Russian Church No Longer Will Commemorate Bartholomew in the Liturgy
#1
Well, war has officially been declared. 

From Byzantine Texas

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia’s Orthodox Church said on Friday it would no longer participate in structures chaired by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, deepening a row in Orthodox Christianity over the Ukrainian Church’s bid to break away from Moscow’s orbit.


The Russian Orthodox Church’s Holy Synod ruling body convened on Friday to consider how to respond as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has courted Constantinople to formally make it a self-governing body independent of Moscow.

Ukraine’s pro-Western political leaders have sought step by step to take the former Soviet republic out of Moscow’s orbit after Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula in 2014 and a Moscow-backed insurgency broke out in eastern Ukraine.

Vladimir Legoida, a Russian Church spokesman, said the Holy Synod had decided to suspend its participation in all structures chaired or co-chaired by representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

It is also suspending all services with top priests of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and will not commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in its services, Legoida wrote on social media, summarizing the outcome of the meeting.

“Essentially this is a breakdown of relations. To take an example from secular life, the decision is roughly equivalent to cutting diplomatic ties,” the Russian Church’s Metropolitan Ilarion was quoted by RIA news agency as saying.

RIVAL CHURCHES

The Moscow Patriarchate is part of the Russian Orthodox Church and has a sizeable following in Ukraine.

Kiev considers it a tool for the Kremlin to wield influence, while the Moscow Patriarchate sees itself as the only legitimate Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

The Kremlin said it was following the situation closely and opposed any split in Orthodoxy, adding that the state should not intervene in church matters.

“Of course for Moscow and indeed for the entire Orthodox world the single preferable scenario is the preservation of unity of this Orthodox world,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.

The Moscow Patriarchate vies for influence in Ukraine with the Kiev Patriarchate - a branch of the Orthodox Church that broke away from Moscow in 1992 after the fall of the Soviet Union - and with other Orthodox and Catholic denominations.

The Kiev Patriarchate’s leader has been sharply critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin and in 2014 suggested he was possessed by Satan.

The Ecumenical Patriarch does not wield the power enjoyed by the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church but is traditionally regarded as the ‘first among equals’ among the patriarchs of the self-governing Orthodox churches and also as the spiritual leader of the roughly 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide.

The Ecumenical Patriarch, currently Bartholomew, also holds the title of Archbishop of Constantinople, the old Greek name for Istanbul, Turkey’s largest city. The city fell to the Muslim Turks in 1453 but has remained the historic seat of Orthodoxy.

However Russia has long been home to the world’s largest Orthodox Christian Church.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Blind Horus
Reply
#2
From Newsweek:

WHY DO THE RUSSIANS TRUST THE CHURCH SET UP BY THE KGB?

https://www.newsweek.com/why-do-russians...kgb-802635
.

Quote:It was to a resounding silence that the news broke last December that today’s Russian Church’s organization was essentially formed under the watchful eye of the NKGB, a precursor to the KGB.
The 1945 Local Council that elected Patriarch Alexy I (Simansky) and adopted the church’s current name was organized and conducted by the Soviet political police, documents recently declassified by the Ukrainian Security Service show.  


This article first appeared on the Wilson Center site.

It was to a resounding silence that the news broke last December that today’s Russian Church’s organization was essentially formed under the watchful eye of the NKGB, a precursor to the KGB.

The 1945 Local Council that elected Patriarch Alexy I (Simansky) and adopted the church’s current name was organized and conducted by the Soviet political police, documents recently declassified by the Ukrainian Security Service show.  

The Russian Orthodox Church could have found itself in a tight place had anyone paid attention. But few were interested. Today’s Russian society is undeterred in its respect for the church.

The January 1945 council’s delegates were selected from among “persons who were held in high religious regard by the clergy and the people of faith and at the same time proved their worth as part of intelligence or patriotic work,” one of the released documents said.

The council, the first such gathering since the revolution of 1917, ruled that the church would henceforth be called the “Russian Orthodox Church.” (One of the names used before the revolution was the “Orthodox Catholic Greek-Russian Church,” but official monikers varied.)

