Posted by Leo
on 7/16/2009, 11:12 am, in reply to "Re: Canon 28 and the Emperor?"
Hi again Dean,
I made it through that Christou article about what seems to be "The Christ-God-believing Ruler" (decoding one of those botched Greek passages ... or else "The Believing Ruler in Christ-God," or even "The Ruler Believing in Christ-God"). So let me run this past you (and anyone else who might care):
Christou believes the Byzantine Emperor, ie, Christian, Orthodox, as a layman and a Ruler, was theologically considered to have an apostle-like responsibility to protect and advance The Truth/The Church. Advancing includes outside the boundaries of the Empire, especially considering that Monks would normally be busy with ascesis and their Monastic Rule, and other Bishops and Clergy, with their responsibilities within their given canonical territories ('No cleric may function outside his territory without permission from the other territory's Ruling Hierarch;' and naturally, a new land without a c/Church has no Ruling Hierarch.). Plus, as you point out, concerns of Imperial foreign policy / international relations -- even perhaps to actually appointing Daughter-Church Primates -- and other points that Christou brings out well.
Sometimes, as you may know, Byzantium was styled "The Empire of the Orthodox," and its ruler "The Emperor of the Orthodox," and considered protector of Orthodox everywhere. (Hence, perhaps -- and not just ancient pride -- Justinian and other Emperors' attempts to recover Western territory for the Empire. Also, Fr. John Romanides says when the Moors conquered Spain, they did so with the help of "Romans" in Spain, and Byzantine forces, throwing off the yoke of doctrinally-questionable "Frankish" rule: 'Better the turban than the Red Hat...', even then, I guess!)
As you are aware, since the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, similar ideas grew up around the Rulers of Moscow, part of the "Third Rome" question which Russians sometimes raise, which rankles Greeks so much. Certainly the idea of "protector of Orthodox" comes up in analysis of at least some Imperial Russian actions in war and diplomacy, as well as the old Russian dream of liberating "Tsargrad" from the Turks. Also a certain 'seniority' of Russia among Orthodox Slavic countries at least, which we still see even today regarding the Former Yugoslavia. IIRC some Russians were also in the background of the Greek Revolution of 1821.
So was the Tsar considered to have the Byzantine Emperor's power to send "Missions" outside his Patriarchate's (or Province's) canonical territory? Or did the Patriarch of C'ople inherit this from the Emperor as Rum millet bashi? (Though properly, as a subject "ethnarch," he would've had no independent foreign policy rights I presume ... which ironically the Mayors and Prefects of Istanbul continue to insist!)
I've puzzled over Russia's use of the term "Ecclesiastical [or Spiritual] Mission" to style the sending of Bishops or Missionary Teams to places like China, Korea, and Alaska, even to numbering them sequentially, ie, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., as in China. But if these were considered "Missions" in a government-involved sense (e.g., "US Mission to the United Nations"), even with a diplomatic element as seems suggested here, the Russian usage might make some sense to me. After all, etymologically, a "mission" is nothing more than a "sending" -- diplomatic, religious, economic, anything.
So what? C'ople and several other Patriarchates claim that Russia had no power to send or keep missions outside its national territory, including here -- that nobody does now except an Ecumenical Synod, or C'ople in lieu of one ... even that the Rest of the World is part of C'ople's proper "province" or Canonical Territory. They deny the continuing relevance of the ancient Canon that a Church that evangelizes a new territory has responsibility for that new territory; they claim that's just a recipe for chaos, although apparently it rarely was anciently (maybe because of Imperial coordination?). So, was the Byzantine Emperor really "theologically" considered to have that duty and power, as Christou believes? (No Canon; Holy Tradition?) And did that power "theologically" pass to anyone after 1453; IOW, is it relevant to historical / Canonical consideration of the "Modern" period, such as the Russian Missions to China, Japan, Korea, and US/Canada, or even to consideration of "the Diaspora"? Is "Third Rome" not just propaganda, but "theology," ie, Holy Tradition? (After all, there was a prophecy recorded about it: "Moscow is Third, and there will not be a Fourth.") If so, does it make use of a Byzantine-Empire argument (ironically) to justify the MP's Canonical Territory claims today in all China, all Korea, Japan, and The OCA's in the US and Canada?
Someone with too much time on his hands!,
Leo
PS: Let's remember that Third Rome need not supplant Second Rome, any more than Second supplanted First until First Rome fell into schism and error....
Responses:
