OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 05:59:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cannons...  (Read 2303 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« on: April 09, 2010, 02:12:06 PM »

I have a question concerning cannon law...It is my understanding that the Ukrainian orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate is not recognized under cannon law. From what I have read the main reason it is not in communion with the other orthodox churches is more political than religious. The Ukrainian Church under Patriarch Filaret strives for communion with the other 'cannon" churches yet it seems Moscow will never allow a seperate Ukrainian church and Constantinople does not want to upset the Russian Orthodox Church. My question is which of the cannons does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate violate?

According to wikipedia 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

The Greek-speaking Orthodox have collected canons and commentaries upon them in a work known as the Pēdálion (Greek: Πηδάλιον, "Rudder"), so named because it is meant to "steer" the Church. The Orthodox Christian tradition in general treats its canons more as guidelines than as laws, the bishops adjusting them to cultural and other local circumstances. Some Orthodox canon scholars point out that, had the Ecumenical Councils (which deliberated in Greek) meant for the canons to be used as laws, they would have called them nómoi/νόμοι (laws) rather than kanónes/κανόνες (rules), but almost all Orthodox conform to them. The dogmatic decisions of the Councils, though, are to be obeyed rather than to be treated as guidelines, since they are essential for the Church's unity.

All i hear from opponents of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP is that is uncannonical. Please someone explain how? I know that when the Ukrainian orthodox Church of the USA became a diocese of the Eccumenical Patriarchate in 1995, they claims they would help push for an independent Ukrainian orthodox Church in Ukraine. 15 years later, what has been accomplished?
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,352


metron ariston


« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2010, 02:16:05 PM »

First, a cannon is a gun. Canons are canons.

Second, people use the word "canonical" in a very wide variety of ways, most having little to do with the actual text of a universal canon.

In this case, when people say it is "uncanonical," they mean it is not officially recognized by or in communion with the other Patriarchates and autocephalous churches that make up the Orthodox Church.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2010, 02:19:32 PM »

First, a cannon is a gun. Canons are canons.

Second, people use the word "canonical" in a very wide variety of ways, most having little to do with the actual text of a universal canon.

In this case, when people say it is "uncanonical," they mean it is not officially recognized by or in communion with the other Patriarchates and autocephalous churches that make up the Orthodox Church.

Thank you for catching my typo. So what needs to be done in order to be recognized by the other Patriarchates?
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,352


metron ariston


« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2010, 02:29:32 PM »

So what needs to be done in order to be recognized by the other Patriarchates?

I don't really know anything about Met. Filaret's church or its chance of actually being recognized. However, all of the national churches (Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. -- everyone except the ancient churches) passed through long periods of schism before being recognized. Usually takes one to four generations.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2010, 02:37:58 PM »

So when the Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbians, and Georgian declared themselves a patriarchal it took years for recognition and they were all considered schismatic churches and simply needed time to be reconginized and in "communion"?

I hope it happens in my lifetime, I just hope there will be no more bashing that has taken place on other threads in regards to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP. The Ukrainians have everyright to have their own church not under the domination of Russia nor under the Greeks. I pray when they will be recognized with equal standing in the Orthodox world with of course the Eccumenical Patriarch being the first among equals...
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2010, 02:40:38 PM »

I have a question concerning cannon law...It is my understanding that the Ukrainian orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate is not recognized under cannon law. From what I have read the main reason it is not in communion with the other orthodox churches is more political than religious. The Ukrainian Church under Patriarch Filaret strives for communion with the other 'cannon" churches yet it seems Moscow will never allow a seperate Ukrainian church and Constantinople does not want to upset the Russian Orthodox Church. My question is which of the cannons does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate violate?

According to wikipedia 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

The Greek-speaking Orthodox have collected canons and commentaries upon them in a work known as the Pēdálion (Greek: Πηδάλιον, "Rudder"), so named because it is meant to "steer" the Church. The Orthodox Christian tradition in general treats its canons more as guidelines than as laws, the bishops adjusting them to cultural and other local circumstances. Some Orthodox canon scholars point out that, had the Ecumenical Councils (which deliberated in Greek) meant for the canons to be used as laws, they would have called them nómoi/νόμοι (laws) rather than kanónes/κανόνες (rules), but almost all Orthodox conform to them. The dogmatic decisions of the Councils, though, are to be obeyed rather than to be treated as guidelines, since they are essential for the Church's unity.

All i hear from opponents of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP is that is uncannonical. Please someone explain how? I know that when the Ukrainian orthodox Church of the USA became a diocese of the Eccumenical Patriarchate in 1995, they claims they would help push for an independent Ukrainian orthodox Church in Ukraine. 15 years later, what has been accomplished?

Christos Voskres!

I seem to remember it being the opposite: that UOCUSA etc. would cease and desist on the issue of autocephaly of Kiev.

As to canons, the canon the UOC-KP is in violation is Apostolic canon 36 among other: Philaret was under censure by the Holy Synod of which he was a member (i.e. the Patriarchate of Moscow) and instead decided to not recognize the primate of the land (i.e. the Patriarch of Moscow) and go into schism.  The other bishops with Philaret, besides the question of them being self consecrated (a whole host of canons on that) were "ordained" without the approval of the primate and Holy Synod in whose jurisdiction Ukraine was/is.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XgRrh2M08p0C&pg=PA82&dq=Apostolic+canon+34&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Apostolic%20canon%2034&f=false
The challenge of our past: studies in Orthodox Canon law and Church history By John H. Erickson
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,352


metron ariston


« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2010, 02:47:21 PM »

So when the Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbians, and Georgian declared themselves a patriarchal it took years for recognition and they were all considered schismatic churches and simply needed time to be reconginized and in "communion"?

Basically correct. In the case of Georgia, they were autocephalous for a very long time without anyone objecting until the Russians conquered Georgia, after which their status went back and forth, depending on Imperial and Soviet politics. And, in the case of Serbia, their status fluctuated a few times.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2010, 03:05:10 PM »

I have a question concerning cannon law...It is my understanding that the Ukrainian orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate is not recognized under cannon law. From what I have read the main reason it is not in communion with the other orthodox churches is more political than religious. The Ukrainian Church under Patriarch Filaret strives for communion with the other 'cannon" churches yet it seems Moscow will never allow a seperate Ukrainian church and Constantinople does not want to upset the Russian Orthodox Church. My question is which of the cannons does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate violate?