The mainstream view is that the 1945 council was vital for the church under the Soviet rule: Patriarch Alexy’s trustworthiness helped bring back to the fold many of the crypto-believers who had shied away from the preceding Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) because of his publicly expressed loyalty to Stalin (neither he nor the church organization would have survived otherwise).



But according to those radically opposed to Soviet rule, the Bolsheviks completely destroyed the canonical Orthodox Church that had existed from the Baptism of Rus’ up to the revolutionary days of 1917.

The Moscow Patriarchate, this thinking goes, is an organization that can trace its history only to 1943, the year when Stalin summoned the three highest-ranking bishops of the time to the Kremlin and told them he was prepared to legalize the Orthodox Church and reopen the churches and seminaries.


The papers made public by the Ukrainian security agency showed that the crucial meetings of the Russian Orthodox Church and the patriarch selection process were police controlled. But the reaction on Russian social media was along the lines of “What’s the big deal?” and “Haven’t we heard about this before?”

KGB colonel Georgy Karpov, whose signature is on the letter instructing local KGB chiefs on how to select the delegates, was decorated with the Order of the Red Banner of Labor for organizing the 1945 council. He was known for extreme cruelty during the Great Purge. He is also part of the church’s history: for seventeen years he headed the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church—which is to say he de facto governed the church in a way similar to that of the Ober-Procurator of the Most Holy Synod.

He fell out of grace under Khrushchev for resisting the closure of parishes: Nikita Khrushchev, who succeeded Stalin, was much tougher on religion than the Stalin of the 1940s and early 1950s.

The publication of the KGB archives came twenty years too late. It could have affected the entire course of the church’s history had it happened in the 1990s.

The proof of the church leadership’s deep association with the KGB could have compromised the church before the believers and the new government. Who would have wanted a “KGB church” associated with the outgoing Soviet elites?

But the documents were buried in the archives while the church was busy canonizing thousands of victims of the state terror, enjoying the nation’s support as a long-suffering institution, and getting its property back.

Today’s Russian Orthodox Church is an established institution with an impregnable charisma and an enthusiastic, if perfunctory, following. Seventy-one percent of Russians polled consider themselves Christian Orthodox, 6 percent of them go to church every week, and 17 percent pray every day, according to a Pew Research Center report titled “Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe.”

By way of comparison, 55 percent of Americans pray every day, the Pew report says. Russian polling agencies’ data are not that far off. For example, according to the FOM (Public Opinion Foundation) 2014 survey, 68 percent of respondents call themselves Orthodox, though 61 percent have never received communion and 63 percent go to church once a year or less often.

Nevertheless, more than half of Russian citizens believe in religious miracles. And the Russian Orthodox Church is the most powerful source of everything miraculous. In fact, the one thing that the self-proclaimed Orthodox majority truly has in common is a belief in miracles.

This belief only indirectly correlates with their political views or values. The congregation does not care much about the internal life of the church, its history, or its relations with the state.

There are saints who are truly popular. The entire country, it seems, prays to Saint Matrona of Moscow, an elder with an unclear biography, whom people ask for a variety of things, such as to pass an exam, marry happily, be healthy, and have children.

There was a mass canonization of new saints during the faith renaissance of the late 1990s and the early 2000s: thousands of clergymen and people of faith had perished in the twentieth century, and so each diocese gained its own new saints.

Dioceses also gained the holy relics of pre-revolutionary saints that were lost during the Soviet times: Saint Seraphim of Sarov, Alexander of Svir, and others. New cults emerged everywhere and old ones were revived and reconstructed with a touch of peculiar post-Soviet piety.

It was in the early 2000s that a new practice came into existence—the touring of relics. The main act of faith now is to stand in a queue for many hours. A sort of “theology of queueing” emerged that justifies the need to overcome hardship on one’s path to a holy relic. Queueing became analogous to a pilgrimage.

One can trace queueing as a phenomenon to the fall of 2011 when the Cincture of Virgin Mary was brought to Russia from Mount Athos. Around three million people waited in line to see it when it toured Russian cities for thirty-nine days. Another relic from Mount Athos, the Gifts of the Magi, was brought in 2014.

Last summer, for two months, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior exhibited the relics of Saint Nicholas, which left the basilica of the Italian city of Bari for the first time in 930 years.

This particular line became part of the Moscow city landscape, along with pilgrimage buses from all over central Russia, fenced-off sections of pavement at the Prechistenskaya and Frunzenskaya Embankments, and volunteers in green uniforms who watched over the path from the subway to the cathedral, regulated the line, and helped pilgrims find their way around. People stood in line for five hours and more, and on peak days the waiting time reached twelve hours.

The recently published KGB papers or news of scandalous behavior of some of the priests do not even begin to undermine the general trust in the church. These are only seen as frivolous distractions from the expectations of miracles to come.

Xenia Luchenko, a journalist and author, is assistant professor at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. 
The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders  
The Church will be in eclipse

-Our Lady of La Salette


Like Christ, His Bride the Church will undergo its own passion, burial, and resurrection.
-unknown traditional priest

Father Ripperger said that if we are detached from all things, aren't afraid to suffer, and we accept all suffering as the will of God for our sanctity, we have nothing to fear!
Reply
#3
Let the Phanar sink. It already promotes dubious ecumenism, among other things. The EP Church has already been one of the most liberal in matters of practice, especially ikonomiya (priestly remarriage being the most recent and glaring), not to mention lukewarm attitudes towards homosexuality. If the Phanar wants to become another papacy, it will only hasten an already advancing spiritual death.

I stand with his Holiness, Kirill, and the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate. I am well familiar with the Newsweek opinion. I’m surprised how willing the forum readers are to rely on a source that clearly reflects anti-religious and liberal tendencies as a reliable source of information regarding a conservative Church. And a final word, beware the heresy of Donatism.
Reply
#4
(09-15-2018, 04:20 PM)Klemens Wrote: Let the Phanar sink. It already promotes dubious ecumenism, among other things. The EP Church has already been one of the most liberal in matters of practice, especially ikonomiya (priestly remarriage being the most recent and glaring), not to mention lukewarm attitudes towards homosexuality. If the Phanar wants to become another papacy, it will only hasten an already advancing spiritual death.

I stand with his Holiness, Kirill, and the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate. I am well familiar with the Newsweek opinion. I’m surprised how willing the forum readers are to rely on a source that clearly reflects anti-religious and liberal tendencies as a reliable source of information regarding a conservative Church. And a final word, beware the heresy of Donatism.

I'm quite ignorant about Orthodox matters.  I was just posting an article that gave some interesting stats and history.  Just here to keep learning and sort things out in this area.
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. 
The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders  
The Church will be in eclipse

-Our Lady of La Salette


Like Christ, His Bride the Church will undergo its own passion, burial, and resurrection.
-unknown traditional priest

Father Ripperger said that if we are detached from all things, aren't afraid to suffer, and we accept all suffering as the will of God for our sanctity, we have nothing to fear!
Reply
#5
(09-15-2018, 04:57 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
(09-15-2018, 04:20 PM)Klemens Wrote: Let the Phanar sink. It already promotes dubious ecumenism, among other things. The EP Church has already been one of the most liberal in matters of practice, especially ikonomiya (priestly remarriage being the most recent and glaring), not to mention lukewarm attitudes towards homosexuality. If the Phanar wants to become another papacy, it will only hasten an already advancing spiritual death.

I stand with his Holiness, Kirill, and the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate. I am well familiar with the Newsweek opinion. I’m surprised how willing the forum readers are to rely on a source that clearly reflects anti-religious and liberal tendencies as a reliable source of information regarding a conservative Church. And a final word, beware the heresy of Donatism.

I'm quite ignorant about Orthodox matters.  I was just posting an article that gave some interesting stats and history.  Just here to keep learning and sort things out in this area.
My apologies if I came on a little strong. First, my comments were general and not directed toward you specifically. I guess the tensions have gotten to me as well. I’m quite happy that you’re interested in learning the truth in these matters. As for speaking about Donatism, it was only because I see it in Ukrainian and Western attempts at discrediting the Moscow Patriarchate. Nobody is going to deny MP-KGB collaboration. The MP has made admissions/apologies in the past (most notably under Patriarch Aleksei). Moreover, the MP has gone out of its way to commemorate the martyrs under the Soviet system (including the Imperial Family). If ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), whose raison d’être was to counteract the Soviet-infiltrated MP, found itself able to re-enter communion, then others should be equally capable of moving forward. 

