The Canonical Declaration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate)

[Heorhij]

Here are the two links to its English translation:

http://www.uaorthodox.info/images/mod_catalog_prod_files/20/DEKLARACIA_ENG.doc

http://tinyurl.com/3w7npn

I wonder, where do you experts find something wrong in it?

Thanks,

George

[Orthodoc]

Here are the two links to its English translation:

http://www.uaorthodox.info/images/mod_catalog_prod_files/20/DEKLARACIA_ENG.doc

http://tinyurl.com/3w7npn

I wonder, where do you experts find something wrong in it?

Thanks,

George

From my files.  This is why no canonical Orthodox Church worldwide consisders either UAOC UOC-KP as non-canonical.

==========

Both the Kyivan Patriachate (further addressed as "K.P.") and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (further addressed as "UAOC") are neither part of "World Orthodoxy." This fact has roots in historical developments as well as more current affairs. I will try to address both.
    The Ukrainian Autocephalous Church movement began at the end of WWI era-it was based then (as it is now) more on Ukrainian natioanalism than on anything else. The atmopsphere in Russia at that time was fueled not only by bolshevism, but by nationalism, and by an urge to "reform" the Russian Orthodox Church, greatly spurred on and supported by the bolsheviks, to help them destroy the canonical Russian Orthodox Church.

    In situations like this-a wartorn nation that is on the brink of revolution and "the overturning of all values," those who wish to change the way things are can usually find all the help they need. As an Orthodox Church cannot operate without Bishops, it would have seemed that at that time, the Ukrainian natioalists would have had absolutely no trouble finding a few disenchanted Bishops of the Russian Church to aid their cause, but that was not the case. In an area of Russia that held possibly the largest concentration of Orthodox, not one Orthodox Bishop would assist the Ukrainian natioalist cause to create a Ukrainian Church. At the Council held to create the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, version 1, those deisring to create the Church turned to a novel solution tho their problem-they had all the priests present at the Council "lay hands" upon their candidate for Bishop, whom they then declared a Bishop! Another group turned to an even more novel solution, and had an able assistant lay the hand of a dead Bishop on their candidate, and then declared him a "new Bishop." Of course, this group has been known as the "dead hand group" ever since.

   The Ukrainian nationalists who wanted thier own Ukrainian Church were also greatly influenced by Renovationism and the Living Church, a group suppored by the bolsheviks to destroy the Russian Church with several reforms-married bishops, twice married clergy, severe curtailing of the Divine Services, severe curtailing or abandonment of the fasts, adoption of the New Calendar, etc etc etc. Because of the situation with their "Bishops," and basic adoption of the renovationist agenda, no canonical Orthodox Church at that time recognized the Ukrainian Church as legitimate. After the Russian Civil War, when the bolsheviks tightened their grip on the country, they liquidated the Ukrainian Church completely, as it was no longer necessaryto their agenda, and even dengerous in its nationalist leanings.

    A few Ukrainians emigrated to the US after this period, where they started Ukrainian Churches-eventually-in the 1920's or 1930's. The Ukrainian Church of America arranged to go under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, while the Ukrainian Church of the USA remained "independent."

   The Ukrainian Church raised its head again in the WWII era, mainly when the Germans occupied the Ukriane, and were tolerant of Ukrainian nationalism as a way of fighting what they perceived as "Russian communism." This time, a few disenchanted M.P. Bishops DID join up, but they allowed many of the priests who had been ordained by the illegitimate "Bishops" of the WWI era Ukrainian Church to continue to serve, so, again, canonical Orthodoxy had nothing to do with this Ukrainian Church. Even though the Church of Poland DID consecrate a few Bishops for them, mainly because Metropolitan Dionisy (Waledinsky) of Warsaw hoped that this would give him an "in" to end up controlling the Ukrainian Church, still, canonical Orthodoxy would not "touch them with a ten foot pole." The issue of the priests with invalid ordinations was still prominent, as well as the fact that Orthodox Churches cannot be "started" by groups with no support from an already existing legitimate Church. No Orthodox Church of "World Orthodoxy" wanted to set that precedent!

   After WWII, the Ukrainian Church in Ukraine was once again liquidated by the KGB, with help from the MP (as the MP assisted with the liquidation of the Uniates in the Ukriane). It survived in "the diaspora," mainly Western Europe, North America and Australia. The "of America" church under the EP and the "of the USA" independent church, both headquartered in the US, were the largest groups, with the "of the USA" church being by far the largest. When communism fell and the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Ukrainian Church once again began to reorganize in Ukraine. The K.P. is basically a schism from the MP-its "Patriarch," Filaret (Denisenko), was defrocked and returned to the status of a "simple monk" by the MP because he openly lived with a mistress and their children while he was head of the MP autonomous "Ukrainian Church," and also for his widely known and notorious cooperation and whole hearted work for the KGB. He was the ONLY MP Hierarch deposed for his KGB connections! Also, his schismatic proclivities did not help his case with the MP! The K.P., by the way, has really little or no historical connection to any Ukrainian church that came before it. The same with the UAOC-communism fell, all of a sudden, "anything went," so some opportunistic fellows started themselves a Church! This organization, too, had little or no connection to the historical Ukrainian Autocephalous groups.

   The Ukrainian groups were prolific if nothing else-there were countless numbers of Ukrainian churches claiming to be THE Ukrainian Orthodox Church-The Ukrainian Church of America; the Ukrainian Church of the USA; the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church; the Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church; the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church in Exile; the list is long, the list is seemingly never-ending, and the list is peopled by many many many charlatans and fakes who thought going in to the Church Business would be a swell idea.

    You know what they say about "birds of a feather"-the same thing goes in church situations, the only churches "concelebrating" with either the K.P. or the UAOC being churches of similar "canonical" status-the "Macedonian Orthodox Church" shares in the church celebrations of the K.P.; and, so-called "True Orthodox" groups-the ones that are seriously only "in it for the money" also concelebrate with different Ukrainian groups-one "True Orthodox" group claims that one of the Ukrainian groups helped them to "restore their episcopacy" by consecrating Bishops for them-and believe me, ANY True Orthodox Christian would KNOW that these Ukrainian groups had no episcopacy to begin with-so how could they help them restore theirs? While "World Orthodoxy" wants nothing to do with either the KP or the UAOC, any Traditionalist Orthodox, True Orthodox, etc., would be even more stringent against any contact with them.

 ============================

Orthodoc

[Heorhij]

Orthodoc, thank you for your perspective.

Right away, I am not inclined to listen to stories about Filaret's cooperation with the KGB. In the days of the USSR, virtually any priest had to meet with KGB officers and report on his faithful. It was routine. There are numerous testimonies that the current incumbent Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, His Holiness Aleksiy II (Ridiger) also cooperated with the KGB, serving as an undercover KGB agent with a nickname "Drozdov." I don't know whether those testimonies OR the testimonies about Filaret (Denysenko) are truthful - but it really does not matter now.

As far as the current status of the schismatic UAOC and UOC-KP: yes, I do realize that no bishop wants to deal with them, and they aren't in the Eucharistic unity with the Orthodox world. But what do you offer, then, to those Ukrainian Orthodox people (like myself), who have strong patriotic feelings? Right now, the official line of the Moscow Patriarchy is very pro-Russian, pro-imperialist, pro-militaristic. Just a few days ago, the head of one of the so-called "synodical committees" of the Moscow Patriarchy, Protopresbyter Dmitriy Smirnov, called Ukraine and other non-Russian post-Soviet republics "little stinking yapping dogs" (моськи и шавки) who deserve to have their rotten teeth crushed by the mighty Russian military fist. And that was in his OFFICIAL interview given to a Russkaya Linia information agency (see here, http://www.pravoslavja.lutsk.ua/vev/stattja?newsid=890). If I were living in Ukraine right now, I would not go to a canonical UOC parish, given this attitude of an official representative of the Moscow Patriarch to my country. UOC is not autocephalous; it dumped the letters MP from its official name, but, nevertheless, her head, Metropolitan Volodymyr Sabodan, is answering to Patr. Alexiy, and so he, in a way, is in the same group of people as Prot. Fr. Dmitriy Smirnov!!!