According to wikipedia 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

The Greek-speaking Orthodox have collected canons and commentaries upon them in a work known as the Pēdálion (Greek: Πηδάλιον, "Rudder"), so named because it is meant to "steer" the Church. The Orthodox Christian tradition in general treats its canons more as guidelines than as laws, the bishops adjusting them to cultural and other local circumstances. Some Orthodox canon scholars point out that, had the Ecumenical Councils (which deliberated in Greek) meant for the canons to be used as laws, they would have called them nómoi/νόμοι (laws) rather than kanónes/κανόνες (rules), but almost all Orthodox conform to them. The dogmatic decisions of the Councils, though, are to be obeyed rather than to be treated as guidelines, since they are essential for the Church's unity.

All i hear from opponents of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP is that is uncannonical. Please someone explain how? I know that when the Ukrainian orthodox Church of the USA became a diocese of the Eccumenical Patriarchate in 1995, they claims they would help push for an independent Ukrainian orthodox Church in Ukraine. 15 years later, what has been accomplished?

Christos Voskres!

I seem to remember it being the opposite: that UOCUSA etc. would cease and desist on the issue of autocephaly of Kiev.

As to canons, the canon the UOC-KP is in violation is Apostolic canon 36 among other: Philaret was under censure by the Holy Synod of which he was a member (i.e. the Patriarchate of Moscow) and instead decided to not recognize the primate of the land (i.e. the Patriarch of Moscow) and go into schism.  The other bishops with Philaret, besides the question of them being self consecrated (a whole host of canons on that) were "ordained" without the approval of the primate and Holy Synod in whose jurisdiction Ukraine was/is.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XgRrh2M08p0C&pg=PA82&dq=Apostolic+canon+34&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Apostolic%20canon%2034&f=false
The challenge of our past: studies in Orthodox Canon law and Church history By John H. Erickson

See this is the problem : As to canons, the canon the UOC-KP is in violation is Apostolic canon 36 among other: Philaret was under censure by the Holy Synod of which he was a member (i.e. the Patriarchate of Moscow) and instead decided to not recognize the primate of the land (i.e. the Patriarch of Moscow) and go into schism. When Patriarch Mstyslav ordained countless clergy of the UOCUSA including current hierarchs Met. Constantine and Archbishop Antony, he along with the UOCUSA were considered uncanonical. Yet when the UOCUSA pre 95 performed a sacrament, was it consideed invalid? Was my parents marriage which was performed by a UOCUSa priest invalid? Was my baptism? After UOCUSA left the Kyivan Patriarchate (some may argue but everyone knows Archbishop Antony was a participating memeber of the UOC-KP sobor and was a candidate for Patriarch after the death of Patriarch Mstyslav) According to this theory, I am still confused...up until 1995 the UOCUSA was uncanonical but when joined with the EP did all the priest have to be reordained? Did the Bishops have to be reordained by Greek clergy? Were all the sacraments pre-95 null and void but magically become legit? or do all sacraments pre 95 have to be redone?  See to me this whole (non cannonical has nothing to do with religion or faith, but rather politics and ego. The Patriarch of Moscow is NOT the Patriarch of Ukraine. Just as the Patriarch of Serbia is NOT the Patriarch of Bulgaria. Why is it that people seemed so threatened by the existence of a Ukrainian Patriarchate?
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,352


metron ariston


« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2010, 03:20:56 PM »

The Patriarch of Moscow is NOT the Patriarch of Ukraine. Just as the Patriarch of Serbia is NOT the Patriarch of Bulgaria.

In the Orthodox Church, ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not the same as political jurisdiction. Patriarchates can and do span multiple countries.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2010, 03:26:04 PM »

Many of you give examples of countries, who became canonical despite the fact that they had been in schism. These are irrelevant, because on that time there had been no canonical Church structures there (those uncanonical structures had been the only one in the area) and Ukraine has own canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. There were also very difficult  and longstanding ways of communication, not the Internet we have now. Finally, why do we have to repeat bad and shameful examples from past?

That not mas magic that made pre-1995 UOC-USA's sacraments valid by Holy Spirit's grace from the 'following' sacraments which fulfilled the lacks of the previous ones. They weren't 'redone' with  using  the Church economy.

Of course Patriarch of Moscow is not the Patriarch of Ukraine. As far as I know the Primate of the Church of Ukraine is a Metropolitan.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 03:28:09 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,352


metron ariston


« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2010, 03:33:12 PM »

Many of you give examples of countries, who became canonical despite the fact that they had been in schism. These are irrelevant, because on that time there had been no canonical Church structures there (those uncanonical structures had been the only one in the area) and Ukraine has own canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

I'm not 100 percent sure I understand what you are trying to say, but the examples I gave did indeed have canonical church structures within them.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2010, 03:40:23 PM »

Many of you give examples of countries, who became canonical despite the fact that they had been in schism. These are irrelevant, because on that time there had been no canonical Church structures there (those uncanonical structures had been the only one in the area) and Ukraine has own canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. There were also very difficult  and longstanding ways of communication, not the Internet we have now. Finally, why do we have to repeat bad and shameful examples from past?

That not mas magic that made pre-1995 UOC-USA's sacraments valid by Holy Spirit's grace from the 'following' sacraments which fulfilled the lacks of the previous ones. They weren't 'redone' with  using  the Church economy.

Of course Patriarch of Moscow is not the Patriarch of Ukraine. As far as I know the Primate of the Church of Ukraine is a Metropolitan.

When you say we should not repeat bad and shameful examples from the past, are you stating it was bad and shameful for the Bulgraians to create their own church? the Romanians? The Serbians? Do you believe we should have only one patriarch? Im confused by your message.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2010, 03:53:43 PM »

I'm not 100 percent sure I understand what you are trying to say, but the examples I gave did indeed have canonical church structures within them.

Constantinople sent a Greek Bishop to Russia?

When you say we should not repeat bad and shameful examples from the past, are you stating it was bad and shameful for the Bulgraians to create their own church? the Romanians? The Serbians? Do you believe we should have only one patriarch? Im confused by your message.

I don't care how many Patriarchs do we have but having created a 75-year-long schism was not a good thing to do.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 03:56:23 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,352


metron ariston


« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2010, 03:57:56 PM »

When you say we should not repeat bad and shameful examples from the past, are you stating it was bad and shameful for the Bulgraians to create their own church? the Romanians? The Serbians? Do you believe we should have only one patriarch? Im confused by your message.

I think he is saying that there are multiple schismatic groups in Ukraine now, as well as a large canonical group under Moscow that is still in the country. This is unlike anything else in the past. In the cases I mentioned, all of the existing bishops, priests, and laypeople of an entire country (e.g. the Kingdom of Greece) declared they were autocephalous.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2010, 04:01:09 PM »

Christos voskres!
I have a question concerning cannon law...It is my understanding that the Ukrainian orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate is not recognized under cannon law. From what I have read the main reason it is not in communion with the other orthodox churches is more political than religious. The Ukrainian Church under Patriarch Filaret strives for communion with the other 'cannon" churches yet it seems Moscow will never allow a seperate Ukrainian church and Constantinople does not want to upset the Russian Orthodox Church. My question is which of the cannons does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate violate?

