks, comprised by the people who, over the years, immigrated to thesuperpower called USA.
In this way, the Orthodox faithful in Americabecame organized according to their national origin and not according to thecanon law of the Orthodox Church—that is, they organized themselves not inaccordance with the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology which dictates thatneither national origin, nor the history of a group’s appearance in aparticular region but rather the canonical taxis and the perennial praxis of the Church, ascodified by the Ecumenical Councils, has the ultimate authority.
According to such ecclesiological principles,in any given region there can be one and only one bishop who shepherds theOrthodox faithful, regardless of any nationalistic distinction. It was,however, the very opposite scenario that took place in America and today oneobserves the challenging deplorable condition where a number of bishops claimpastoral responsibility for the same geographic region.
A second challenge of the Church in America isthat it was brought here by people who left their homelands at a time thatthese homelands were economically underdeveloped. Economic immigration created,from the very first moment, the need for these people to assimilate to theiradopted land in order to achieve, as soon as possible, the high livingstandards of the privileged Americans and therefore to enjoy the fruits of theAmerican dream. Towards that goal, they changed their names, they put anemphasis on the English language in every aspect of their lives, and at lastthey succeeded in becoming true American citizens, holding ever higherpositions in the financial, commercial, academic, artistic and political lifeof this country. The negative aspect of this strong emphasis on culturalassimilation was the consideration of the faithfulness in one’s culturalbackground as an impediment to the progress and success in the Americansociety. Thus, the complexes of an alleged inferior nationality or class that,in order to enjoy the fruits of the American dream, is supposed to eradicateany bond to its distinctive culture.
The third challenge of Orthodoxy in Americaconcerns the manner of its ecclesiastical organization. The Orthodox faithfulorganized themselves in communities of lay people, who, in turn, becameidentified with the ecclesiastical community in the manner of the traditionalorganization of Christian communities. Thus, the parish (κοινότητα) being now governed by lay electedmembers, builds its own Church, school and other such institutions, andprovides the priest’s salary. Such communal organization improves, as it isright and desirable, the role of laity in Church administration, and increasesthe sense of responsibility and participation in the life of the Church,offering thus the change to the Church to profit of its talented and ableparishioners. On the other hand, however, four very concrete dangers lurkbehind such a communal organization of the local Church:
a) That the priest might become alienated from hisadministrative duties, and from being the spiritual leader of the parish wouldbecome a clerk of the parish council,
b) That the parishioners would find it difficult tocomprehend the rules according to which the Church is governed and instead theywould follow their own secular reasoning,
c) That the structures of the parish would becomeinfluenced by the prevalent Protestant models and thus they would replicate andimitate practices that are foreign to the Spirit of Orthodoxy, and
d) That the parishes would degenerate into nothingmore than membership clubs, invested with some ecclesiastical resemblance.
Asyou all know, one of the secrets for the success of the American miracle in itsfinancial, political and technological aspects was precisely its desire todetach itself from the traditional models of the old world, its ability tobreak free from the established norms, its willingness to question whatever wasconsidered as given or beyond any criticism. As it might have been expected,these tendencies soon found an expression within the life of the Church,sometimes in more extreme ways, other times in more temperate ways. Thus, soonOrthodox clergymen became indistinguishable from the clergy of otherdenominations, choirs in the western style were adopted, the liturgicaltradition became more and more impoverished by being limited only to the bareessentials, etc.
Against that gradual secularization ofOrthodoxy in America, a reaction soon made its appearance in the form of anumber of rapidly spreading monasteries of an Athonite influence, characterizedby ultraconservative tendencies, attached to the letter of the law, andreacting to any form of relationship with other Christian denominations. All ofthis is nothing but the manifestation of the intense thirst for a lostspirituality and a liturgical richness of which the Orthodox people of Americahave been for very long now deprived, forced, as they were, to embrace theChurch only in the form of a sterile social activism.
The traits of the American clergy today alsoappear to undergo certain differences.