Right now, my wife and I technically belong to an entirely different Orthodox jurisdiction, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in the USA. But sometimes we think about retiring back to our home country in the future, when we are 65 or so. Where would we go to church?

[Maksim]

But what do you offer, then, to those Ukrainian Orthodox people (like myself), who have strong patriotic feelings?

Please don't take this the wrong way, since there are many political issues that I have strong feelings on as well.  But in my view, "strong patriotic feelings" have no place in a discussion of the canonical order of the Church.  Whatever the merits of Ukrainian (or any) nationalism, it is not a matter of faith.

[Heorhij]

But what do you offer, then, to those Ukrainian Orthodox people (like myself), who have strong patriotic feelings?

Please don't take this the wrong way, since there are many political issues that I have strong feelings on as well.  But in my view, "strong patriotic feelings" have no place in a discussion of the canonical order of the Church.  Whatever the merits of Ukrainian (or any) nationalism, it is not a matter of faith.

Maksim, I understand that... what I am saying is simply, can't the Orthodox world at least begin a dialogue aimed at recognition of a fully autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Yes, nationalism is not a matter of faith; however, practically, can you imagine yourself, an American, attending an Orthodox parish somewhere in Britain of the 1770's, where a priest would hold a view that the USA does not exist nor has any right to exist, that those subjects of King George V who dare to not like his politics are merely "yapping dogs" whose rotten teeth will soon be crushed, etc.?

[Fr. David]

Maksim, I understand that... what I am saying is simply, can't the Orthodox world at least begin a dialogue aimed at recognition of a fully autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Yes, nationalism is not a matter of faith; however, practically, can you imagine yourself, an American, attending an Orthodox parish somewhere in Britain of the 1770's, where a priest would hold a view that the USA does not exist nor has any right to exist, that those subjects of King George V who dare to not like his politics are merely "yapping dogs" whose rotten teeth will soon be crushed, etc.?

Well, of course, in the 1770s, we DIDN'T exist for the most part as a country, so the situation you suggest probably did occur in Britain, and often at that.  Truly, in the realm of world politics, when one people tries to move out from under the powers that be, the rest of the world either takes a "wait and see" policy (to see if the would-be independents actually claw their way free), or they intervene on one side or another.  In the meantime, both interested parties in the conflict are vehement in their opposing positions.  The American colonies fought their way free, and were eventually recognized de facto, even by Britain. 

Regardless, whether or not the actual, geographical country is eventually recognized as legitimate and independent by the rest of the world, said independence will not necessarily guarantee a movement within the Church towards an autocephalous Church of said country.  Given this country's current example: The US is much more universally recognized as independent from Britain than Ukraine from Russia (politically speaking), yet the Patriarchs of the Church feel no need to allow for their archdioceses here to become independent, much less feel obligated to recognize any sort of American Patriarch were said archdioceses to become independent.

Is all this tied to politics?  Often and inextricably, yes.  Is it maddening for those who must be associated ecclesiastically with political entities whom they despise?  Yes, though I'd posit that that could be an opportunity for forgiveness and humility on those who've been maddened (easier said than done, of course).  Situations such as these remind me -- a man who is very proud of his own, ancestral region in this country, and who remembers that said region bravely fought and had its "teeth crushed" in fighting for self-determination -- that, at the end of the day, we have no lasting city here on this planet.  Though our hierarchs may even come from "behind enemy lines" politically speaking, all our flags' colors must be furled beneath the one Banner of the Cross.

[Keble]

Well, as far as the American Revolution is concerned, the Church of England came around right away to the notion that a separate country required a separate church. The only reason they didn't consecrate Samuel Seabury was that it took an act of parliament (literally) to get rid of the requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to the British crown. (In the meantime Seabury was consecrated by the non-jurors.) There was something of a low level grievance before the war that there were no bishops in the colonies, meaning that all clergy had to be imported from England.

[LizaSymonenko]

What I think Heorhij is getting at is that it smarts to be told you must bow down to a church belonging to a nation that has for years been trying to smother your nation's existence.

For example, lets say that Canadians have invaded the US.  They've told you that all things American are bad and worthless. 

Now, the US and Canada have a shared religion.  No issues, right?  Wrong.  Now you are told you are to bow down to the Canadian hierarchs because yours are not "real".  In addition, you now have to speak and pray in Canadian (lets pretend Canadian sounds nothing like English, aye?)

Faith outranks nationality....there's no question....however, it hurts to be told your nation is worthless and you are not even valued enough to have your own church or hierarchs. 

How would that feel to you?

I would defend Orthodoxy against ANY non-Orthodox nation.  I don't care if they are Russian, Serbian, Coptic, etc.  They are my brothers and I would stand by them.

However, I would also prefer to have a little respect meted out to Ukrainians.  St. Thomas walked on Ukrainian soil.  Prince Volodymir baptized Rus (which is not Russia), in Ukraine.  There are countless Saints who have haled from Ukraine.  Ukrainians have gone through a lot and have kept their faith alive.  Twenty years ago, who would have thought the end of Communism would come?  I never thought I would see it in my lifetime.  And yet....God made it so the Communist yoke fell off Ukraine without one drop of blood being spilled.  It just disintegrated....like wax before a flame.

I don't think either one of the current hierarchs sitting in Ukraine is worthy to lead a Ukrainian church.  Neither one.   In fact, they are doing nothing but causing strife and dividing their people.  They should ALL step down...but, their pride is in their way.

Having said that, I would LOVE to one day be able to say there's an independent, recognized Ukrainian Orthodox church, in Ukraine. 

There are "national" churches throughout the world - Serbian, Coptic, Romanian, Russian, etc....why not Ukrainian?

There's no need to argue.  All in God's time. 
All things are possible!

Peace!

[John of the North]

The problem being that Philaret only left the MP as they were forcing him to resign (for valid canonical reasons) and he is no Ukrainian patriot.

[LizaSymonenko]

I agree with you.  He absolutely is NOT a Ukrainian patriot!

...and he certainly does not deserve the honor being given him.

He will have much to answer for, some day.
...pretending to be a shepherd...and the whole time leading the flock astray.

[Orthodoc]

(1)  Faith outranks nationality....there's no question....however, it hurts to be told your nation is worthless and you are not even valued enough to have your own church or hierarchs. 

How would that feel to you?

(2) I would defend Orthodoxy against ANY non-Orthodox nation.  I don't care if they are Russian, Serbian, Coptic, etc.  They are my brothers and I would stand by them.

(3) I don't think either one of the current hierarchs sitting in Ukraine is worthy to lead a Ukrainian church.  Neither one.   In fact, they are doing nothing but causing strife and dividing their people.  They should ALL step down...but, their pride is in their way.

(4)  Having said that, I would LOVE to one day be able to say there's an independent, recognized Ukrainian Orthodox church, in Ukraine. 

There are "national" churches throughout the world - Serbian, Coptic, Romanian, Russian, etc....why not Ukrainian?

There's no need to argue.  (5) All in God's time. 
All things are possible!

Peace!

Replies: 

(1)  I have mixed feelings about an autocephalous Ukrainian Church AT THIS TIME.  There are times I support it, but then there are times I read things printed by some Ukrainians (both Orthodox & Greek Catholic) who have no idea what the Church stands for and mix religion & politics as a result.  And I wonder if it isn't wise to let them have automony for at least another generation until they are mature enough for autocephally.  So to give an honest answer - Yes I hope and pray for an eventual autocephallous Ukrainian Orthodox Church but I'm not sure this is the time.