The problem with current anti-MP accusations of NKVD/KGB collaboration is twofold. First, these accusations ignore the large number of clergy martyred and persecuted. And secondly, these accusations imply that current MP clergy are invalid. That’s simply textbook Donatism. 
If the MP preached/preaches heresy, then you might question the MP’s Orthodoxy. But out of all accusations against the MP that one will encounter, none ever questions MP faithfulness in teaching the Orthodox Christian faith (whether clergy live it out is another matter, but that’s another topic of discussion).

What’s interesting is that the Constantinople Patriarchate’s behavior has elicited actual accusations of heresy not only from the MP (recently), but also  from other canonical jurisdictions, especially after the Crete fiasco. Such accusations rightfully effect the EP’s canonical standing. The EP, and its Western backers (where else would support such a small, isolated district in Istanbul), gladly use this tactic because it turns attention away from the actual crisis, namely a jurisdiction that seems to be adopting all manner of western heterodoxy.
Reply
#6
Understand that I don't have a dog in this fight. I just find it fascinating to watch the rudderless Orthodox Churches fight amongst themselves. It shows the results of rejecting the Primacy granted by Our Lord to St Peter. This article includes insinuations that Moscow itself is not truly autocephalous, never having received a tomos of autocephaly from the Ecumenical Patriarch. It gets interestinger and interestinger!


From Byzantine Texas

Quote:(Cerkvarium via RISU) - The process of preparing the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church is already at a practical level. This caused a lot of negative emotions from the representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the UOC-MP, who accused the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Patriarch Bartholomew of “heresy of papism”, interfering in the affairs of other Local churches, and almost preparing a new pan-orthodox schism. Such aggressive allegations could not have been left without a response from the Mother Church — the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Cerkvarium is grateful to the Archbishop of Telmessos Job (Gecha) for providing detailed explanations on the most painful issues that concern Orthodox believers.

— The Moscow Patriarchate insists that autocephaly can only be requested by the canonical part of a Church, and everything else is “the legalization of the schism.” But all the latest autocephalies arose as a result of separation exclusively from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and this was very difficult and painful. Are there any recognized rules to who can ask for autocephaly, how and when? After all, the greatest experience in this matter – is in Constantinople.

— If you study the history of the Orthodox Church, according to texts and documents, rather than created myths and false historiography, it is evident that absolutely all modern autocephalies have been proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Even if we take the history of the Orthodox Church in Russia, we see that its autocephaly was self-proclaimed in 1448, when Moscow elected metropolitan Jonas independently, without the consent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is interesting to emphasize that the Orthodox Church in Russia has never been given a tomos of autocephaly! In 1589-1590, Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II simply normalized the situation by raising this see to a patriarchal rank, while allowing the Moscow bishop “to be called” patriarch, provided that he would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch and consider him “as his head and protos”, as stated in the letter.

Later autocephalies that were proclaimed in the 19th and 20th centuries – all were proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate: the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Greece (1850), in Serbia (1879 and elevated to the a patriarchate in 1922), in Romania (1885 and elevated to a patriarchate in 1925), in Poland (1924), in Albania (1937) in Bulgaria (1945 and elevated to a patriarchate in 1961), in Georgia (1990) and in the Czech Lands and Slovakia (1998). Each of these proclamations was linked to a political factor and autocephaly was proclaimed as a way of ensuring the unity of the Church, within the interior of each of these states, as well as the unity between the Local Churches.

In addition to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in the history of the Orthodox Church, no other Local Church has proclaimed autocephaly. True, the Orthodox Church in Russia may claim that it proclaimed the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Georgia (1943), in Czechoslovakia (1951) and in America (1970), but these autocephalies were not recognized by the fullness of the Orthodox Church as the Orthodox Church in Russia does not have such a prerogative of providing autocephaly. Therefore, these three Churches themselves appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for providing tomoses of autocephaly. Over time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate normalized the situation by declaring the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Georgia (1990) and in the Czech Lands and Slovakia (1998).
[url=https://www.blogger.com/null][/url]
Quote:— Is it possible to consider that the current difficult condition of separation of Ukrainian Orthodoxy is the result of the fact that at one time the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) ignored the appeal of the Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC-MP) of 1991 regarding autocephaly?

— In my opinion yes! If autocephaly was proclaimed in Ukraine immediately after the proclamation of its independence in 1991, it would have been possible to prevent 30 years of a painful and harmful schism, which began in 1989. And this was the position of the entire episcopacy of the UOC-MP, which was adopted immediately after the proclamation of Ukraine’s independence at its Council in November 1991: “the Council believes that the bestowment of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will contribute to strengthening the unity of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, to facilitate the elimination of the autocephalous split that has arisen, to oppose the Uniate and Catholic expansion, to reconcile and establish an agreement between the current opposing confessions, the unification of citizens of all nationalities living in Ukraine, and thus contribute to the consolidation of strengthening the unity of the entire Ukrainian people.” The signatures of all the bishops of the UOC-MP of that time follow this decision, without exception, including the Bishop of Chernivtsi and Bukovyna, Onuphriy, the present Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine. Incidentally, they often forget (or deliberately cover up) that the so-called “Council of Kharkiv,” that elected Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) of blessed memory as Metropolitan of Kiev in the place of Philaret (Denisenko), repeated this position, addressing the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexei II, with the following words: “We are confident that the vitally important issue of granting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church canonical autocephaly, with the help of God and the efforts of the new Primate, will successfully achieve the unity of the entire Ukrainian flock with a new energy, with a new force in the bright hope, that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in the near future, will receive the desired canonical autocephaly.”

— The ROC constantly accuses Constantinople of the “heresy of papism”. But in the same Moscow Patriarchate, the doctrine of the “Third Rome” is very popular, according to which the ROC itself should take the first place in the Diptychs. What can Constantinople do with these imperial ways of the Russian Church?

— The theory of Moscow as “Third Rome” is not an ecclesiological doctrine, nor a prerogative of canonical (ecclesiastical) law. Elder (Starets) Philotheus of Pskov created this myth in the early 16th century. But the Orthodox Church does not live on the basis of myths. The history of the Orthodox Church does not know a ”first” and “second” Rome, but only the “old” (Rome) and the “new” one (Constantinople). There is no third Rome. The Orthodox Church lives, apart from the Holy Scriptures, on the basis of the doctrine and canons of the Ecumenical Councils. It is clearly and evidently indicated that only these two historical sees received special rights and prerogatives at the time of the Ecumenical Councils. And who among the Orthodox today can claim to have supreme authority over the Ecumenical Councils to change their decisions? In fact, every Orthodox bishop, during the confession of faith prior of his episcopal consecration, promised to always adhere not only to the doctrine, but also to the ecclesiastical rules (canons) of the Ecumenical and Local Councils that bind him.

— Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev in an interview stated: “Unlike the Roman Church, in the Orthodox Church there has always existed a different system of local Orthodox churches, each of which has independence and no one is subordinate to the other”. And thus, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is placed equally with the others. To what extent is this understanding of the system of local churches correct? What are the boundaries of the intervention of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the affairs (problems) of other local churches?

— Regarding the accusation by some people that Constantinople has fallen into the “heresy of papism”, it must be recalled that in the Holy Scriptures, the Apostle Paul compares the Church of Christ with the body in which Christ is the head and in which we are members (see Eph 5:23, 30; Col 1:18). But for us, the Orthodox, the Church is not something abstract, as for the Protestants, but something very concrete – a theandric organism, which is made up of concrete people. Therefore, according to the Orthodox Church law, the head of the local Church is a concrete person – the bishop. And according to the 34th Apostolic Canon, the bishops of the regional Church must recognize who is the first (protos), and recognize him as their head, and they must do nothing important without his knowledge. This rule has always been applied to the universal Church, because our Orthodox Church is one, it is the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, and not a confederation of separate independent Churches, as we see in Protestantism. As far as the Church is united, one body – the body of Christ –, it has one head. The Church is not a multi-headed monster! Therefore, in the letter that raised the Moscow throne to a patriarchate in 1590, it was stated that the bishop of Moscow must recognize the apostolic Constantinopolitan throne as “its head and protos”, as the other Orthodox patriarchs do. To renounce this means not only to lose these privileges that were given to the see of Moscow by patriarchal acts of Constantinople, but also to depart from the Orthodox doctrine of the Church, in accordance with the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Scriptures.

— What special privileges or functions does the Ecumenical Patriarch have within the framework of coordination?

— The Ecumenical Patriarch is not only one among the patriarchs in the Orthodox Church. He is not only “the first among equals”. Incidentally, the Latin formula “primus inter pares” is nowhere to be found in Orthodox Church law, which, on the contrary, refers to the “seniority of honour” (presbeia timês), indicating a certain hierarchy or at least some sort of order. Having this “seniority of honour” according to the sacred canons, the Ecumenical Patriarch, as the “head” and “protos” in the Orthodox Church, must ensure the unity of the Local Churches and coordinate them. This was evident in the 20th century in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church and in the coordination of the Local Churches in the inter-Christian dialogue at the universal level. Proceeding from its role to ensure the unity of the Local Churches and to coordinate them, the Ecumenical Patriarchate proclaims the autocephaly of new local Churches, as has already been said. Furthermore, according to canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Ecumenical Patriarch has the right to accept appeals (ekkliton) from clerics and bishops (including those from other Local Churches). He also has the right to establish stavropegia (including those on the territory of other Local Churches).

— How can one believe the Spokesman of the ROC that it has massive support for its position in Ukraine among the primate and episcopate of other Local Churches? How can the statements of the heads of other Greek churches be interpreted regarding the fact that Ukraine is exclusively the canonical territory of the ROC? Is there a Pan-Orthodox consensus on this?

— In your question, the main thing is to distinguish two things: the first is the recognition of the UOC-MP, headed by the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine, Onuphriy, and the second question is the jurisdiction over Ukraine. Regarding the first point, it is clear that among the three Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine at the moment (the UOC-MP, the UOC-KP, and the UAOC), only the UOC-MP is the only Church recognized by universal Orthodoxy as it is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, which received its canonical status from the Ecumenical Throne, which is in communion with all the local Orthodox Churches. The other two groups, since 1989, have split off from the Moscow Patriarchate and are therefore considered to be schismatic and are not recognized by any local Orthodox Church.

Regarding the second point, it should be emphasized that ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Ukraine belongs exclusively to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. When the Orthodox Church in Russia received the status of a patriarchate in 1589-1590, the Metropolis of Kiev (in the Polish-Lithuanian state, with its see in Kiev) remained in the jurisdiction of Constantinople. After left-bank Ukraine was annexed to the Moscow state after the Pereyaslav Council (1654), at a time when there were constant wars between the Turkish and Muscovite states (from 1676), and when, after the Kievan throne had remained vacant for a long time (from 1681), the patriarch of Moscow unlawfully ordained Gedeon Svyatopolk-Chetvertynsky at the request of Hetman Ivan Samoilovich (in 1685), then, in the end, in 1686, the patriarch of Moscow received from Ecumenical Patriarch Dionysius IV only the permission to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev, who was to continue to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch and remain his Exarch. It turns out that because of the political conditions the Metropolis of Kiev fell only into the administration of the Orthodox Church in Russia, but no transfer of the Metropolis of Kiev to Moscow happened in 1686, as it was emphasized by the tomos of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Poland (1924), which states that this autocephaly is given “by listening to the loud voice of the canonical duty, that the care of the Holy Orthodox Churches that are in trouble is laid on our Holy Ecumenical Throne; seeing that history also testifies in favour of the above (because it is written that the alienation from our throne of the Metropolis of Kiev and its dependent Orthodox Churches of Lithuania and Poland, and the same way, their attachment to the Holy Church of Moscow, from the very beginning was not carried out at all in agreement with legal canonical prescriptions, as well as not complying with what was jointly declared with regard to the complete ecclesiastical self-sufficiency of the Kiev Metropolitan, who was the exarch of the Ecumenical Throne).”

Therefore, when Ukraine is no longer a part of the Russian Empire (as well as of the Soviet Union), and when it endures an ecclesiastical schism for almost 30 years, through which millions of people are outside the canonical Church, and with which, to this day, the Orthodox Church in Russia (that is, the Moscow Patriarchate) is not able to correct it, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is obliged to take appropriate measures in accordance with its prerogatives in order to ensure ecclesial unity. At the same time, it should be emphasized that it does not interfere in the affairs of another local Church, but acts on his canonical territory – on the territory of the Kievan Metropolis.

— Regarding constant threats in breaking eucharistic communion. Is the Ecumenical Patriarch ready for such a form of protest against Ukrainian autocephaly from the ROC? Will it be supported by other local churches? Imagine that Ukraine gets autocephaly, and the ROC does not recognize it. What's next? As Kallistos Ware said, you cannot “abuse the Eucharist,” that is, blackmail the suspension of eucharistic communion. How can the break of eucharistic communion affect the ecclesiastical conscience of the Russian Church? Is it important in this case to know who is the initiator of such a breakup?

— I agree with Metropolitan of Kallistos of Diokleia regarding the “abuse of the Eucharist.” It is necessary to stop eucharistic communion because of important, dogmatic reasons, and not because of whims. Often, we hear from the mouth of the representatives of the Orthodox Church in Russia threats that a more terrible schism will happen than the one of 1054. Anyone who knows church history well knows that the so-called Great Schism of 1054, is also a great myth. The anathematization of each other, on the part of Rome and Constantinople, was the result of an unsuccessful attempt to restore eucharistic communion between the two Churches that had been interrupted at the beginning of the 11th century, due to the addition of the “filioque” in the Creed. Due to this addition, Constantinople suspected that Rome had changed the faith. The question was dogmatic. Therefore, incidentally, today the dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is of a theological nature. Now, with regard to the issue of schism and autocephaly in Ukraine, everyone knows that the problem is not a theological one, and there is no need to blame anyone in heresy. Therefore, threats in breaking the eucharistic communion if Ukraine receives autocephaly is likely to be an abuse of the Eucharist.

— Moscow threatens that in the case of granting Ukraine autocephaly will a bloody massacre happen here? Does Constantinople have a plan for creating an autocephalous Ukrainian church peacefully and without war? How can the restriction of religious rights and freedoms of those who want to remain under the authority of Moscow be prevented, and how can the total repartition of church property be prevented?

— As has just been emphasized by Metropolitan Emmanuel of France in an interview, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate does not threaten and is not threatened. The Mother Church has shown that it cares about the reconciliation of disputes and the overcoming of schisms and in no case wants new ones.” The Ecumenical Patriarchate does not propose autocephaly in Ukraine as a weapon for war, but as a medicine to mend the ecclesiastical schism, which has lasted for almost 30 years. As we mentioned, the entirety of the episcopacy of the UOC-MP proposed this medicine to the Moscow Patriarch in 1991 and 1992. As we have shown, during the 20th century, the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the basis of his prerogatives, always ensured the unity of the local Orthodox Churches and proclaimed a line of new autocephalous Churches as a way to ensure the unity of the Church in the bosom of each new local church, as well as the unity between all the Local Churches. The role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is to serve the unity of the Orthodox Church.

— The Russian Orthodox Church insists that the granting of autocephaly to Ukraine is a blow to Pan-Orthodox unity. Does the refusal to take part in the Pan-Orthodox Council not undermine such unity?

— Today, in the Orthodox Church, they often talk about conciliarity, forgetting that there is no conciliarity without a primate. Unfortunately, many Orthodox people, in the struggle against papism, borrowed Protestant arguments, and completely rejected primacy. But the sacred ecclesiastical canons clearly state that there can be no synod (or council) without the protos, nor the protos without a synod. This is very well formulated in the 34th Apostolic Canon, which states that bishops must recognize the one who is the first (protos) among them and consider him the head (kephale) and do nothing important without his consent, but the former cannot do anything without the consent of all. “For in this way there will be concord (homonia), and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.” But within the framework of conciliarity, the church canons emphasize that the first (protos) has the responsibility to convoke the synod (or council), and others have the duty to take part in it. For example, the 19th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council emphasizes that bishops who ignore the convening of a synod without reason should be corrected. Today, the refusal in the Orthodox Church to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as “first” and as “head” and to assert that the Orthodox Church is not one Church, but rather a certain confederation of independent local (or even national) Churches is contrary to the spirit of Orthodox ecclesiology and conciliarity, and therefore does not help to reach concord, to resolve conflicts and to cure schisms, but on the contrary contributes to the fragmentation of Orthodoxy and the aggravation of conflicts and schisms.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#7
I find it interesting that this is happening right now in the midst of all the Western Catholic scandals.  As if God is reminding us not to jump ship because the grass isn't greener in the East.  
Rod Dreher said this was coming last week and that he was heartbroken about it.  He was saying that autocephaply was supposed to be a recognition celebrating that a nation had matured in the faith sufficiently to be capable of self-governing, but in modern times there's no illusion that it's all about power and politics.
Remember, O Christian soul, that thou hast this day, and every day of thy life: God to glorify- Jesus to imitate- The Angels and Saints to invoke- A soul to save- A body to mortify- Sins to expiate- Virtues to acquire- Hell to avoid- Heaven to gain- Eternity to prepare for- Time to profit by- Neighbors to edify- The world to despise- Devils to combat- Passions to subdue- Death perhaps to suffer- Judgment to undergo.
[-] The following 1 user Likes iona_scribe's post:
  • mpk1987
Reply
#8
(09-16-2018, 01:49 AM)iona_scribe Wrote: (A)utocephaly was supposed to be a recognition celebrating that a nation had matured in the faith sufficiently to be capable of self-governing, ...

The Church of Kyiv was 'mature in the Faith' when the Muscovites were still worshipping Perun.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#9
The thread title made me think they were not commemorating the Apostle Bartholomew anymore!  I pray we are all united one day soon (and under a faithful Pope!).
Reply
#10
(09-16-2018, 01:49 AM)Uiona_scribe Wrote: I find it interesting that this is happening right now in the midst of all the Western Catholic scandals.  As if God is reminding us not to jump ship because the grass isn't greener in the East.  
Rod Dreher said this was coming last week and that he was heartbroken about it.  He was saying that autocephaply was supposed to be a recognition celebrating that a nation had matured in the faith sufficiently to be capable of self-governing, but in modern times there's no illusion that it's all about power and politics.
I think that it would more applicable, given Rome’s and Constantinople’s crisis, that God is warning us Orthodox to avoid Roman errors (which Constantinople seems hell-bent on imitating).
(09-16-2018, 01:58 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(09-16-2018, 01:49 AM)iona_scribe Wrote: (A)utocephaly was supposed to be a recognition celebrating that a nation had matured in the faith sufficiently to be capable of self-governing, ...

The Church of Kyiv was 'mature in the Faith' when the Muscovites were still worshipping Perun.
The Metropolia of Kiev was physically destroyed by the Mongols and was moved to Vladimir-Suzdal, eventually tranferring to Moscow, when the Third Rome started to gain pre-eminence. The modern-day «Kiev Patriarchate» is only an attempt to spiritually fragment Velikaya Rus’ by granting independence to Malorossiya. But Constantinople isn’t the first to try this. Poles (unfortunately) tried this by creating the Unia (Poland’s greatest historical misdeed). Austria also advanced this agenda of «Ukrainism» to prevent Polish nobles from consolidating peasant support while simultaneously stopping pro-Russian Pan-Slavism. Now the West, in its desparate and morally bankrupt eastward march, continues this legacy of dividing the Slavs and fragmenting the Third Rome.

I for one welcome the spectacular failure of this doomed enterprise.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)