According to wikipedia 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

The Greek-speaking Orthodox have collected canons and commentaries upon them in a work known as the Pēdálion (Greek: Πηδάλιον, "Rudder"), so named because it is meant to "steer" the Church. The Orthodox Christian tradition in general treats its canons more as guidelines than as laws, the bishops adjusting them to cultural and other local circumstances. Some Orthodox canon scholars point out that, had the Ecumenical Councils (which deliberated in Greek) meant for the canons to be used as laws, they would have called them nómoi/νόμοι (laws) rather than kanónes/κανόνες (rules), but almost all Orthodox conform to them. The dogmatic decisions of the Councils, though, are to be obeyed rather than to be treated as guidelines, since they are essential for the Church's unity.

All i hear from opponents of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP is that is uncannonical. Please someone explain how? I know that when the Ukrainian orthodox Church of the USA became a diocese of the Eccumenical Patriarchate in 1995, they claims they would help push for an independent Ukrainian orthodox Church in Ukraine. 15 years later, what has been accomplished?

Christos Voskres!

I seem to remember it being the opposite: that UOCUSA etc. would cease and desist on the issue of autocephaly of Kiev.

As to canons, the canon the UOC-KP is in violation is Apostolic canon 36 among other: Philaret was under censure by the Holy Synod of which he was a member (i.e. the Patriarchate of Moscow) and instead decided to not recognize the primate of the land (i.e. the Patriarch of Moscow) and go into schism.  The other bishops with Philaret, besides the question of them being self consecrated (a whole host of canons on that) were "ordained" without the approval of the primate and Holy Synod in whose jurisdiction Ukraine was/is.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XgRrh2M08p0C&pg=PA82&dq=Apostolic+canon+34&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Apostolic%20canon%2034&f=false
The challenge of our past: studies in Orthodox Canon law and Church history By John H. Erickson

See this is the problem : As to canons, the canon the UOC-KP is in violation is Apostolic canon 36 among other: Philaret was under censure by the Holy Synod of which he was a member (i.e. the Patriarchate of Moscow) and instead decided to not recognize the primate of the land (i.e. the Patriarch of Moscow) and go into schism. When Patriarch Mstyslav ordained countless clergy of the UOCUSA including current hierarchs Met. Constantine and Archbishop Antony, he along with the UOCUSA were considered uncanonical. Yet when the UOCUSA pre 95 performed a sacrament, was it consideed invalid? Was my parents marriage which was performed by a UOCUSa priest invalid? Was my baptism? After UOCUSA left the Kyivan Patriarchate (some may argue but everyone knows Archbishop Antony was a participating memeber of the UOC-KP sobor and was a candidate for Patriarch after the death of Patriarch Mstyslav) According to this theory, I am still confused...up until 1995 the UOCUSA was uncanonical but when joined with the EP did all the priest have to be reordained? Did the Bishops have to be reordained by Greek clergy? Were all the sacraments pre-95 null and void but magically become legit? or do all sacraments pre 95 have to be redone?  See to me this whole (non cannonical has nothing to do with religion or faith, but rather politics and ego. The Patriarch of Moscow is NOT the Patriarch of Ukraine.

Au contraire: the Metropolitan of Moscow at the time of autocephaly was actually the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' residing at Moscow, much like the Patriarch of Antioch now resides in Damascus. St. Peter who moved the metropolitanate to Moscow actually started as the Metropolitan of Galicia before being elevated to Metropolitian of Kiev and All Russia.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1ndUgrTtvbkC&pg=PA94&dq=Meyendorff+Peter+see+'of+Kiev+and+all+Russia'&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false


Quote
Just as the Patriarch of Serbia is NOT the Patriarch of Bulgaria.

Not anymore he isn't.


Quote
Why is it that people seemed so threatened by the existence of a Ukrainian Patriarchate?

For Moscow, diminishment of its jurisdiction.

For many in Ukraine, being ripped from their Mother Church.

Btw, as to the the issue of UOC-USA, its not in the Ukraine, so it has nothing to do with the situation except to them claiming orders from Ukraine. Somewhere here I think someone threshed through the (re)consecrations that have gone on over the past half century before the EP accepted the Ukrainians.  I do know that at the time the claim was that all the Ukrainian bishops had all already acquired a valid apostolic consecration (no dead handers), or were given one (i.e. consecrated).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2010, 04:02:48 PM »

When you say we should not repeat bad and shameful examples from the past, are you stating it was bad and shameful for the Bulgraians to create their own church? the Romanians? The Serbians? Do you believe we should have only one patriarch? Im confused by your message.

I think he is saying that there are multiple schismatic groups in Ukraine now, as well as a large canonical group under Moscow that is still in the country. This is unlike anything else in the past. In the cases I mentioned, all of the existing bishops, priests, and laypeople of an entire country (e.g. the Kingdom of Greece) declared they were autocephalous.

Thanks Smiley
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,869



« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2010, 04:12:47 PM »

So when the Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbians, and Georgian declared themselves a patriarchal it took years for recognition and they were all considered schismatic churches and simply needed time to be reconginized and in "communion"?

Basically correct. In the case of Georgia, they were autocephalous for a very long time without anyone objecting until the Russians conquered Georgia, after which their status went back and forth, depending on Imperial and Soviet politics. And, in the case of Serbia, their status fluctuated a few times.

Not quite so in the case of the Bulgarian Church. Here is an outline of what happened.

865 AD: Official adoption of Christianity by Tsar Boris I.
 
870 AD (First Greek Dominion): Fourth Council of Constantinople granted autonomy to the Bulgarian Church under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, from whom it obtained its first primate, its clergy and theological books. Everything was in Greek and nobody understood anything.

886 AD: Tsar Boris I welcomed the disciples Saints Cyril and Methodius and gave them the task to instruct the future Bulgarian clergy in the Glagolitic alphabet and the Slavonic liturgy prepared by Cyril. The liturgy was based on the vernacular of the Macedonian Slavs from the region of Thessaloniki.

893 AD: Boris I expelled the Greek clergy from the country and ordered the replacing of the Greek language with the Slav-Bulgarian vernacular.

919 AD: Following Bulgaria's two decisive victories over the Byzantines at Acheloos (near the present-day city of Pomorie) and Katasyrtai (near Constantinople), the government declared the autonomous Bulgarian Archbishopric as autocephalous and elevated it to the rank of Patriarchate at an ecclesiastical and national council.

927 AD: After Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire signed a peace treaty in 927 that concluded the 20-year-long war between them, the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognised the autocephalous status of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and acknowledged its patriarchal dignity. The Bulgarian Patriarchate was the first autocephalous Slavic Orthodox Church, preceding the autocephaly of the Serbian Orthodox Church (1219) by 300 years and of the Russian Orthodox Church (1596) by some 600 years. It was the sixth Patriarchate after Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch.

990 AD: Patriarch Philip, moved to Ohrid (in present-day south-western Republic of Macedonia), which became the permanent seat of the Patriarchate.

1018 AD: After the fall of Bulgaria under Byzantium domination, Emperor Basil II Bulgaroktonus (the “Bulgar-Slayer”) acknowledged the autocephalous status of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. By special charters (royal decrees), his government set up its boundaries, dioceses, property and other privileges. The church was deprived of its Patriarchal title and reduced to the rank of an archbishopric.

Second Greek Dominion: Although the first appointed archbishop (John of Debar) was a Bulgarian, his successors, as well as the whole higher clergy, were invariably Greeks. The monks and the ordinary priests remained, however, predominantly Bulgarian. To a large extent the archbishopric preserved its national character, upheld the Slavonic liturgy and continued its contribution to the development of Bulgarian literature. The autocephaly of the Ohrid Archbishopric remained respected during the periods of Byzantine, Bulgarian, Serbian and Ottoman rule. The church continued to exist until its unlawful abolition in 1767.

The Tirnovo Patriarchate (1186-1235):

As a results of the successful uprising of the brothers Peter IV and Ivan Asen I in 1185/1186, the foundations of the Second Bulgarian State were laid with Tarnovo as its capital. Following Boris I’s principle that the sovereignty of the state is inextricably linked to the autocephaly of the Church, the two brothers immediately took steps to restore the Bulgarian Patriarchate. As a start, they established an independent archbishopric in Tarnovo in 1186. The struggle to have the archbishopric recognized according to the canonical order and elevated to the rank of a Patriarchate took almost 50 years. Following the example of Boris I, Bulgarian Tsar Kaloyan manoeuvred for years between the Patriarch of Constantinople and Pope Innocent III. Finally in 1203 the latter proclaimed the Tarnovo Archbishop Vassily "Primate and Archbishop of all Bulgaria and Walachia." The union with the Roman Catholic Church continued for well over three decades.

Under the reign of Tsar Ivan Asen II (1218-1241), conditions were created for the termination of the union with Rome and for the recognition of the autocephalous status of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. In 1235 a church council was convened in the town of Lampsakos. Under the presidency of Patriarch German II of Constantinople and with the consent of all Eastern Patriarchs, the council confirmed the Patriarchal dignity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and consecrated the Bulgarian archbishop German as Patriarch. Note: It was the Patriarch of Tarnovo who confirmed the patriarchal dignity of the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1346, despite protests by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

1393-1767: After the fall of Tarnovo under the Ottomans in 1393 and the sending of Patriarch Evtimiy into exile, the autocephalous church organization was destroyed again. The Bulgarian diocese was subordinated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The other Bulgarian religious centre – the Ohrid Archbishopric – managed to survive a few centuries more (until 1767), as a stronghold of faith and piety.

Ottoman Rule: During and immediately after the Ottoman conquest, the vast majority of the Bulgarian churches and monasteries, including the Patriarchal Cathedral church of the Holy Ascension in Tarnovo, were razed to the ground. The few surviving ones were converted into mosques. Most of the clergy were killed, while the intelligentsia associated with the Tarnovo Literary School fled to neighbouring Serbia, Wallachia, Moldavia or to Russia.
St. George, the Newmartyr of Sofia, icon from the 19th century

There were martyrs to the Church as many districts and almost all larger towns in the Bulgarian provinces of the Ottoman Empire were subjected to forceful conversion to Islam as early as the first years after the conquest. St. George of Kratovo (+1515), St. Nicholas of Sofia (+1515), Bishop Vissarion of Smolen (+1670), Damaskin of Gabrovo (+1771), St. Zlata of Muglen (+1795), St. John the Bulgarian (+1814), St. Ignatius of Stara Zagora (+1814), St. Onouphry of Gabrovo (+1818) and many others perished defending their faith. After many of the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church were executed, it was fully subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Third Greek Dominion: As the higher Bulgarian church clerics were replaced by Greek ones at the beginning of the Ottoman domination, the Bulgarian population was subjected to double oppression – political by the Ottomans and cultural by the Greek clergy. With the rise of Greek nationalism in the second half of the 18th century, the clergy imposed the Greek language and a Greek consciousness on the emerging Bulgarian bourgeoisie. The Patriarchate of Constantinople became its tool to assimilate other peoples. At the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, the clergy opened numerous schools with all-round Greek language curriculum and nearly banned the Bulgarian liturgy. in 1767 the Bulgarian Patriarchate was abolished by Constantinople, whose Patriarch was also the Ottoman Millet Bashi or Etnarch of all Christians except the Armenians.

The Bulgarian Exarchate: In 1762, St. Paisius of Hilendar (1722-1773), a monk from the south-western Bulgarian town of Bansko, wrote a short historical work. It was the first work written in the modern Bulgarian vernacular and was also the first call for a national awakening. In History of Slav-Bulgarians, Paissiy urged his compatriots to throw off subjugation to the Greek language and culture. The example of Paissiy was followed by a number of other activists, including St. Sophroniy of Vratsa (Sofroni Vrachanski) (1739-1813), hieromonk Spiridon of Gabrovo, hieromonk Yoakim Karchovski (d. 1820), hieromonk Kiril Peychinovich (d. 1845).

Discontent with the supremacy of the Greek clergy started to flare up in several Bulgarian dioceses as early as the 1820s. It was not until 1850 that the Bulgarians initiated a purposeful struggle against the Greek clerics in a number of bishoprics, demanding their replacement with Bulgarian ones. By that time, most Bulgarian clergy had realised that further struggle for the rights of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire could not succeed unless they managed to obtain some degree of autonomy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As the Ottomans identified nationality with religion, and the Bulgarians were Eastern Orthodox, the Ottomans considered them part of the Roum-Milet, i.e., the Greeks. To gain Bulgarian schools and liturgy, the Bulgarians needed to achieve an independent ecclesiastical organisation.

The struggle between the Bulgarians, led by Neofit Bozveli and Ilarion Makariopolski, and the Greeks intensified throughout the 1860s. By the end of the decade, Bulgarian bishoprics had expelled most of the Greek clerics, thus the whole of northern Bulgaria, as well as the northern parts of Thrace and Macedonia had effectively seceded from the Patriarchate.

1870 AD: The Ottoman government restored the Bulgarian Patriarchate under the name of "Bulgarian Exarchate" by a decree (firman) of the Sultan promulgated on February 28, 1870. The original Exarchate extended over present-day northern Bulgaria (Moesia), Thrace without the Vilayet of Adrianople, as well as over north-eastern Macedonia. After the Christian population of the bishoprics of Skopje and Ohrid voted in 1874 overwhelmingly in favour of joining the Exarchate (Skopje by 91%, Ohrid by 97%), the Bulgarian Exarchate became in control of the whole of Vardar and Pirin Macedonia. The Bulgarian Exarchate was partially represented in southern Macedonia and the Vilayet of Adrianople by vicars. Thus, the borders of the Exarchate included all Bulgarian districts in the Ottoman Empire.

1872 AD: The Patriarchate of Constantinople opposed the change, convening a Council and declaring the Bulgarian Exarchate schismatic and its adherents heretics. Although the status and the guiding principles of the Exarchate reflected the canons, the Patriarchate argued that “surrender of Orthodoxy to ethnic nationalism” was essentially a manifestation of heresy. The Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch (both of whom were under the dominion of the Patriarch of Constantinople during much of the 19th Century) supported this decision. Patriarch Sophronius IV (1870-1899), for example was Sophronius III, Patriarch of Constantinople, from 1863 to 1866. In 1870 he was elected Greek Patriarch of Alexandria as a compromise candidate in a disputed election.

1895 AD: The Tarnovo Constitution formally established the Bulgarian Orthodox Church as the national religion of the nation. On the eve of the Balkan Wars, in Macedonia and the Adrianople Vilayet, the Bulgarian Exarchate had seven dioceses with prelates and eight more with acting chairmen in charge and 38 vicariates; 1,218 parishes and 1,212 parish priests; 64 monasteries and 202 chapels; as well as of 1,373 schools with 2,266 teachers and 78,854 pupils.

1945 AD: The schism was lifted and the Patriarch of Constantinople recognised the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church.

1953 AD: In 1950, the Holy Synod had adopted a new Statute which paved the way for the restoration of the Patriarchate and in 1953, it elected the Metropolitan of Plovdiv, Cyril, as the Bulgarian Patriarch.

Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2010, 04:19:27 PM »

Christos voskres!
I have a question concerning cannon law...It is my understanding that the Ukrainian orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate is not recognized under cannon law. From what I have read the main reason it is not in communion with the other orthodox churches is more political than religious. The Ukrainian Church under Patriarch Filaret strives for communion with the other 'cannon" churches yet it seems Moscow will never allow a seperate Ukrainian church and Constantinople does not want to upset the Russian Orthodox Church. My question is which of the cannons does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate violate?

According to wikipedia 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

The Greek-speaking Orthodox have collected canons and commentaries upon them in a work known as the Pēdálion (Greek: Πηδάλιον, "Rudder"), so named because it is meant to "steer" the Church. The Orthodox Christian tradition in general treats its canons more as guidelines than as laws, the bishops adjusting them to cultural and other local circumstances. Some Orthodox canon scholars point out that, had the Ecumenical Councils (which deliberated in Greek) meant for the canons to be used as laws, they would have called them nómoi/νόμοι (laws) rather than kanónes/κανόνες (rules), but almost all Orthodox conform to them. The dogmatic decisions of the Councils, though, are to be obeyed rather than to be treated as guidelines, since they are essential for the Church's unity.

All i hear from opponents of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP is that is uncannonical. Please someone explain how? I know that when the Ukrainian orthodox Church of the USA became a diocese of the Eccumenical Patriarchate in 1995, they claims they would help push for an independent Ukrainian orthodox Church in Ukraine. 15 years later, what has been accomplished?

Christos Voskres!

I seem to remember it being the opposite: that UOCUSA etc. would cease and desist on the issue of autocephaly of Kiev.

As to canons, the canon the UOC-KP is in violation is Apostolic canon 36 among other: Philaret was under censure by the Holy Synod of which he was a member (i.e. the Patriarchate of Moscow) and instead decided to not recognize the primate of the land (i.e. the Patriarch of Moscow) and go into schism.  The other bishops with Philaret, besides the question of them being self consecrated (a whole host of canons on that) were "ordained" without the approval of the primate and Holy Synod in whose jurisdiction Ukraine was/is.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XgRrh2M08p0C&pg=PA82&dq=Apostolic+canon+34&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Apostolic%20canon%2034&f=false
The challenge of our past: studies in Orthodox Canon law and Church history By John H. Erickson

See this is the problem : As to canons, the canon the UOC-KP is in violation is Apostolic canon 36 among other: Philaret was under censure by the Holy Synod of which he was a member (i.e. the Patriarchate of Moscow) and instead decided to not recognize the primate of the land (i.e. the Patriarch of Moscow) and go into schism. When Patriarch Mstyslav ordained countless clergy of the UOCUSA including current hierarchs Met. Constantine and Archbishop Antony, he along with the UOCUSA were considered uncanonical. Yet when the UOCUSA pre 95 performed a sacrament, was it consideed invalid? Was my parents marriage which was performed by a UOCUSa priest invalid? Was my baptism? After UOCUSA left the Kyivan Patriarchate (some may argue but everyone knows Archbishop Antony was a participating memeber of the UOC-KP sobor and was a candidate for Patriarch after the death of Patriarch Mstyslav) According to this theory, I am still confused...up until 1995 the UOCUSA was uncanonical but when joined with the EP did all the priest have to be reordained? Did the Bishops have to be reordained by Greek clergy? Were all the sacraments pre-95 null and void but magically become legit? or do all sacraments pre 95 have to be redone?  See to me this whole (non cannonical has nothing to do with religion or faith, but rather politics and ego. The Patriarch of Moscow is NOT the Patriarch of Ukraine.

Au contraire: the Metropolitan of Moscow at the time of autocephaly was actually the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' residing at Moscow, much like the Patriarch of Antioch now resides in Damascus. St. Peter who moved the metropolitanate to Moscow actually started as the Metropolitan of Galicia before being elevated to Metropolitian of Kiev and All Russia.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1ndUgrTtvbkC&pg=PA94&dq=Meyendorff+Peter+see+'of+Kiev+and+all+Russia'&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false


Quote
Just as the Patriarch of Serbia is NOT the Patriarch of Bulgaria.

Not anymore he isn't.


Quote
Why is it that people seemed so threatened by the existence of a Ukrainian Patriarchate?

For Moscow, diminishment of its jurisdiction.

For many in Ukraine, being ripped from their Mother Church.

Btw, as to the the issue of UOC-USA, its not in the Ukraine, so it has nothing to do with the situation except to them claiming orders from Ukraine. Somewhere here I think someone threshed through the (re)consecrations that have gone on over the past half century before the EP accepted the Ukrainians.  I do know that at the time the claim was that all the Ukrainian bishops had all already acquired a valid apostolic consecration (no dead handers), or were given one (i.e. consecrated).


Voistyno Voskres


For many in Ukraine, being ripped from their Mother Church.


Since when is Russia, the mother church of Ukraine. Russia outlawed the Ukrainian Orthodox church, outlawed the Ukrainian language, and outlawed Ukrainian culture. Russia declared Ukraine a part of her empire and denied her independence or identity. The Mother Church has always been a tool of the tsarist Russian autocrats as many Tsars appointed patriarchs or bishops. Yes the Russian church was persecuted during the godless times of the communists but in today's political climate, everyone knows Russia would like for Ukraine (not THe Ukraine) to become reincorporated into the Russian state. As for mother church, 20% of Ukraine is ethnically Russian so for those 20% yes the Russian Orthodox Church, along with her hierarchs and language is indeed the mother church.


If one were to look at the breakdown of Orthodox adherants In Ukraine, here is a good breakdown of the numbers…. http://www.search.com/reference/Religion_in_Ukraine

Thus Russian Orthodox church (in today Ukraine is called Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)) traditionally (since Russian Empire and Soviet Union) has a favor of many local authorities. The survey indicates
   50.44 percent - with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate;
   only 26.13 percent believers identify themselves as adherents of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (has largest number of Churches in Ukraine);
   8.02 percent belong to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (sometimes referred to as the Uniate, Byzantine, or Eastern Rite Church);
   7.21 percent to the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church;
   2.19 percent belonged to the Roman Catholic Church;
   2.19 percent identified themselves as Protestants (Pentecostal, Baptist, Lutheran, Mennonites, Adventists);
   0.63 percent belong to Jewish religious practices;
   3.2 percent said they belonged to "other denominations".
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) has 35 eparchies and 10,875 communities (approximately 68 percent of all Orthodox Christian communities in the country), most of which were located in the central, southern, and eastern oblasts.
Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) of Kiev headed the denomination within the country. The UOC(MP), which had 9,072 clergy members, referred to itself as The Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) uses most Russian and Old-Slavonic languages.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate (UOC-KP) was formed after independence and has been headed since 1995 by Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko), who was once the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine. The Church claims direct lineage to the Kievan Metropolia of Petro Mohyla.
The UOC-KP had 31 eparchies, 3,721 communities, and 2,816 clergy members. Approximately 60 percent of the UOC-KP faithful live in the western part of the country. The UOC-KP was not recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Communion.
The UOC-KP uses Ukrainian language.
The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) was founded in 1919 in Kiev. Banned during the Soviet era, it was legalized in 1989.
The church has 12 eparchies and 1,166 communities, approximately 70 percent of them in the western part of the country. The UAOC has 686 clergy members.
In the interest of the possible future unification of the country's Orthodox churches, it did not name a patriarch to succeed the late Patriarch Dmitriy. The UAOC was formally headed in the country by Metropolitan Methodij of Ternopil and Podil;The UAOC uses Ukrainian language.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) constituted the second largest group of believers after the Christian Orthodox churches. The Council of Brest formed the Church in 1596 to unify Orthodox and Roman Catholic believers. Outlawed by the Soviet Union in 1946 and legalized in 1989, the UGCC was for forty-three years the single largest banned religious community in the world.
The UGCC had 18 eparchies, 3,433 communities, and 2,136 clergy members. The UGCC's members, who constituted a majority of the believers in western Ukraine, numbered approximately four million.
The UGCC uses Ukrainian language


Logged
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2010, 04:26:47 PM »

according to http://razumkov.org.ua/ukr/poll.php?poll_id=300   
Here is another breakdown showing again more Ukrainians in Ukraine are anti-Moscow.
The Ukrainian Authocephalaus Orthodox Church although the smallest of the 3 major Orthodox jurisditions in Ukraine are very anti-Moscow Patriachate but have not yet united with UOC-KP but in the past 15 years, more clergy and faithful have joined with UOC-KP. I believe in order to help recieve cannonical recognition, these 2 branches will have to unite.
 

                                                                    In the millions         %       Of all those who belong to churches,           
Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate    10.9           29.4
Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate       14.9           39.8
Ukrainian Authocephalaus Orthodox church         1.0                      2.8
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church                           5.3                     14.1
Roman Catholic church                                       0.6                      1.7
Protestant Christian Church                                 0.9                      2.4
Islam                                                            0.2                      0.6
Judaism                                                            0.1                      0.2
Buddhism                                                          0.0                      0.1
Other churches and denominations                         0.7                      2.0
Difficult to answer                                               2.6                      7.0
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,352


metron ariston


« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2010, 04:27:47 PM »

Constantinople sent a Greek Bishop to Russia?

Sure, if you count the Patriarch himself, whom the Russians imprisoned until he would sign the Tomos of Autocephaly in 1589. Also, there are some scholars who claim that the Rus' declared a short-lived independence in 1051, after which Constantinople sent several more centuries worth of Metropolitans.

That aside, Moscow's "autocephaly" from 1448 to 1589 was messy in its own right. Probably more so than Bulgaria's or Greece's during the 19th century. There were at least three factions and a long-standing schism between -- surprise! -- the Muscovites and Kievians.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,352


metron ariston


« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2010, 04:31:19 PM »

Not quite so in the case of the Bulgarian Church. Here is an outline of what happened.

Yeah, officially in a meeting, so no time for caveats. The relevant part is the stuff in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Kiev itself has a (centuries-old) history as well, which, at times, included de facto autocephaly; but that's all water under the bridge.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,869



« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2010, 05:27:07 PM »

Not quite so in the case of the Bulgarian Church. Here is an outline of what happened.

Yeah, officially in a meeting, so no time for caveats. The relevant part is the stuff in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Kiev itself has a (centuries-old) history as well, which, at times, included de facto autocephaly; but that's all water under the bridge.

I understand. However, I fail to see how the role of "First Among Equals" has expanded so much that the opinion of the Patriarch of Constantinople is deemed definitive. The 1872 action, for example, was undertaken solely by the Patriarch of Constantinople and just two other Patriarchs (one of whom was part of the Greek cabal running Orthodoxy in the Middle East at that time and the second one may also have been another Greek prelate with more allegiance to Constantinople than to Antioch). No other autocephalous church signed this famous decision. Yet, the Patriarch of Constantinople continues to pretend that he is truly ecumenical, truly the preeminent head of the Orthodox Church.

I have got to add that history has shown us that the most cogent reason for the status of the Bulgarian Church is temporal power--nothing theological, ecclesiastic, moral, ethical, or anything Christian...just naked power. I am therefore surprised that we have accepted this aberration with worldly cynicism, with hardly a shrug of the shoulders. In this, everybody is guilty: any church that is listed after Antioch in the dyptichs is quite happy with the fiction that the Bulgarian Church has been autocephalous since the middle of last century.  Embarrassed Sad Angry
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 05:34:47 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2010, 09:06:23 PM »

Not quite so in the case of the Bulgarian Church. Here is an outline of what happened.

Yeah, officially in a meeting, so no time for caveats. The relevant part is the stuff in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Kiev itself has a (centuries-old) history as well, which, at times, included de facto autocephaly; but that's all water under the bridge.

I understand. However, I fail to see how the role of "First Among Equals" has expanded so much that the opinion of the Patriarch of Constantinople is deemed definitive. The 1872 action, for example, was undertaken solely by the Patriarch of Constantinople and just two other Patriarchs (one of whom was part of the Greek cabal running Orthodoxy in the Middle East at that time and the second one may also have been another Greek prelate with more allegiance to Constantinople than to Antioch). No other autocephalous church signed this famous decision. Yet, the Patriarch of Constantinople continues to pretend that he is truly ecumenical, truly the preeminent head of the Orthodox Church.

I have got to add that history has shown us that the most cogent reason for the status of the Bulgarian Church is temporal power--nothing theological, ecclesiastic, moral, ethical, or anything Christian...just naked power. I am therefore surprised that we have accepted this aberration with worldly cynicism, with hardly a shrug of the shoulders. In this, everybody is guilty: any church that is listed after Antioch in the dyptichs is quite happy with the fiction that the Bulgarian Church has been autocephalous since the middle of last century.  Embarrassed Sad Angry
Not quite: the major impetus for the Bulgarians' actions was the uncanonical abolition of their see of Ohrid, by firman of the Sultan.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,402


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2010, 03:07:05 PM »

So when the Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbians, and Georgian declared themselves a patriarchal it took years for recognition and they were all considered schismatic churches and simply needed time to be reconginized and in "communion"?

Basically correct. In the case of Georgia, they were autocephalous for a very long time without anyone objecting until the Russians conquered Georgia, after which their status went back and forth, depending on Imperial and Soviet politics. And, in the case of Serbia, their status fluctuated a few times.

Not quite so in the case of the Bulgarian Church. Here is an outline of what happened.

865 AD: Official adoption of Christianity by Tsar Boris I.
 
870 AD (First Greek Dominion): Fourth Council of Constantinople granted autonomy to the Bulgarian Church under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, from whom it obtained its first primate, its clergy and theological books. Everything was in Greek and nobody understood anything.

886 AD: Tsar Boris I welcomed the disciples Saints Cyril and Methodius and gave them the task to instruct the future Bulgarian clergy in the Glagolitic alphabet and the Slavonic liturgy prepared by Cyril. The liturgy was based on the vernacular of the Macedonian Slavs from the region of Thessaloniki.

893 AD: Boris I expelled the Greek clergy from the country and ordered the replacing of the Greek language with the Slav-Bulgarian vernacular.

919 AD: Following Bulgaria's two decisive victories over the Byzantines at Acheloos (near the present-day city of Pomorie) and Katasyrtai (near Constantinople), the government declared the autonomous Bulgarian Archbishopric as autocephalous and elevated it to the rank of Patriarchate at an ecclesiastical and national council.

927 AD: After Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire signed a peace treaty in 927 that concluded the 20-year-long war between them, the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognised the autocephalous status of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and acknowledged its patriarchal dignity. The Bulgarian Patriarchate was the first autocephalous Slavic Orthodox Church, preceding the autocephaly of the Serbian Orthodox Church (1219) by 300 years and of the Russian Orthodox Church (1596) by some 600 years. It was the sixth Patriarchate after Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch.

990 AD: Patriarch Philip, moved to Ohrid (in present-day south-western Republic of Macedonia), which became the permanent seat of the Patriarchate.

1018 AD: After the fall of Bulgaria under Byzantium domination, Emperor Basil II Bulgaroktonus (the “Bulgar-Slayer”) acknowledged the autocephalous status of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. By special charters (royal decrees), his government set up its boundaries, dioceses, property and other privileges. The church was deprived of its Patriarchal title and reduced to the rank of an archbishopric.

Second Greek Dominion: Although the first appointed archbishop (John of Debar) was a Bulgarian, his successors, as well as the whole higher clergy, were invariably Greeks. The monks and the ordinary priests remained, however, predominantly Bulgarian. To a large extent the archbishopric preserved its national character, upheld the Slavonic liturgy and continued its contribution to the development of Bulgarian literature. The autocephaly of the Ohrid Archbishopric remained respected during the periods of Byzantine, Bulgarian, Serbian and Ottoman rule. The church continued to exist until its unlawful abolition in 1767.

The Tirnovo Patriarchate (1186-1235):

As a results of the successful uprising of the brothers Peter IV and Ivan Asen I in 1185/1186, the foundations of the Second Bulgarian State were laid with Tarnovo as its capital. Following Boris I’s principle that the sovereignty of the state is inextricably linked to the autocephaly of the Church, the two brothers immediately took steps to restore the Bulgarian Patriarchate. As a start, they established an independent archbishopric in Tarnovo in 1186. The struggle to have the archbishopric recognized according to the canonical order and elevated to the rank of a Patriarchate took almost 50 years. Following the example of Boris I, Bulgarian Tsar Kaloyan manoeuvred for years between the Patriarch of Constantinople and Pope Innocent III. Finally in 1203 the latter proclaimed the Tarnovo Archbishop Vassily "Primate and Archbishop of all Bulgaria and Walachia." The union with the Roman Catholic Church continued for well over three decades.

Under the reign of Tsar Ivan Asen II (1218-1241), conditions were created for the termination of the union with Rome and for the recognition of the autocephalous status of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. In 1235 a church council was convened in the town of Lampsakos. Under the presidency of Patriarch German II of Constantinople and with the consent of all Eastern Patriarchs, the council confirmed the Patriarchal dignity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and consecrated the Bulgarian archbishop German as Patriarch. Note: It was the Patriarch of Tarnovo who confirmed the patriarchal dignity of the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1346, despite protests by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

1393-1767: After the fall of Tarnovo under the Ottomans in 1393 and the sending of Patriarch Evtimiy into exile, the autocephalous church organization was destroyed again. The Bulgarian diocese was subordinated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The other Bulgarian religious centre – the Ohrid Archbishopric – managed to survive a few centuries more (until 1767), as a stronghold of faith and piety.

Ottoman Rule: During and immediately after the Ottoman conquest, the vast majority of the Bulgarian churches and monasteries, including the Patriarchal Cathedral church of the Holy Ascension in Tarnovo, were razed to the ground. The few surviving ones were converted into mosques. Most of the clergy were killed, while the intelligentsia associated with the Tarnovo Literary School fled to neighbouring Serbia, Wallachia, Moldavia or to Russia.
St. George, the Newmartyr of Sofia, icon from the 19th century

There were martyrs to the Church as many districts and almost all larger towns in the Bulgarian provinces of the Ottoman Empire were subjected to forceful conversion to Islam as early as the first years after the conquest. St. George of Kratovo (+1515), St. Nicholas of Sofia (+1515), Bishop Vissarion of Smolen (+1670), Damaskin of Gabrovo (+1771), St. Zlata of Muglen (+1795), St. John the Bulgarian (+1814), St. Ignatius of Stara Zagora (+1814), St. Onouphry of Gabrovo (+1818) and many others perished defending their faith. After many of the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church were executed, it was fully subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Third Greek Dominion: As the higher Bulgarian church clerics were replaced by Greek ones at the beginning of the Ottoman domination, the Bulgarian population was subjected to double oppression – political by the Ottomans and cultural by the Greek clergy. With the rise of Greek nationalism in the second half of the 18th century, the clergy imposed the Greek language and a Greek consciousness on the emerging Bulgarian bourgeoisie. The Patriarchate of Constantinople became its tool to assimilate other peoples. At the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, the clergy opened numerous schools with all-round Greek language curriculum and nearly banned the Bulgarian liturgy. in 1767 the Bulgarian Patriarchate was abolished by Constantinople, whose Patriarch was also the Ottoman Millet Bashi or Etnarch of all Christians except the Armenians.

The Bulgarian Exarchate: In 1762, St. Paisius of Hilendar (1722-1773), a monk from the south-western Bulgarian town of Bansko, wrote a short historical work. It was the first work written in the modern Bulgarian vernacular and was also the first call for a national awakening. In History of Slav-Bulgarians, Paissiy urged his compatriots to throw off subjugation to the Greek language and culture. The example of Paissiy was followed by a number of other activists, including St. Sophroniy of Vratsa (Sofroni Vrachanski) (1739-1813), hieromonk Spiridon of Gabrovo, hieromonk Yoakim Karchovski (d. 1820), hieromonk Kiril Peychinovich (d. 1845).

Discontent with the supremacy of the Greek clergy started to flare up in several Bulgarian dioceses as early as the 1820s. It was not until 1850 that the Bulgarians initiated a purposeful struggle against the Greek clerics in a number of bishoprics, demanding their replacement with Bulgarian ones. By that time, most Bulgarian clergy had realised that further struggle for the rights of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire could not succeed unless they managed to obtain some degree of autonomy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As the Ottomans identified nationality with religion, and the Bulgarians were Eastern Orthodox, the Ottomans considered them part of the Roum-Milet, i.e., the Greeks. To gain Bulgarian schools and liturgy, the Bulgarians needed to achieve an independent ecclesiastical organisation.

The struggle between the Bulgarians, led by Neofit Bozveli and Ilarion Makariopolski, and the Greeks intensified throughout the 1860s. By the end of the decade, Bulgarian bishoprics had expelled most of the Greek clerics, thus the whole of northern Bulgaria, as well as the northern parts of Thrace and Macedonia had effectively seceded from the Patriarchate.

1870 AD: The Ottoman government restored the Bulgarian Patriarchate under the name of "Bulgarian Exarchate" by a decree (firman) of the Sultan promulgated on February 28, 1870. The original Exarchate extended over present-day northern Bulgaria (Moesia), Thrace without the Vilayet of Adrianople, as well as over north-eastern Macedonia. After the Christian population of the bishoprics of Skopje and Ohrid voted in 1874 overwhelmingly in favour of joining the Exarchate (Skopje by 91%, Ohrid by 97%), the Bulgarian Exarchate became in control of the whole of Vardar and Pirin Macedonia. The Bulgarian Exarchate was partially represented in southern Macedonia and the Vilayet of Adrianople by vicars. Thus, the borders of the Exarchate included all Bulgarian districts in the Ottoman Empire.

1872 AD: The Patriarchate of Constantinople opposed the change, convening a Council and declaring the Bulgarian Exarchate schismatic and its adherents heretics. Although the status and the guiding principles of the Exarchate reflected the canons, the Patriarchate argued that “surrender of Orthodoxy to ethnic nationalism” was essentially a manifestation of heresy. The Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch (both of whom were under the dominion of the Patriarch of Constantinople during much of the 19th Century) supported this decision. Patriarch Sophronius IV (1870-1899), for example was Sophronius III, Patriarch of Constantinople, from 1863 to 1866. In 1870 he was elected Greek Patriarch of Alexandria as a compromise candidate in a disputed election.

1895 AD: The Tarnovo Constitution formally established the Bulgarian Orthodox Church as the national religion of the nation. On the eve of the Balkan Wars, in Macedonia and the Adrianople Vilayet, the Bulgarian Exarchate had seven dioceses with prelates and eight more with acting chairmen in charge and 38 vicariates; 1,218 parishes and 1,212 parish priests; 64 monasteries and 202 chapels; as well as of 1,373 schools with 2,266 teachers and 78,854 pupils.

1945 AD: The schism was lifted and the Patriarch of Constantinople recognised the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church.

1953 AD: In 1950, the Holy Synod had adopted a new Statute which paved the way for the restoration of the Patriarchate and in 1953, it elected the Metropolitan of Plovdiv, Cyril, as the Bulgarian Patriarch.



Out of curiosity, where did you get all of this information from??  I'd love to read more if I could! 

Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,869



« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2010, 07:48:40 PM »

^

Dear Father Deacon: Christ is Risen!

I took the easy way and used various Wikipedia articles, augmented by Google searches for some details The dates and events are corroborated in history books.

PS: I hope I did not commit a foot-in-the-mouth by assuming that you had been ordained into the diaconate.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,402


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2010, 11:40:12 PM »

^

Dear Father Deacon: Christ is Risen!

I took the easy way and used various Wikipedia articles, augmented by Google searches for some details The dates and events are corroborated in history books.

PS: I hope I did not commit a foot-in-the-mouth by assuming that you had been ordained into the diaconate.

Thanks for the info!  I have always been interested in Bulgarian history, i'd love to start reading more about it. 

p.s. you did not assume, I was ordained to the deaconate on March 27th! 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.166 seconds with 53 queries.