My own priest is in his mid thirties and was born and raised in Ukraine (Kiev).  He said it's almost impossible to have a religious or theological conversation with most of these people from both non-canonical churches.  All they want to talk about are traditions and customs.  What is served at Holy Supper is more important to them then the theological issues that separate we Orthodox from non-Orthodox.

(2)  I feel the same way my sister in Christ!  I love all Orthodox, both canonical and non-canonical!  No way do I believe God turns his back on the Baba that loves Him so much just because she's under the wrong bishop!  God knows who loves Him and makes allowances for the problems in His Church made by man.  So to answer Heorhij, if you and your wife go back, go to the Church you feel comfortable in and pray for unity.  St John Chrysostm once said the path to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.  Ukraine is a perfect example of what he means.

(3)  I agree!

(4)  So do I, but I don't honestly believe the Ukrainian Church is ready.  First they have to learn to distinguish bettween religion, plolitics, traditions, and nationality.

(5)  Yes.  God's time.  Not ours.

Orthodoc

[Orthodoc]

I agree with you.  He absolutely is NOT a Ukrainian patriot!

...and he certainly does not deserve the honor being given him.

He will have much to answer for, some day.
...pretending to be a shepherd...and the whole time leading the flock astray.

Couldn't agree more.  He only became a Ukrainophile when he wasn't elected Patriarch of Moscow.  Not to mention his wife and kids.

===============

ACT OF EXCOMMUNICATION of the monk Filaret Denisenko


1. The blessed Bishops' Council considered the antichurch activities of the monk Filaret Denisenko who was deprived of all priestly ranks by a Court order of the Bishops' Council on 11 June 1992 and who was warned by the Bishops' Council of 1994 that "should he continue to act uncanonically he will be excommunicated by anathema".

The blessed Bishops' Council now has to state with regret that the monk Filaret has not heeded the call addressed to him by the Mother Church to repent and in the period between Councils has continued his schismatic activities which he extended beyond the Russian Orthodox Church by facilitating the deepening of the schism in the fraternal Bulgarian Orthodox Church and by taking into communion schismatics from other Local Orthodox Churches; criminally ignoring the grounded banishment imposed by the lawful church authorities - his deposition - he has continued to perform sacrilegious "divine services", including blasphemous false consecrations without possessing the holy priesthood; the monk Filaret, to the temptation of many, has dared to call himself "patriarch of Kiev and Rus-Ukraine", while the ancient throne of Kiev is lawfully occupied by a canonical representative of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the rank of metropolitan; the monk Filaret has not ceased to blaspheme against the bishops, clergy and the faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is in canonical communion with the Russian Orthodox Church and through her with the universal Orthodox Church, continuing to harm Orthodoxy in Ukraine by his criminal actions.

In view of the aforesaid, the blessed Bishops' Council on the basis of Apostolic canon 28 which says : "If a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, lawfully deposed for his apparent faults dares to perform services once entrusted to him, he will be completely cut off from the Church", and also on the basis of canon 14 of the Council of Sardica, canon 4 of the Council of Antioch, and rule 88 of St.Basil the Great, unanimously decided:

To excommunicate monk Filaret (Mikhail Antonovich Denisenko). Let him be anathema before all people.

2. The blessed Bishops' Council, in view of the lack of repentance on the part of the monks Iakov Panchuk and Andrey Gorak, who participate in the criminal schismatic activities of the former monk Filaret, once again calls them to repent and stop these blasphemous outrages and warns them that otherwise they will be excommunicated by anathema.

3. The blessed Bishops' Council, caring for those who have erred and have been drawn into schism by the former monk Filaret, reminds all who dare communicate with him in prayers that according to the sacred canons, they, in case they do not break this communion, are subject to excommunication. St.Basil the Great said in rule 88, warning Protopresbyter Gregory whom he suspended: "If you without correcting yourself dare to celebrate, you will be anathema before all people, and those who accept you will be excommunicated".

4. The blessed Bishops' Council informs the Primates of the Local Orthodox Church of the excommunication of the former monk Filaret (Mikhail Antonovich Denisenko) by anathema.

====================


Filaret - Autobiography

He was born into a working-class family in the Donbas region of Ukraine in 1926. He graduated from the Odessa Seminary and the Moscow Spiritual Academy. He took monastic vows during his second year at the Academy and was a close associate of Patriarch Alexei I of Moscow. After graduating from the Academy he taught in seminaries and academies and was rector of the Kyiv Seminary.

In 1962 he received episcopal ordination. In 1966 he was named archbishop and later metropolitan of Kyiv and Halych; he was the first ethnic Ukrainian in the post of Metropolitan of Kyiv for 150 years. He has taken active part in international religious organizations. He has traveled to more than 80 countries, has a great number of Church awards and also received Soviet honors.

Consistently opposed to the idea of an Autocephalous Ukrainian Church and the Greek Catholic Church, he criticized Ukrainian nationalism. On the eve of a national referendum in March 1991, he called his faithful to vote in favor of the renewal of the USSR. At the same time, from the very beginning of Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms, Filaret made significant efforts to renew the Church’s infrastructure and Church life.

In 1990 after the death of Pimen, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus, Filaret became the administrator of the Moscow Patriarchate. In October of that year the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate received the right to govern itself and Filaret received the title «Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine.»

After the dissolution of the USSR he led a movement for «full canonical independence, namely, autocephaly» for his Church. In November 1991 he headed a working council which requested the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church to grant the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate autocephalous status. Leonid Kravchuk, then President of Ukraine, supported the request but the Moscow Patriarchate strongly opposed it.

Soon afterwards a number of articles appeared in the press accusing Filaret of severe violation of his monastic vows and abuse of his ecclesiastical authority. The Hierarchical Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which met from March to April 1992, demanded that he leave his position. He promised that he would but, upon his return from Moscow, he announced that the promise was given under pressure and he would not leave. In May 1992 at a Hierarchical Council held in Kharkhiv the majority of the bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate voted to depose Metropolitan Filaret from his office and suspend his clerical functioning.

Relying on the support of political authorities in Ukraine, Filaret with three other bishops united with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. In June of 1992 they created a new Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP). Though only chosen as assistant to 94-year-old Patriarch Mstyslav, Filaret was actually in control of church affairs. Opposing this situation, some of the Autocephalous bishops and clergy refused to join the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate.

After the death of Patriarch Mstyslav, the Council of the UOC-KP chose Filaret to be the successor of newly-elected Patriarch Volodymyr Romaniuk, though full ecclesiastical power remained in Filaret’s hands. Upon the death of Patriarch Volodymyr in July of 1995 he was elected head of the UOC-KP. This led to yet another split: four hierarchs left the Church with their faithful.

After his election as Patriarch, Filaret began to take a very active part in church politics. He tried to gather around his Church all groups with a nationalist orientation and all church structures which did not have canonical recognition. He admitted the error of his previous opposition to the idea of autocephaly and Ukrainian Greek Catholics. He is of the opinion that Ukraine needs a national Church, to which all the Orthodox in the country should unite, and only the UOC-KP is capable of fulfilling this role. He made a few unsuccessful attempts at gaining canonical recognition for the UOC-KP.

The Hierarchical Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997 excommunicated him from the Church and put him under anathema. He has not acknowledged the validity of this act: he says he has simply left one national Church and chosen another.

Text adapted from the Ukrainian-language journal "Liudyna i Svit" ("The Human Being and the World"), February, 1998.