The secularization of the parish life, asdescribed above, fails to inspire young men and to cultivate in them thereligious vocation, so that tomorrow’s pastors would be part of the very fleshof today’s parish. That vacuum in clerical vocation is covered by candidateswho, being unusually older than what was perceived the standard age, havealready on their shoulders the domestic burden of a family. Thus they struggleto obtain the necessary degree that would secure for them among others thesociety’s respect.
Another great number of candidates to thepriesthood come from converts, who possess little, if any, familiarity with theOrthodox experience and they are usually characterized by their overzealous behaviorand mentality. It is of interest that the converts who become ordained intopriesthood represent a disproportionally greater percentage than the convertsamong the faithful. The result of this disanalogous representation is that,more often than not, convert priest shepherd flocks who are bearers of somecultural tradition, but because their pastors either lack the necessaryfamiliarity with that tradition or even consciously oppose it, they succeed indevaluing and gradually eradicating those cultural elements that have been theexpression of the parishes that they serve.
It is particularly saddening that the crisis inpriestly vocation has decreased dramatically the number but also the quality ofcelibate priests, who one day will be assigned with the responsibility ofgoverning this Church. Lack of spirituality makes the monastic idealincomprehensible and unattractive especially among the youth (with theexception, of course, of the aforementioned monastic communities with their ownpeculiarities).
Having attempted this general evaluation of theAmerican Orthodoxy, allow me to consider briefly the Holy Archdiocese ofAmerica, this most important eparchy of the Ecumenical Throne.
The image we depicted above in roughbrushstrokes holds also true for the Archdiocese. Thanks to the selflessdedication of our immigrants and under the protection of the first See in theOrthodox world, a strong Archdiocese was created that, in time, reached a levelof maturity and excellence and it is today the pride of the Church ofConstantinople. The Archdiocese took advantage of the possibilities that adeeply democratic, meritocratic and progressive state, like the United States,was able to offer, in order that the Orthodox faith of our fathers take rootdeep in the American land.
To this effect, the active participation of thelay element was, as we have seen, very important. We believe that the youngergenerations of the omogeneia are free of the past’s prejudices andcomplexes, according to which, if you wish to succeed in America you have toforget your cultural patrimony and your language in order to be left naked, soto speak, in the thorny desert of the Wild West. Today’s omogeneia has overcome thatdenial and has come to understand that the secret of the Americancivilization’s success does not lie in the obliteration of one’s culturalbackground but rather in the free and harmonious co-existence of people andraces who have come to this hospitable land seeking a life in freedom, in faithand in dignity. Our cultural heritage and our national conscience is not, byany means, an obstacle for our progress and for the successful witness to ourfaith, especially insofar as ecumenicity (οἰκουμενικότης) is the heart of Hellenism and by definitionalien to any form of nationalism or cultural chauvinism.
The Holy Archdiocese of America under theEcumenical Patriarchate is the most organized, well-structured and successfulpresence of Orthodoxy today. This is not accidental. This success was notachieved by foregoing its cultural identity. It was not achieved by ignoringthe sacred canons and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. It was notachieved by succumbing to the temptation of secularism. It was not achieved byimprisoning itself in the darkness of the extreme fundamentalism, nationalismand sterile denial.
Precisely because the Holy Archdiocese ofAmerica occupies such an esteemed position in this country we are obliged tooffer a self-criticism but also to defend ourselves against the unjustaccusations that target this jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Examining, then, ourselves, I believe that weought to be more careful towards the easiness with which we are ready toabandon our Hellenism, both as language and as tradition. As we have alreadysaid, it is nothing but a myth the opinion that Hellenism is an obstacle to thecreative and successful incorporation in the American reality. Hellenism isidentified with its ecumenical character and for that reason it can never benationalistic for both of its manifestations, its culture and its Orthodoxfaith are concepts that transcend the boundaries of the national.
I do not support the opinion that we can todayoblige everyone to speak Greek, but I think that we have to offer thatpossibility to those who so desire, to learn Greek in well organized schools,by talented teachers. I think that we owe our children the possibility ofchoice. We owe to our culture the obliteration of contempt for a language thatexpressed the Gospel and became the vehicle for the most subtle meanings in thearticulation of the dogma by the founders of our faith and Fathers ofChristianity.
I do not support the opinion that the serviceshere in America should be done exclusively in Greek. Simply I do not understandhow it is possible that any priest of the Archdiocese might not be able toserve in both languages. It is not understandable how an institution of highereducation cannot manage to teach its students a language, even in the time spanof four years!
My brothers and sisters, I am not one of themwho believe that there is a sacred language (lingua sacra) for the Church. I justwonder why in every Theological School in the world the students are expectedto learn the Biblical languages, and it is only in our School of the GreekOrthodox Archdiocese of America that such a requirement seems anachronistic,nationalistic or conservative.
Speaking now of your Theological School, do youthink that the Church’s expectation that the graduates of this School knowtheology, canon law, Byzantine music, be able to celebrate the service ofmatins, vespers and the sacraments, be able to preach the Word of God andinstruct our youth in the catechism is unreasonable or excessive?
My dear brothers and sisters, allow me now toreturn to the problem of the diaspora and the jurisdictional diversity that oneobserves in the USA.
First of all, allow me to remind you that theterm “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond theborders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodoxpeople who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it wasargued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According tothe 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of theprerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactlyover these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the localChurches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order todenote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown landsbeyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.
On account of this canon, the EcumenicalPatriarchate has suffered the unfair and unjust criticism of two AmericanOrthodox Hierarchs: Metropolitan Phillip and the newly elected MetropolitanJonas.
It is my duty to refute the injustice directedagainst the Mother Church of Constantinople for the sake of historical truthand for the sake of moral conscience.
Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still anabbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective”on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter onautocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarchingprimacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to theinstitution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such aninstitution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “haslong become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monasticperspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only theGreek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate tobe what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarchnot only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of thecurrent state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is noChurch that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he iscarried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides andwhich has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every senseof canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included inthe diptychs of the Church.
Please allow me, by way of illustration, tosample a few other points of the same article that should not remainunanswered.
Metropolitan Jonas claims that in America“there is no common expression of unity that supersedes ethnic linguistic andcultural divisions.” Does His Eminence ignore the fact that under the canonicaljurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in America belong Greeks,Palestinians, Albanians, Ukrainians and Carpathorussians? Is this not proofenough of a common structure that supersedes ethnic and cultural divisions?Does he imply perhaps that SCOBA either constitutes a common expression ofunity that supersedes such divisions?
The most provocative of his claims is thatwhich asserts that with the formation of the so-called OCA “the presence of anyother jurisdiction on American territory becomes uncanonical, and membership inthe Synod of the Orthodox Church in America becomes the criterion of canonicityof all bishops in America.” It is perhaps a sign of our times that he whoviolated the holy canons par excellence, the most uncanonically claimed asallegedly autocephalous, makes now himself the criterion of canonicity andvitiates the canonical hierarchs as uncanonical. O tempora, o mores!
Instead of acknowledging the mercifulness ofthe other Patriarchates which, in spite the uncanonical status of the so-calledOCA, accept it in communion, its representatives choose to subject them to suchan unfair treatment that contributes nothing to the common cause of Orthodoxunity. I would be interested to hear an explanation from His Eminence inresponse to the question “How will the so-called OCA contribute to our commonOrthodox witness in diaspora by electing bishops holding titles which alreadyexist for the same city”. Especially our Ecumenical Patriarchate not only is itnot “unable to lead” as most unfortunately Metropolitan Jonas claims, butalready since last October (in order to limit myself to the most recentexample) has launched under the presidency of His All Holiness the process forthe convocation of the Holy and Great Synod. I am not sure whether HisEminence, upon his ordination to the episcopacy, refused to put on thevestments of a bishop, which he, in the same article, and while he was still anabbot, had called as unfitting to the real nature of the arch-pastorship (p.11).
Let me add that the refusal to recognizeprimacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but beembodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being thefirst among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannotbe accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches issafeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the EcumenicalCouncil as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in ourOrthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in thelevel of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but thePerson of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological levelof the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or thecommon worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in thePan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institutionbut it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.
The second article that I have to mention hereis that of His Eminence the Antiochean Metropolitan Phillip under the title “Canon28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council—Relevant or IrrelevantToday?”
Metropolitan Phillip begins his argument withan entirely anti-theological distinction of the holy canons into three categories 1) dogmatic, 2) contextual and,3) “dead”.
I would like to know in which of these threecategories, following his reasoning, His Eminence would classify the canons ofthe Ecumenical Councils that demarcate the jurisdictions of the ancientPatriarchates. Are they “contextual”—subject, as it is, to change? Does HisEminence believe that in this way he serves the unity among Orthodox, bysubjugating the holy and divine canons under the circumstantial judgment ofsome bishop?
Based on the above distinction, and although heaccepts that canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead”(since there is so much debate about it), he affirms that indeed it givescertain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, however,he claims that this happened for secular and political reasons that have nothingto do with today’s state of affairs. Implicitly and yet all too clearly,Metropolitan Phillip implies that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchcan be doubted. The question then is: does His Eminence know of any Churchwhose status (Patriarchal or Autocephalous) were not decided according to thehistorical conditions that they were current at the time? Or, does His Eminenceknow of any Church that has received its status on the basis of theologicalreasons exclusively? Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council isequally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions. Imaginethe consequences for the Orthodox Church if we begin to re-evalutate the statusof each local Church!
The correct interpretation of canon 28 is consideredby His Eminence as “novelty”, by invoking only sources of the 20thcentury, while it has been scientifically established already by the lateMetropolitan of Sardeis Maximos the uninterrupted application of the canon inquestion during the history of the Church of Constantinople.
The question, my brothers and sisters, israther simple:
If Constantinople was not given thatprerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies andpatriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria,Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision ofwhich canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over theremaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?
And if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has notgranted the Patriarchate of Moscow the privilege to bestow autocephaly as itpleases it, then what gives it the right to do so on the expense of theOrthodox unity?
Summarizing my lecture, I wish to call yourattention to the following points:
1. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is a Church thatundergoes martyrdom, a Church that often has received unfair criticism,especially by those Churches which were most richly benefited by it. At nopoint, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchatebecause that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity(ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith. The proofof this emerges in the most decisive manner throughout the 17 centuries of itshistory, during which it never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize thenations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light ofChrist. What better example than the Slavic tribes which owe even theiralphabet to the Thessalonian brothers Cyril and Methodios. I, who speak to youtonight, although I am an Antiochean from my maternal side, nevertheless Iserve as the Chief-Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Church ofConstantinople.
2. The Ecumenical Patriarchate neither had nor hasterritorial claims against the sister Orthodox Churches. That truth istestified by the fact that, although the Patriarchates of the East werevirtually destroyed during the difficult times of the 17th and 18thcenturies, nevertheless, the Patriarchate of Constantinople was taking the careto have a Patriarch elected for those Patriarchates, supporting their primatesin every possible way.
3. The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element ofcanonicity.
As you surely know, lastOctober the Ecumenical Patriarchate summoned in Constantinople a Synaxis of thePrimates of the Orthodox Churches. The Primates accepted the proposal ofPatriarch Bartholomew to move ahead with the Pan-Orthodox preparatory meetings,within 2009, so that the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church take placeas soon as possible. For the record, please note that this decision was reachedthanks to the concession on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate whichaccepted that the Autonomous Churches will no longer be invited as to avoid thethorny problem of the Church of Estonia in the relations between Constantinopleand Moscow.
4. With regards to the United States, the submission to the First Throne of the Church, that is, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate is not only fitting with the American society and mentality but also it opens up the horizons of possibilities for this much-promising region, which is capable of becoming an example of Pan-Orthodox unity and witness.
The Mother Church of Constantinople safeguards for the Orthodox Church in America those provisions that are needed for further progress and maturity in Christ.
Please allow me to conclude with the phrase of His Beatitude Ignatios, Patriarch ofAntioch, during last October’s Synaxis of the Primates at the Phanar: “In theOrthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople.”
Thankyou for your attention.
Here is a list of upcoming events at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. For a complete list, see our calendar of events.
Tuesday, May, 22nd, 2012
Monday, May, 28th, 2012
Tuesday, June, 5th, 2012
Friday, June, 8th, 2012