===============

Orthodoc

[Heorhij]

Well, again, I am not really inclined to listen to one-sided accusations. Vladyka Denysenko, as far as I know, never confirmed that he had a wife or a mistress. He maintains that the woman who was said to be his mistress was actually his cousin, and the two children of that woman were not his. The mere fact that she lived in his residence proves nothing. I am a Kyivite and I know very well how his residence on Pushkins'ka Street looks like. It is certainly not a one-bedroom apartment, it's a mansion. Probably fifteen women and forty children could easily have lived there and never as much as say hello to the residence's owner.

The only "proof" that Vl. Denysenko had a mistress and two children comes from the same group of people who called my President, Viktor Yushchenko, a little stinking yapping dog whose rotten teeth will soon be crushed by the mighty Russian military fist. Having heard this outrageous thing from them, why should I believe ANYTHING they say about ANYTHING and anybody?

As for "on God's time" - yes, of course, may His will be done. But we are His fellow workers, His "sinergi" (2 Cor. 6:1), and He counts on us.

[John of the North]

If they are not his children, then he should have defended his character in the Holy Synod back in the early 90s, instead of running back to Kyiv.

Regardless, he remains no patriot of Ukraine or the Ukrainian people.

[Orthodoc]

If they are not his children, then he should have defended his character in the Holy Synod back in the early 90s, instead of running back to Kyiv.

Regardless, he remains no patriot of Ukraine or the Ukrainian people.

Exactly!  It's amazing how he changed from a Russophile to a Ukrainophile overnightwhen he didn't become the Patriarch of Moscow.  Up until then he didn't allow Ukrainian in any of the churches under his jurisdiction.

Orthodoc

[Orthodoc]

Well, again, I am not really inclined to listen to one-sided accusations. Vladyka Denysenko, as far as I know, never confirmed that he had a wife or a mistress. He maintains that the woman who was said to be his mistress was actually his cousin, and the two children of that woman were not his. The mere fact that she lived in his residence proves nothing. I am a Kyivite and I know very well how his residence on Pushkins'ka Street looks like. It is certainly not a one-bedroom apartment, it's a mansion. Probably fifteen women and forty children could easily have lived there and never as much as say hello to the residence's owner.

The only "proof" that Vl. Denysenko had a mistress and two children comes from the same group of people who called my President, Viktor Yushchenko, a little stinking yapping dog whose rotten teeth will soon be crushed by the mighty Russian military fist. Having heard this outrageous thing from them, why should I believe ANYTHING they say about ANYTHING and anybody?
As for "on God's time" - yes, of course, may His will be done. But we are His fellow workers, His "sinergi" (2 Cor. 6:1), and He counts on us.

And this is your answer?  What does one have to do with the other?  I suppose that no Ukrainian has ever said anything equally as vile or insulting about a Russian politician!  This is a perfect example of what I mean mixing religion and politics!  And what I perceive of as the imaturity of the UOC to be autocephalous AT THIS TIME!

Orthodoc

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodoc,

You often complain about religion and politics being mixed by the Ukrainians, but the Russian do it just as often.  Why do you not decry it among them?

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Orthodoc]

Orthodoc,

You often complain about religion and politics being mixed by the Ukrainians, but the Russian do it just as often.  Why do you not decry it among them?

Fr. Deacon Lance

How about giving some examples and we'll discuss it.

Orthodoc

[John of the North]

If they are not his children, then he should have defended his character in the Holy Synod back in the early 90s, instead of running back to Kyiv.

Regardless, he remains no patriot of Ukraine or the Ukrainian people.

Exactly!  It's amazing how he changed from a Russophile to a Ukrainophile overnightwhen he didn't become the Patriarch of Moscow.  Up until then he didn't allow Ukrainian in any of the churches under his jurisdiction.

Orthodoc

Agreed. In the words of one local priest, he is an interesting character.

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodoc,

Well the MPs uncanonical annexation of the Orthodox of South Ossetia and Abkhazia comes to mind.  Just because Russia is annexing the territory doesn't mean the MP should jump in and annex the territory of a sister Church.  The whole deal stinks of political collusion.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Orthodoc]

Orthodoc,

Well the MPs uncanonical annexation of the Orthodox of South Ossetia and Abkhazia comes to mind.  Just because Russia is annexing the territory doesn't mean the MP should jump in and annex the territory of a sister Church.  The whole deal stinks of political collusion.

Fr. Deacon Lance

===================

The Sukhumi-Abkhazian diocese seeks to join the Russian Church



Sukhumi, September 5, Interfax - The Abkhazian Church wants to be self-governed Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, administrator of the Sukhumi-Abkhazian Diocese Fr. Vissarion Aplia told journalists.

Orthodox believers of Abkhazia asked the Moscow Patriarchate for it "more than once before, but the republic wasn't recognized and it was the main obstacle for settling the question," he noted.

"We were in a very hard situation after Georgian-Abkhazian war of 1992-93 and it was the Russian Orthodox Church that extended help to the Abkhazian Church, though we asked the whole Orthodox world for help," the diocesan head said.

"Today when Russia recognized Abkhazia's independence, we intend to ask for settling this question again," Fr. Vissarion further said.

The Russian Orthodox Church stated late in August that though Russia had politically recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it didn't mean changes of canonical territories of the Moscow and Georgian Patriarchates.

"The political decision has been taken and we must respect it because it is based on the unanimous opinion of MPs from both chambers of the Russian parliament," deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin told Interfax-Religion.

However, the priest further said, "Political decisions don't define church jurisdictions and spheres of pastoral responsibility. These questions should be settled canonically in course of dialogue between the two (Russian and Georgian -IF) Churches."
===================

Orthodoc

(Modified after further info was obtained)

[Deacon Lance]

This article was published by F18News on: 4 September 2008
 
ABKHAZIA: "Of course" authorities won't defend Georgian monks and nuns
By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service <http://www.forum18.org>
 

Two monasteries of Georgian Orthodox monks and nuns in the Upper Kodori Gorge, captured by Abkhaz forces from Georgian forces in mid-August, are being pressured by the Abkhaz Orthodox Church to change their jurisdiction. "They must submit to the authority of our Church or leave Abkhazia," the head of the Abkhaz Orthodox Church, Fr Vissarion Aplia, who visited the monks and nuns within days of the fighting, told Forum 18 News Service. Asked who had given him the right to pressure members of a different religious jurisdiction to submit to his authority, Fr Aplia responded angrily: "It's not your business. It's our territory." Abkhaz Deputy Foreign Minister Maxim Gvinjia backs the right of the Abkhaz Church to enforce its will on the monks and nuns. "Of course we won't defend their rights, given the context of current developments," he told Forum 18. "Abkhazia is a Christian Orthodox country and the Abkhaz Orthodox Church is the main church." Since the expulsion of a Georgian Orthodox priest in April, the two monasteries are the only remaining Georgian Orthodox institutions left in Abkhazia.
 
As Abkhaz Orthodox leaders insist to Forum 18 News Service that a group of Georgian Orthodox monks and nuns in the north-east of Abkhazia must submit to their jurisdiction or leave Abkhazia, the unrecognised territory's Deputy Foreign Minister Maxim Gvinjia has told Forum 18 that the authorities will do nothing to protect the monks' and nuns' rights to religious freedom. "Of course we won't defend their rights, given the context of current developments," he told Forum 18 from the capital Sukhum (Sokhumi in Georgian) on 4 September. "We're not deporting them - they're being given the option of submitting to the Abkhaz Orthodox Church if they want to remain to serve the people here."

The Georgian Orthodox monks of St George Monastery and nuns of St Nino Convent live in the village of Ajara (Gulripsh District) in the Upper Kodori Gorge. Upper Kodori was the only part of Abkhazia that remained under the control of the authorities in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, until recently. However, the area was captured by Abkhaz forces in an operation that began on 12 August. Abkhaz and Russian media reports say the monks and nuns hid in a cave during the fighting.

Forum 18 was unable to reach the monks and nuns to find out their reaction to the pressure to change their jurisdiction or leave their monasteries. The Georgian Orthodox Patriarchate in Tbilisi referred Forum 18 to Metropolitan Daniil (Datuashvili), the exiled head of its Abkhazia diocese and to whom the monks and nuns are subject, but he was unavailable on 2 and 3 September. However, one Georgian Orthodox from Abkhazia told Forum 18 on 3 September that the monks and nuns are under such heavy pressure from the Abkhaz that it would cause them further problems were they to be contacted.

Abkhazia has remained out of the control of the Tbilisi authorities since a bitter war in the early 1990s, which the Tbilisi authorities lost. Almost all ethnic Georgians fled Abkhazia in the wake of the war. The Republic of Abkhazia has been recognised only by Russia.

Although tens of thousands of ethnic Georgians still live a precarious existence in Abkhazia, mostly in Gali District in the south, the Abkhaz authorities have prevented the Georgian Orthodox Church from ministering there. The only Georgian priest in Abkhaz-controlled territory until the capture of Upper Kodori, Fr Pimen Kardava, who was serving in his native Gali District, was expelled on orders from the Abkhaz Orthodox Church in April. The Abkhaz State Security Service (SSS) enacted the expulsion, but denied any involvement to Forum 18 (see F18News 23 April 2008 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1118).

In the wake of Fr Kardava's expulsion from Gali, Georgian Orthodox told Forum 18 that many local Georgians boycott the priest named by the Abkhaz Orthodox, Fr Matvei Tuzhba. "People don't go to him," one told Forum 18. "Many can't even understand Russian, the language he speaks. They can't and won't confess to him and have nowhere to go to church." The source said the only possibility of participating in church life is when local Georgians cross over into Georgian-controlled territory.

"We have lost our one and only priest there," the source added, "but even then one was not enough. But how can our Patriarch name ten priests when even one is not allowed?"

The monastery and convent in Ajara remain the only Georgian Orthodox institutions still functioning on Abkhaz-controlled territory.

The weekend after the Abkhaz capture of Upper Kodori, the monks and nuns were visited by a delegation led by Fr Vissarion Aplia, the head of the Abkhaz Orthodox Church, a jurisdiction that is not recognised by the canonical Orthodox Churches, although the Russian Orthodox Church has provided it with some practical support. The Georgian Orthodox Church regards Abkhazia as an integral part of its canonical territory.

After initially denying that he had travelled to Ajara to pressure the monks and nuns to submit to his Church, Fr Aplia eventually confirmed it. "We went to serve a moleben (prayer service) there in the wake of the fighting and discovered there were monks and nuns there," he told Forum 18 from Sukhum on 3 September. "We discussed with them how they could continue here on the territory of the Abkhaz Orthodox Church."

Fr Aplia and his delegation offered the monks and nuns the possibility of joining the Abkhaz Orthodox Church or becoming a representation of the Georgian Orthodox Patriarch Ilya II on Abkhaz Orthodox territory (which would be tantamount to their recognising that Abkhazia is not the canonical territory of the Georgian Patriarchate). "We gave them a free choice," he claimed to Forum 18. "They must submit to the authority of our Church or leave Abkhazia."

Fr Aplia declined to tell Forum 18 what the response of the monks and nuns had been to his demands. However, the Abkhaz government press agency Apsnypress reported on 18 August that the monks and nuns said they would consult their church superiors and give their response "in the near future".

Asked what would happen if the monks and nuns continue to recognise the authority of the Georgian Patriarch, Fr Aplia responded: "Let them pray in Tbilisi. The monasteries were founded only ten years ago, specially to cause a scandal. They want to stage a political show."

Asked who had given him the right to pressure members of a different religious jurisdiction to submit to his authority, Fr Aplia responded angrily: "It's not your business. It's our territory."

The Abkhaz presidential spokesperson Kristian Bjania was quoted on the presidential website on 16 August denying that the monks and nuns had been pressured over their choice of jurisdiction. He blamed the "Georgian propaganda machine" for such "false reports".

Gvinjia, the Deputy Foreign Minister, insisted to Forum 18 that the Abkhaz government "does not get involved in religious issues". "We can't influence the church. Abkhazia is a Christian Orthodox country and the Abkhaz Orthodox Church is the main church," he maintained. "All other religious communities – including Catholics, Muslims and Lutherans – all submit their documents to the Abkhaz Orthodox Church as the main religious community. This is the framework that operates here, as in all countries of the world."

Asked why one religious community has to submit to another religious community and how this fits with Abkhazia's Constitution - which guarantees religious freedom and recognises human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Gvinjia insisted: "This is how it is in every country of the world."

 

[Heorhij]

Well, again, I am not really inclined to listen to one-sided accusations. Vladyka Denysenko, as far as I know, never confirmed that he had a wife or a mistress. He maintains that the woman who was said to be his mistress was actually his cousin, and the two children of that woman were not his. The mere fact that she lived in his residence proves nothing. I am a Kyivite and I know very well how his residence on Pushkins'ka Street looks like. It is certainly not a one-bedroom apartment, it's a mansion. Probably fifteen women and forty children could easily have lived there and never as much as say hello to the residence's owner.

The only "proof" that Vl. Denysenko had a mistress and two children comes from the same group of people who called my President, Viktor Yushchenko, a little stinking yapping dog whose rotten teeth will soon be crushed by the mighty Russian military fist. Having heard this outrageous thing from them, why should I believe ANYTHING they say about ANYTHING and anybody?
As for "on God's time" - yes, of course, may His will be done. But we are His fellow workers, His "sinergi" (2 Cor. 6:1), and He counts on us.

And this is your answer?  What does one have to do with the other?  I suppose that no Ukrainian has ever said anything equally as vile or insulting about a Russian politician!  This is a perfect example of what I mean mixing religion and politics!  And what I perceive of as the imaturity of the UOC to be autocephalous AT THIS TIME!

Orthodoc

What exactly "vile and insulting" did I say? I only repeated what he (Prot. Fr. Dmitriy Smirnov, the head of the Synodical Committee on relationships with armed forces of the ROC) said...

[Heorhij]

^I apologize for misunderstanding you. You meant that Ukrainian people sometimes say "vile and insulting things" about Russian politicians. Granted. But I don't think that any Ukrainian CLERGYMAN, especially a clergyman who offficially represents the Patriarch of the Orthodox jurisdiction, ever said anything vile and insulting about President Putin or President Medvedev in a public interview or during an official conference.

[Heorhij]

If they are not his children, then he should have defended his character in the Holy Synod back in the early 90s, instead of running back to Kyiv.

Maybe. However, I don't know all the circumstances and I can't judge his character. Maybe there were valid reasons why he did not answer the Synod.

Regardless, he remains no patriot of Ukraine or the Ukrainian people.

Hard to say. On the one hand, yes, most definitely he was a contestant for the throne of the Moscow Patriarch, and he "suddenly" turned a patriotic Ukrainian only after he lost the contest to Vl. Ridiger. However, again, if we only look back, picking on what various priests and bishops said and did in the past (in the days of the USSR and in the early post-Soviet years), we might discover a lot of nasty things just about anybody... Right now, Vl. Denysenko is trying to be a patriot practically, by his deeds, actions. I agree that these deeds were, and probably still are, clumsy and irritating to the world of canonical Orthodoxy. But the process of recognition of the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church must somehow begin. Better do something than nothing at all, don't you think?

[Heorhij]

This is a perfect example of what I mean mixing religion and politics!  And what I perceive of as the imaturity of the UOC to be autocephalous AT THIS TIME!

Orthodoc

Dear Orthodox, it was actually you who started mixing religion and politics in this thread, when you began to talk about Ukrainian nationalism etc. My intention was only to discuss the content of the Canonical Declaration that I gave the link to.

[Orthodoc]

Well, again, I am not really inclined to listen to one-sided accusations. Vladyka Denysenko, as far as I know, never confirmed that he had a wife or a mistress. He maintains that the woman who was said to be his mistress was actually his cousin, and the two children of that woman were not his. The mere fact that she lived in his residence proves nothing. I am a Kyivite and I know very well how his residence on Pushkins'ka Street looks like. It is certainly not a one-bedroom apartment, it's a mansion. Probably fifteen women and forty children could easily have lived there and never as much as say hello to the residence's owner.

The only "proof" that Vl. Denysenko had a mistress and two children comes from the same group of people who called my President, Viktor Yushchenko, a little stinking yapping dog whose rotten teeth will soon be crushed by the mighty Russian military fist. Having heard this outrageous thing from them, why should I believe ANYTHING they say about ANYTHING and anybody?
As for "on God's time" - yes, of course, may His will be done. But we are His fellow workers, His "sinergi" (2 Cor. 6:1), and He counts on us.

And this is your answer?  What does one have to do with the other?  I suppose that no Ukrainian has ever said anything equally as vile or insulting about a Russian politician!  This is a perfect example of what I mean mixing religion and politics!  And what I perceive of as the imaturity of the UOC to be autocephalous AT THIS TIME!

Orthodoc

What exactly "vile and insulting" did I say? I only repeated what he (Prot. Fr. Dmitriy Smirnov, the head of the Synodical Committee on relationships with armed forces of the ROC) said...

It is I who label what was said by the priest as vile and disgusting.  Not anything you said.  My point was that equally vile & disgusting remarks have been made by Ukrainins about Russians.  My point is that such remarks are no excuse for denying the accusations against Denisenko.

Orthodoc

[Orthodoc]

^I apologize for misunderstanding you. You meant that Ukrainian people sometimes say "vile and insulting things" about Russian politicians. Granted. But I don't think that any Ukrainian CLERGYMAN, especially a clergyman who offficially represents the Patriarch of the Orthodox jurisdiction, ever said anything vile and insulting about President Putin or President Medvedev in a public interview or during an official conference.

I'm not talking about Russian politicians. I'm talking about ethnic slurs.  The insults and slurs run wild on both sides. 

I have yet to hear either Putin or Medvedev or any other Russian politician for that matter involve themselves in matters or issues involving the church by making statements, closing down TV stations, or staging religious events to interfere with the canons of the church as has been done in Ukraine. 

Where has the Russian politicians involved themselves in the so called example Deacon Lance gave?  Seems like one or two dioceses that comprise mostly of Russians want to go under the MP.  From what I am reading there are two religious institutions who disagree.  This is an issue that has to be resolved by the MP and the Georgian Orthodox patriarchate.  Not the Georgian or Russian politicians.  And I have not read one comment about this by any Russian politician.  It is a church matter.  And should remain as such.

Orthodoc

[Heorhij]

Well, again, I am not really inclined to listen to one-sided accusations. Vladyka Denysenko, as far as I know, never confirmed that he had a wife or a mistress. He maintains that the woman who was said to be his mistress was actually his cousin, and the two children of that woman were not his. The mere fact that she lived in his residence proves nothing. I am a Kyivite and I know very well how his residence on Pushkins'ka Street looks like. It is certainly not a one-bedroom apartment, it's a mansion. Probably fifteen women and forty children could easily have lived there and never as much as say hello to the residence's owner.

The only "proof" that Vl. Denysenko had a mistress and two children comes from the same group of people who called my President, Viktor Yushchenko, a little stinking yapping dog whose rotten teeth will soon be crushed by the mighty Russian military fist. Having heard this outrageous thing from them, why should I believe ANYTHING they say about ANYTHING and anybody?
As for "on God's time" - yes, of course, may His will be done. But we are His fellow workers, His "sinergi" (2 Cor. 6:1), and He counts on us.

And this is your answer?  What does one have to do with the other?  I suppose that no Ukrainian has ever said anything equally as vile or insulting about a Russian politician!  This is a perfect example of what I mean mixing religion and politics!  And what I perceive of as the imaturity of the UOC to be autocephalous AT THIS TIME!

Orthodoc

What exactly "vile and insulting" did I say? I only repeated what he (Prot. Fr. Dmitriy Smirnov, the head of the Synodical Committee on relationships with armed forces of the ROC) said...

It is I who label what was said by the priest as vile and disgusting.  Not anything you said.  My point was that equally vile & disgusting remarks have been made by Ukrainins about Russians.  My point is that such remarks are no excuse for denying the accusations against Denisenko.

Orthodoc

I understand, but it's not about excuse, it's about credibility. It is obvious that ROC hierarchs often speak as politicians, not as spiritual shepherds. Fr. Smirnov's outrageous statement is just one of the very many. In this context, I really very seriously doubt that that session of the Holy Synod of the ROC was not a political show, either.

[Heorhij]

^I apologize for misunderstanding you. You meant that Ukrainian people sometimes say "vile and insulting things" about Russian politicians. Granted. But I don't think that any Ukrainian CLERGYMAN, especially a clergyman who offficially represents the Patriarch of the Orthodox jurisdiction, ever said anything vile and insulting about President Putin or President Medvedev in a public interview or during an official conference.

I'm not talikg about Russian politicians. I'm talking about ethnic slurs.  The insults and slurs run wild on both sides. 

Orthodoc

I was talking about the agenda of the Moscow Patriarchate as revealed by statements of its highly positioned official representatives in official interviews. Again, given this agenda, I cannot trust anything they say about any Ukrainian political OR religious figure.

[Orthodoc]

Heorhij:

Your answers still seem to be based more on ethnic mistrust and hatred than any type of theological, historical, and canonical reasons.

I think you once mentioned you were brought up as a non-believer.  If this is not true please accept my apology and publically correct me.  If it is, can you please answer the following question:

1)  In deciding to come to the church why did you pick Orthodoxy over Greek Catholicism?

2)  Why did you chose the Othodox jurisdiction you now belong to?

Thanks,

Othodoc

[Heorhij]

Heorhij:

Your answers still seem to be based more on ethnic mistrust and hatred than any type of theological, historical, and canonical reasons.

Not really "ethnic" mistrust - I don't believe that Russians as an ethnos are any different from any other. And certainly not on hate. Rather, they are based on the clear EVIDENCE that ROC is very political as far as Ukraine is concerned.

I think you once mentioned you were brought up as a non-believer.  If this is not true please accept my apology and publically correct me.

That's true. My parents were atheists. In the generation of my grand-parents, only one person was devout church-going Orthodox Christian (my paternal grandmother's sister). My maternal grandmother was an extremely militant atheist who admired Voltaire and always spit and cursed when she as much as saw a priest walking down the street.

  If it is, can you please answer the following question:

1)  In deciding to come to the church why did you pick Orthodoxy over Greek Catholicism?

2)  Why did you chose the Othodox jurisdiction you now belong to?

Thanks,

Othodoc

My pleasure.

1. Because from everything I read, I became convinced that the Orthodox Church is the original Church of our Lord Jesus Christ and His holy apostles. It is THE Church that was founded on the day of Pentecost of the year 33 A.D. She did not split from any other religious group, while the Roman Archdioscese actually split from her in 1054. Greek Catholics are Orthodox only as far as the Byzantine rite is concerned; doctrinally, they are Roman Catholics, so there is no question, given my conviction that I described above, that I should not belong to them.

2. That's very simple. There are no other Orthodox churches anywhere near to where I live (Starkville, Mississippi). The GOA parish in Aberdeen, MS is the closest. The nearest Ukrainian (UOC-USA) parish is iin the Atlanta metropolitan area, so it's just impossible, practically speaking, for me to drive there every time they have a Divine Liturgy.

[Orthodoc]

Thanks for your honest replies.  Seems like you did do some theological research before making a decision.

My reason for asking was because I recently had a long conversation with a Ukrainian who was also brought up in a nonbelieving family.  He is now a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.  When I asked him the same two questions he told me he became Greek Catholic because that was the true religion of Ukrainians.  Those that were Orthodox were not true Ukrainians but Russophiles.  To him Greek Catholic = Ukarainian while Orthodox = Russian.  I have also gotten the same impression from others.  Glad to hear there are people like you who at least look into the theological issues rather than rely on ethnic pride or identity.

Orthodoc

[Heorhij]

Thanks for your honest replies.  Seems like you did do some theological research before making a decision.

My reason for asking was because I recently had a long conversation with a Ukrainian who was also brought up in a nonbelieving family.  He is now a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.  When I asked him the same two questions he told me he became Greek Catholic because that was the true religion of Ukrainians.  Those that were Orthodox were not true Ukrainians but Russophiles.  To him Greek Catholic = Ukarainian while Orthodox = Russian.  I have also gotten the same impression from others.  Glad to hear there are people like you who at least look into the theological issues rather than rely on ethnic pride or identity.

Orthodoc

You are very welcome.

I know some Ukrainians who are like the person you described. I also know some very young people (in their 20-s) in my home city, Kyiv, who are not ethnic Poles and yet go to a ROMAN Catholic parish (St. Alexander's, on Kostel'na Street, near the corner of Tryokhsvyatytel's'ka, across the street from the Institute of Philosophy of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences), because they sincerely believe that the Roman Catholic faith is a hallmark of being "European," "Pro-Western," and thus "progressive," as opposed to old-fashioned, obsolete, outdated, retrograde and rabidly anti-Western Orthodoxy. That's very unfortunate, but what pushes them to such extremes is, actually, the openly pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian, anti-Western, anti-European rhetorics of the ROC...

On the other hand, I know Ukrainians who are very devout Orthodox in Western Ukraine, and also here, in the Ukrainian-American diaspora. They as as far from being Russophile as they are from the Moon.

[Deacon Lance]

Where has the Russian politicians involved themselves in the so called example Deacon Lance gave?  Seems like one or two dioceses that comprise mostly of Russians want to go under the MP.  From what I am reading there are two religious institutions who disagree.  This is an issue that has to be resolved by the MP and the Georgian Orthodox patriarchate.  Not the Georgian or Russian politicians.  And I have not read one comment about this by any Russian politician.  It is a church matter.  And should remain as such.

Orthodoc

Abkhazians are not Russians, they are a seperate ethnicity that while related to the Georgians and historically tied to them are different from them as well and want autonomy from them.  Sounds a lot like the way Ukrainians feel about Russians.  The difference is the MP denounces Ukrainian dreams of autocephaly and claims Ukraine, even though independent, is its canonical territory.  The Georgian Patriarch makes the same claim regarding Abkhazia.  So if the MP is going to be consistent they should denounce Abkhaz intentions to seperate from their canonical Patriarch and tell them even though annexed by Russia they belong to Georgian Patriarch.  However quotes like:

"The political decision has been taken and we must respect it because it is based on the unanimous opinion of MPs from both chambers of the Russian parliament," deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin told Interfax-Religion.  However, the priest further said, "Political decisions don't define church jurisdictions and spheres of pastoral responsibility. These questions should be settled canonically in course of dialogue between the two (Russian and Georgian -IF) Churches."

make me belive the MP has every intention of annexing this diocese now that the province has been annexed.  And this would certainly be consistent with MP treatment of the GP when Georgia was annexed by Russia.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Bishop Paul Andrew]

I feel deeply sorry for both the lower clergy and the people of both Russina Orthodox church and the Ukrainian Orthodox church having to  watch there Hierarchies make a mess and fighting over who is and who isn't the right full KP. as I understand it that there are three men claiming KP. The way I see it I think the Ukrainian Government should Pull a Peter the Great on the on the UOC and do a way with the KP and bring the entire Church under a Holy Synod of Bishops and let them run the church that way none claims KP. this is only my opinion

[John of the North]

If they are not his children, then he should have defended his character in the Holy Synod back in the early 90s, instead of running back to Kyiv.

Maybe. However, I don't know all the circumstances and I can't judge his character. Maybe there were valid reasons why he did not answer the Synod.

Regardless, he remains no patriot of Ukraine or the Ukrainian people.

Hard to say. On the one hand, yes, most definitely he was a contestant for the throne of the Moscow Patriarch, and he "suddenly" turned a patriotic Ukrainian only after he lost the contest to Vl. Ridiger. However, again, if we only look back, picking on what various priests and bishops said and did in the past (in the days of the USSR and in the early post-Soviet years), we might discover a lot of nasty things just about anybody... Right now, Vl. Denysenko is trying to be a patriot practically, by his deeds, actions. I agree that these deeds were, and probably still are, clumsy and irritating to the world of canonical Orthodoxy. But the process of recognition of the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church must somehow begin. Better do something than nothing at all, don't you think?

Then how about he retire in peace to a monastery, turning his parishes over to one of the Ukrainian jurisdictions here in the West, so the situation can move forward? It is rather easy to blame everything on Moscow, when in all reality the KP-MP schism had nothing to do with an independant Ukie Church, and everything to do with him being asked to retire. A Ukrainian Orthodox Church which exists solefully on the basis of being Ukrainian, is not an Orthodox Church.

“Autocephalous means that we are independent. It also means that we do not answer to an Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople or anywhere else.  A Ukrainian Church cannot be Ukrainian if it submits to someone.  There must be spiritual independence.” - HH Mefodiy of (one of the many!) UAOC

[Heorhij]

Then how about he retire in peace to a monastery, turning his parishes over to one of the Ukrainian jurisdictions here in the West, so the situation can move forward?

But that's the whole point, he does not agree with the accusations against him. He does not believe he's guilty in any wrongdoing. The only proof that he did something wrong comes from hierarchs of the ROC. They clearly aren't objective. They clearly are biased. So, to him retiring, going to a monastery would be simply giving in to what he considers injustice. He feels a certain calling - to be active (he is 79 years old, but still pretty healthy and energetic), and he wants to do what he considers right. Of course, if there was an Ecumenical Counsil and the whole Church told him to retire, he would retire. So far, however, it's the ROC who tells him to retire; the rest of the Orthodox world is just saying, essentially, what Orthodoc is saying: ah, who knows these Ukrainians, they are immature, let them sort things out between themselves, and we just keep doing what we are doing (as far as they are concerned, nothing). Everyone's happy...

It is rather easy to blame everything on Moscow, when in all reality the KP-MP schism had nothing to do with an independant Ukie Church, and everything to do with him being asked to retire.

The issue is, WHO asks him to retire, and WHY, for what purpose.

A Ukrainian Orthodox Church which exists solefully on the basis of being Ukrainian, is not an Orthodox Church.

How about Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian, Georgian, Finnish...?

“Autocephalous means that we are independent. It also means that we do not answer to an Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople or anywhere else.  A Ukrainian Church cannot be Ukrainian if it submits to someone.  There must be spiritual independence.” - HH Mefodiy of (one of the many!) UAOC

One of the two, actually (the other is led by a bishop called Vl. Ihor Isychenko, and that one is, actually, all FOR getting under the omophore of the Ecumenical Patriarch, just like the UOC-USA or the UOC-Canada).

[Heorhij]

I feel deeply sorry for both the lower clergy and the people of both Russina Orthodox church and the Ukrainian Orthodox church having to  watch there Hierarchies make a mess and fighting over who is and who isn't the right full KP. as I understand it that there are three men claiming KP. The way I see it I think the Ukrainian Government should Pull a Peter the Great on the on the UOC and do a way with the KP and bring the entire Church under a Holy Synod of Bishops and let them run the church that way none claims KP. this is only my opinion

That would be absolutely impossible. Ukraine is a democracy. It has a Constitution that prohibits governmental interference with affairs of religious organizations. A president who would dare to play Peter the "Great" would be immediately impeached by the Verkhovna Rada (parliament).

[Bishop Paul Andrew]

I feel deeply sorry for both the lower clergy and the people of both Russina Orthodox church and the Ukrainian Orthodox church having to  watch there Hierarchies make a mess and fighting over who is and who isn't the right full KP. as I understand it that there are three men claiming KP. The way I see it I think the Ukrainian Government should Pull a Peter the Great on the on the UOC and do a way with the KP and bring the entire Church under a Holy Synod of Bishops and let them run the church that way none claims KP. this is only my opinion

That would be absolutely impossible. Ukraine is a democracy. It has a Constitution that prohibits governmental interference with affairs of religious organizations. A president who would dare to play Peter the "Great" would be immediately impeached by the Verkhovna Rada (parliament).

I didn't say Play Peter the Great I said Pull a Peter the Great.Yes I know that the UKraine is a Democracy and has a Constitution. When I meat Pull a Peter the Great, That They should get with the Bishops of the Holy Synod and just do away with having a Patriarch and Just have a Synod of Bishops to run the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, That way the MP and EPcan not interfere with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and it can have peace and be the Orthodox Church for the ukrainian people

[orthodoxlurker]

...I also know some very young people (in their 20-s) in my home city, Kyiv, who are not ethnic Poles and yet go to a ROMAN Catholic parish (St. Alexander's, on Kostel'na Street, near the corner of Tryokhsvyatytel's'ka, across the street from the Institute of Philosophy of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences), because they sincerely believe that the Roman Catholic faith is a hallmark of being "European," "Pro-Western," and thus "progressive," as opposed to old-fashioned, obsolete, outdated, retrograde and rabidly anti-Western Orthodoxy.

And you are advocating for autocephalia for like-minded people, so they can, eventually, enter into yet another Unia? Am I misunderstanding something?

[John of the North]

Then how about he retire in peace to a monastery, turning his parishes over to one of the Ukrainian jurisdictions here in the West, so the situation can move forward?

But that's the whole point, he does not agree with the accusations against him. He does not believe he's guilty in any wrongdoing. The only proof that he did something wrong comes from hierarchs of the ROC. They clearly aren't objective. They clearly are biased. So, to him retiring, going to a monastery would be simply giving in to what he considers injustice. He feels a certain calling - to be active (he is 79 years old, but still pretty healthy and energetic), and he wants to do what he considers right. Of course, if there was an Ecumenical Counsil and the whole Church told him to retire, he would retire. So far, however, it's the ROC who tells him to retire; the rest of the Orthodox world is just saying, essentially, what Orthodoc is saying: ah, who knows these Ukrainians, they are immature, let them sort things out between themselves, and we just keep doing what we are doing (as far as they are concerned, nothing). Everyone's happy...

It is rather easy to blame everything on Moscow, when in all reality the KP-MP schism had nothing to do with an independant Ukie Church, and everything to do with him being asked to retire.

The issue is, WHO asks him to retire, and WHY, for what purpose.

A Ukrainian Orthodox Church which exists solefully on the basis of being Ukrainian, is not an Orthodox Church.

How about Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian, Georgian, Finnish...?

“Autocephalous means that we are independent. It also means that we do not answer to an Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople or anywhere else.  A Ukrainian Church cannot be Ukrainian if it submits to someone.  There must be spiritual independence.” - HH Mefodiy of (one of the many!) UAOC

One of the two, actually (the other is led by a bishop called Vl. Ihor Isychenko, and that one is, actually, all FOR getting under the omophore of the Ecumenical Patriarch, just like the UOC-USA or the UOC-Canada).

He was asked to retire by his Sobor due to allegations of a commonlaw wife, improper financial dealings etc etc etc. Given that I know priests who have met him and his so-called "common-law wife", as well as were told by him to explicitly not address him in Ukrainian, you have a hard sell. He was a Russophile Ukrainian until asked to retire. At that time, he became some sort of Ukrainian patriot.

And the MP in this case has authority over their bishops. They asked him to retire, he refused. Simple as that. The rest of Orthodoxy are bystanders in this issue. It is a local council issue, that was addressed by the Russians.

[Heorhij]

...I also know some very young people (in their 20-s) in my home city, Kyiv, who are not ethnic Poles and yet go to a ROMAN Catholic parish (St. Alexander's, on Kostel'na Street, near the corner of Tryokhsvyatytel's'ka, across the street from the Institute of Philosophy of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences), because they sincerely believe that the Roman Catholic faith is a hallmark of being "European," "Pro-Western," and thus "progressive," as opposed to old-fashioned, obsolete, outdated, retrograde and rabidly anti-Western Orthodoxy.

And you are advocating for autocephalia for like-minded people, so they can, eventually, enter into yet another Unia? Am I misunderstanding something?

No, of course not! I am advocating for autocephalia so that the Ukrainian Orthodox people can practice their faith, partake in the Holy Mysteries of the Church, grow into the Body of Christ without being shepherded by those who are political enemies of their President, their government, their country (see, again, Prot. Fr. Dmitriy Smirnov's crystal clear expression of the ROC political agenda).

[Orthodoc]

I feel deeply sorry for both the lower clergy and the people of both Russina Orthodox church and the Ukrainian Orthodox church having to  watch there Hierarchies make a mess and fighting over who is and who isn't the right full KP. as I understand it that there are three men claiming KP. The way I see it I think the Ukrainian Government should Pull a Peter the Great on the on the UOC and do a way with the KP and bring the entire Church under a Holy Synod of Bishops and let them run the church that way none claims KP. this is only my opinion

That would be absolutely impossible. Ukraine is a democracy. It has a Constitution that prohibits governmental interference with affairs of religious organizations. A president who would dare to play Peter the "Great" would be immediately impeached by the Verkhovna Rada (parliament).

I didn't say Play Peter the Great I said Pull a Peter the Great.Yes I know that the UKraine is a Democracy and has a Constitution. When I meat Pull a Peter the Great, That They should get with the Bishops of the Holy Synod and just do away with having a Patriarch and Just have a Synod of Bishops to run the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, That way the MP and EPcan not interfere with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and it can have peace and be the Orthodox Church for the ukrainian people

Isn't that what they already have as an AUTOMONOUS Church in communion with the MP?

===========

Autocephalous. (Gr. "appointing its own leader"). The status of an Orthodox church which is self-governed and also has the authority to elect or appoint its own leader or head (cephale).

Autonomy. (Gr. "self-rule"). The status of an Orthodox Church that is self-ruled. An autonomous church is governed by its prelate, who is chosen by a superior jurisdiction, usually by a patriarchate).

==============

Father:  Since the Ukrainian Church is not canonically autocephalous there is no legal Kievan Patriarch.  There are two churches [not three] which are self proclaimed es that address their chief hierach as Patriarch.  Neither is recognized as canonical by any Orthodox Church in the world that is canonical.

Orthodoc

[Heorhij]

Isn't that what they already have as an AUTOMONOUS Church in communion with the MP?

Well, the prelate of the canonical UOC, Metr. Volodymyr (Sabodan) is a member of the Synod of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchy, so he answers to Patriarch Alexiy II. I don't think Vl. Volodymyr can, for example, decide on matters of Chirotony of bishops in his Church without the consent of Patriarch Alexiy.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: The Canonical Declaration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate)