OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 03:17:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Macedonia & Ukraine...  (Read 1736 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« on: July 27, 2011, 11:46:03 AM »

I was just wondering today what the issue is with recognizing the autocephaly of Macedonia and Ukraine?
I know there are issues between Russia & Ukraine, and some would claim that Russia wants dominion over all Ukraine, but what I would ask Russia is what exactly is the problem with granting Ukraine autocephaly?
Also for Serbia, what exactly is the issue with granting "Macedonia" autocephaly?

What is it about mother churches that makes them get so upset when the "autocephaly" call is made?
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2011, 11:50:35 AM »

The issue, I think, is that they have unilaterally broken away from their mother church.

There is precedent for this, but recognition always takes a while to follow, i.e. Bulgaria.
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: 35,613



« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2011, 12:15:41 PM »

I was just wondering today what the issue is with recognizing the autocephaly of Macedonia and Ukraine?
I know there are issues between Russia & Ukraine, and some would claim that Russia wants dominion over all Ukraine, but what I would ask Russia is what exactly is the problem with granting Ukraine autocephaly?
Also for Serbia, what exactly is the issue with granting "Macedonia" autocephaly?

What is it about mother churches that makes them get so upset when the "autocephaly" call is made?
In both, a large part of the problem resembles what would have been a large problem with the United States if the Confederate States had won: how do you divide a common patrimony?
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2011, 12:19:49 PM »

The issue, I think, is that they have unilaterally broken away from their mother church.

There is precedent for this, but recognition always takes a while to follow, i.e. Bulgaria.

Except in the case of Bulgaria, Constantinople fully recognized the first autocephaly (it was the reward for not going under the Church of Rome). The better example would be Russia.
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: 35,613



« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2011, 12:22:06 PM »

The issue, I think, is that they have unilaterally broken away from their mother church.

There is precedent for this, but recognition always takes a while to follow, i.e. Bulgaria.

Except in the case of Bulgaria, Constantinople fully recognized the first autocephaly (it was the reward for not going under the Church of Rome). The better example would be Russia.
I think he was talking not of the foundation of Bulgarian autocephay, but its restoration in the 19th century, in which case it is the perfect example.  Russia got autocephaly by default when its Mother Church succumbed to heresy and schism and only after Russian autocephaly, returned to Orthdooxy.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 12:22:27 PM by ialmisry » 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
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2011, 12:37:30 PM »

There just seem to be no theological differences, and the division just seems to be something between the hierarchs. Why can't they just put it behind them and grant autocephaly? Hasn't the schisms lasted long enough? If there aren't theological differences, then what is the point (other than pride) of letting the schism continue?
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: 35,613



« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2011, 01:29:09 PM »

There just seem to be no theological differences, and the division just seems to be something between the hierarchs. Why can't they just put it behind them and grant autocephaly? Hasn't the schisms lasted long enough? If there aren't theological differences, then what is the point (other than pride) of letting the schism continue?
Patrimony.
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
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,854



« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2011, 02:53:16 PM »

In Ukraine, the situation is quite complicated. There are actualy two non-canonical churches, as well as a canonical church in submission to Moscow.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2011, 03:18:09 PM »

There just seem to be no theological differences, and the division just seems to be something between the hierarchs. Why can't they just put it behind them and grant autocephaly? Hasn't the schisms lasted long enough? If there aren't theological differences, then what is the point (other than pride) of letting the schism continue?
Patrimony.

Agreed but should "patrimony" be a sufficiently Christian reason for this shameful bickering to continue?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,867



« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2011, 04:04:11 PM »

I've been told that the Church of Russia will not let go of Ukraine because it represents 60% (+/-) of their church; (Communism was quite successful in suppressing our faith in the Russian Federation).

Macedonia is a more bizarre matter.  The historic territory of the Macedonian province is in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece.  The self-proclaimed state of Macedonia is only its capitol environs, Skopje.  Tito supported the so called autocephalous church of Macedonia to reduce the influence of the Church of Serbia.

I am not supportive of autocephalous church's being bound by national boundaries, necessarily, in any event.  The Ancient Patriarchates were regions, not national states.  Even though the 19th (and 20th) century witnessed the proliferation of the national church becoming autocephalous (though not necessarily within today's Serbia and Romania for some time) I think the national church structure too closely and unnecessarily associates the church with the state. (I am not taking issue with the geographic structure of these churches at this point.)

Although it doesn't seem likely, I envision both America and Canada constituting a single eventual autocephalous church; perhaps Canada would be an autonomous part of it.

While I know there is substantial precedent for it, I oppose "self declaration" of autocephaly.  It lacks due process.  I also find it rude that a church can unilaterally break away from its church affiliation, and that the sister Holy Orthodox Churches are confronted with a new equal family member who they have no say in accepting, while not considering the mother church's opinion, one of the fellow sister churches.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 04:23:10 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2011, 04:52:02 PM »

The situation in Ukraine is a three-way division between the Autonomous Ukrainian Church under Moscow, the Kyiv Patriarchate, and the other guys, the "self-consecrators." There are issues with the episcopy of the latter two.

I'm not sure where the Skopje bishops come from.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2011, 06:19:53 PM »

I've been told that the Church of Russia will not let go of Ukraine because it represents 60% (+/-) of their church; (Communism was quite successful in suppressing our faith in the Russian Federation).

Macedonia is a more bizarre matter.  The historic territory of the Macedonian province is in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece.  The self-proclaimed state of Macedonia is only its capitol environs, Skopje.  Tito supported the so called autocephalous church of Macedonia to reduce the influence of the Church of Serbia.

I am not supportive of autocephalous church's being bound by national boundaries, necessarily, in any event.  The Ancient Patriarchates were regions, not national states.  Even though the 19th (and 20th) century witnessed the proliferation of the national church becoming autocephalous (though not necessarily within today's Serbia and Romania for some time) I think the national church structure too closely and unnecessarily associates the church with the state. (I am not taking issue with the geographic structure of these churches at this point.)

Although it doesn't seem likely, I envision both America and Canada constituting a single eventual autocephalous church; perhaps Canada would be an autonomous part of it.

While I know there is substantial precedent for it, I oppose "self declaration" of autocephaly.  It lacks due process.  I also find it rude that a church can unilaterally break away from its church affiliation, and that the sister Holy Orthodox Churches are confronted with a new equal family member who they have no say in accepting, while not considering the mother church's opinion, one of the fellow sister churches.

Good post.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2011, 06:22:55 PM »

If the autonomous Ukrainian Church was, in fact, granted autocephaly, can we be reasonably sure that the non-canonical Ukrainian Churches would unite with it?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2011, 08:08:07 PM »

One aspect of the problem is that by granting autocephaly to these breakaway churches that form on modern nation-state lines, we give fuel to the heresy of ethnophyletism.

What difference does it make to the Macedonians, for example, that their hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Serbia? They just want to be able to call themselves "Macedonian Orthodox", when we all know there is no such thing as "Greek Orthodoxy", "Russian Orthodoxy" or any other so-described Orthodoxy. And, in order to achieve this, they are willing to go into schism: according to many of the Fathers, a worse sin than any other.

My hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Would I be better off spiritually if they commemorated the Patriarch of Sydney and All Australia (even better if he's some blonde, surfer dude so we Aussies can relate to our leadership)? Doubtfully, but I certainly wouldn't go into schism to acheive such a blessed spiritual state.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2011, 08:17:20 PM »

I've been told that the Church of Russia will not let go of Ukraine because it represents 60% (+/-) of their church; (Communism was quite successful in suppressing our faith in the Russian Federation).

Macedonia is a more bizarre matter.  The historic territory of the Macedonian province is in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece.  The self-proclaimed state of Macedonia is only its capitol environs, Skopje.  Tito supported the so called autocephalous church of Macedonia to reduce the influence of the Church of Serbia.

I am not supportive of autocephalous church's being bound by national boundaries, necessarily, in any event.  The Ancient Patriarchates were regions, not national states.  Even though the 19th (and 20th) century witnessed the proliferation of the national church becoming autocephalous (though not necessarily within today's Serbia and Romania for some time) I think the national church structure too closely and unnecessarily associates the church with the state. (I am not taking issue with the geographic structure of these churches at this point.)

Although it doesn't seem likely, I envision both America and Canada constituting a single eventual autocephalous church; perhaps Canada would be an autonomous part of it.

While I know there is substantial precedent for it, I oppose "self declaration" of autocephaly.  It lacks due process.  I also find it rude that a church can unilaterally break away from its church affiliation, and that the sister Holy Orthodox Churches are confronted with a new equal family member who they have no say in accepting, while not considering the mother church's opinion, one of the fellow sister churches.

Ukrainian Orthodox Church - MP: 22 million (est)
Russian Orthodox Church: 150 million
Ukrainians make up only about 15% of the Russian church's members.
(even if you added all of Ukraine's orthodox, it'd still only be about 20% of Russia's total)

I'd be interested to learn though if the laypeople pay attention to the schism, or if they freely commune between them? (not saying this is right, just asking if the schism is just administrative)

As for autocephaly, I think it'd be clear what my attitude is, being in the OCA. But we definitely need to fight ethnophyletism. But I don't think having a national church qualifies as such. Yes, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople were in different jurisdictions of the Roman Empire, but we've grown beyond that.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 08:19:23 PM by 88Devin12 » 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: 35,613



« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2011, 08:57:16 PM »

There just seem to be no theological differences, and the division just seems to be something between the hierarchs. Why can't they just put it behind them and grant autocephaly? Hasn't the schisms lasted long enough? If there aren't theological differences, then what is the point (other than pride) of letting the schism continue?
Patrimony.

Agreed but should "patrimony" be a sufficiently Christian reason for this shameful bickering to continue?
No, but the real reason is that sooner or later it is going to have to be resolved so sooner is better.
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,867



« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2011, 09:19:27 PM »

A few more comments to add to this discussion...

In connection with the statistical data I submitted, I was obviously misinformed.  The data came from a respected Ukrainian Orthodox (U.S.A.) priest, perhaps he was referring to financially contributing supporters of the church or financial contributions to the church---it was 15 years ago when I had this conversation; however, I've never before seen a 150 million population statistic for the Church of Russia, 100 million seems to be more commonly used in my experience.  (100 million was the statistic commonly used, in my experience, for the Russian Church populous prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, too.)

Regarding the assertion that there is one Orthodox Church, of course, no doubt.  Fr. John Meyendorff had written that the ethnic appellations, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, etc., are the result of the 16th to 17th century nationalist movements in the Ottoman Empire, which to some extent, operated within the churches.  He made the point, if, in any of the commonly spoken languages of the Ottoman Empire, an Eastern Orthodox Christian is asked, "To which religion do you belong?" the answer was "I am Orthodox," not "I am Greek Orthodox," etc.  I've noticed on facebook, when Greeks (from Greece) post their religion, they put "Christian Orthodox."

Regarding the Ukrainian Church divisions, there's another topic on "oc.net" that demonstrated that there are many separated churches therein, not just the two most prominent.  Also, in the mid-1990's when Patriarch Bartholomew was engaged in discussions with the two prominent separated Ukrainian Churches, he told them to resolve their differences, and return to discussions with the Ecumenical Patriarchate as an administratively united church.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2011, 12:39:33 AM »

The issue, I think, is that they have unilaterally broken away from their mother church.

There is precedent for this, but recognition always takes a while to follow, i.e. Bulgaria.

Except in the case of Bulgaria, Constantinople fully recognized the first autocephaly (it was the reward for not going under the Church of Rome). The better example would be Russia.
The current itineration of the Bulgarian Church, not the original. Wink
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2011, 12:55:12 AM »

My hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Would I be better off spiritually if they commemorated the Patriarch of Sydney and All Australia (even better if he's some blonde, surfer dude so we Aussies can relate to our leadership)? Doubtfully, but I certainly wouldn't go into schism to acheive such a blessed spiritual state.

Then you obviously ain't seen this:

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2011, 01:44:46 AM »

My hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Would I be better off spiritually if they commemorated the Patriarch of Sydney and All Australia (even better if he's some blonde, surfer dude so we Aussies can relate to our leadership)? Doubtfully, but I certainly wouldn't go into schism to acheive such a blessed spiritual state.

Then you obviously ain't seen this:



Vaguely remember seeing it in the very early 90s.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2011, 05:57:31 AM »

If the autonomous Ukrainian Church was, in fact, granted autocephaly, can we be reasonably sure that the non-canonical Ukrainian Churches would unite with it?

No. There are two major non-canonical "autocephalous" Churches now.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2011, 10:23:12 AM »

If the autonomous Ukrainian Church was, in fact, granted autocephaly, can we be reasonably sure that the non-canonical Ukrainian Churches would unite with it?

Nope. Unless it's getting colder in hell.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2011, 10:24:43 AM »

One aspect of the problem is that by granting autocephaly to these breakaway churches that form on modern nation-state lines, we give fuel to the heresy of ethnophyletism.

What difference does it make to the Macedonians, for example, that their hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Serbia? They just want to be able to call themselves "Macedonian Orthodox", when we all know there is no such thing as "Greek Orthodoxy", "Russian Orthodoxy" or any other so-described Orthodoxy. And, in order to achieve this, they are willing to go into schism: according to many of the Fathers, a worse sin than any other.

My hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Would I be better off spiritually if they commemorated the Patriarch of Sydney and All Australia (even better if he's some blonde, surfer dude so we Aussies can relate to our leadership)? Doubtfully, but I certainly wouldn't go into schism to acheive such a blessed spiritual state.

Eventually, there should be a united Australian church. What there is now is not the ideal.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,854



« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2011, 10:55:39 AM »

I'd be interested to learn though if the laypeople pay attention to the schism, or if they freely commune between them? (not saying this is right, just asking if the schism is just administrative)
Active parishoners of the MP wouldn't commune in the non-canonical churches, whereas active parishioners of the non-canonical churches would not commune in "Moscow's colonial churches". Between UOC-KP and UAOC, there would be no problem though.

He made the point, if, in any of the commonly spoken languages of the Ottoman Empire, an Eastern Orthodox Christian is asked, "To which religion do you belong?" the answer was "I am Orthodox," not "I am Greek Orthodox," etc.
Not exactly correct. In the Ottoman Empire, as well as in contemporary Turkey, the term "rum-ortodoks" (i.e. "Roman Orthodox") is used in the sense of EO, without consideration to ethnicity. OOs, on the other hand, seem to be addressed in a more ethnic way as Armenians or Syriacs, respectively.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2011, 11:39:05 AM »

One aspect of the problem is that by granting autocephaly to these breakaway churches that form on modern nation-state lines, we give fuel to the heresy of ethnophyletism.

What difference does it make to the Macedonians, for example, that their hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Serbia? They just want to be able to call themselves "Macedonian Orthodox", when we all know there is no such thing as "Greek Orthodoxy", "Russian Orthodoxy" or any other so-described Orthodoxy. And, in order to achieve this, they are willing to go into schism: according to many of the Fathers, a worse sin than any other.

My hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Would I be better off spiritually if they commemorated the Patriarch of Sydney and All Australia (even better if he's some blonde, surfer dude so we Aussies can relate to our leadership)? Doubtfully, but I certainly wouldn't go into schism to acheive such a blessed spiritual state.

Interestingly, in the United States and Canada, it is phyletism that is keeping the various jurisdictions from uniting into a national/jurisdictional autocephalous church. Both of these countries/geographical entities of vast dimensions are not comprised of a single ethnic group, thus ironically they cannot commit phyletism.

Incidentally, we all talk of phyletism as a problem when a part of a church tries to establish its own identity. It is historical fact that some churches have often acted in the interests of the dominant ethnicity, even to the point of trying to eradicate (even forcefully) the identity of other ethnic constituents. Of the top of my head, I can think of the Churches of Constantinople, Russia and Serbia who have committed the second example of phyletism.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 11:40:20 AM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,854



« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2011, 03:00:22 AM »

Btw, I will still be in Ukraine until tomorrow, and yesterday, I was at the MP's celebration of the Baptism of Holy Rus. There were Patriarch Kyrill and Volodymyr, his Metropolitan for Kyiv. Special guest of Honor was Ilya, Katholikos and Patriarch of Georgia. The whole thing was quite impressive.

Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2011, 03:21:13 AM »

My understanding is that these separations are more do to national/political identities then canonical ones.  Those in Western and central Ukraine consider themselves "hard" Ukrainians and don't wish to associate with the Ukrainian MP Church (Which they consider as a puppet of Moscow/Russia).  Those Ukrainians in the east as well as a genuine Russian population in the south look upon themselves as more Russian then Ukrainian so they associate with the Russian Church in Ukraine. 

From what I've heard about the UOC-MP and their Russophile tendencies (Preaching in Russian instead of Ukrainian for instance) I'm kind of suspect if the breakaway Ukrainian Churches would ever submit to their jurisdiction. 

Macedonia is a more complex situation, but if the people there want to consider themselves as separate from the Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgar's, why can' they just be recognized as such and be given a certain amount of autonomy for their Church?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,854



« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2011, 03:25:26 AM »

From what I've heard about the UOC-MP and their Russophile tendencies (Preaching in Russian instead of Ukrainian for instance) I'm kind of suspect if the breakaway Ukrainian Churches would ever submit to their jurisdiction. 
There definitely are some people in the UOC-MP with strong Russophile tendencies, but some others are just the contrary. For example, a new UOC-MP cathedral is being built in a southern suburb of Kyiv, where the UOC-MP is working on  using more Ukrainian language. They already have Ukrainian liturgies there every Saturday, the descriptions of the icons are in Ukrainian etc.

The general rule for the UOC-MP seems to be to hold the liturgy in Church Slavonic and the sermon in the language locally used (Russian in the East and South, Ukrainian in the West).
Logged
ag_vn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 403


« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2011, 03:51:09 AM »

Active parishoners of the MP wouldn't commune in the non-canonical churches, whereas active parishioners of the non-canonical churches would not commune in "Moscow's colonial churches". Between UOC-KP and UAOC, there would be no problem though.

What about the parishioners of the UOC-USA and diaspora and the UOCC? Where do they commune when in Ukraine - UOC-MP, UOC-KP or UAOC?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 03:55:01 AM by ag_vn » Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2011, 08:09:10 AM »

From what I've heard about the UOC-MP and their Russophile tendencies (Preaching in Russian instead of Ukrainian for instance) I'm kind of suspect if the breakaway Ukrainian Churches would ever submit to their jurisdiction.  
There definitely are some people in the UOC-MP with strong Russophile tendencies, but some others are just the contrary. For example, a new UOC-MP cathedral is being built in a southern suburb of Kyiv, where the UOC-MP is working on  using more Ukrainian language. They already have Ukrainian liturgies there every Saturday, the descriptions of the icons are in Ukrainian etc.

The general rule for the UOC-MP seems to be to hold the liturgy in Church Slavonic and the sermon in the language locally used (Russian in the East and South, Ukrainian in the West).

This is indeed an odd situation. In Transcarpathia, the UOC-MP faction is viewed as the protector of the Rusyn sub-identity while the UOC-KP is the home of the Ukrainian faction. Priests like Father Sydor of the MP Cathedral in  Uzhorod are leaders of the Rusyn faction and often find themselves at odds with both their Bishops, who have more pro-Russian sympathies, and with the local politicians, who have more Ukrainian sympathies. A big mess indeed and fertile ground for the Protestants.

It is easy to sit back here in the States and tut tut this all as 'phytletism' run amuk, but the history of the region is complicated and emotions run high.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 08:10:18 AM by podkarpatska » 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: 35,613



« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2011, 08:49:37 AM »

A few more comments to add to this discussion...

In connection with the statistical data I submitted, I was obviously misinformed.  The data came from a respected Ukrainian Orthodox (U.S.A.) priest, perhaps he was referring to financially contributing supporters of the church or financial contributions to the church---it was 15 years ago when I had this conversation; however, I've never before seen a 150 million population statistic for the Church of Russia, 100 million seems to be more commonly used in my experience.  (100 million was the statistic commonly used, in my experience, for the Russian Church populous prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, too.)

Regarding the assertion that there is one Orthodox Church, of course, no doubt.  Fr. John Meyendorff had written that the ethnic appellations, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, etc., are the result of the 16th to 17th century nationalist movements in the Ottoman Empire, which to some extent, operated within the churches.  He made the point, if, in any of the commonly spoken languages of the Ottoman Empire, an Eastern Orthodox Christian is asked, "To which religion do you belong?" the answer was "I am Orthodox," not "I am Greek Orthodox," etc.  I've noticed on facebook, when Greeks (from Greece) post their religion, they put "Christian Orthodox."
I suspect that the origin of the "X Orthodox" lies in the administrative terminology of the Hapsburgs, where the term "Greek Oriental" was coined in contradiction to the "Greek Catholic," once the Habsburg admitted the Orthodox existed (and they weren't calling us "schismatic" "disunited").  Once the Orthodox got more control of their affairs in the Empire, with three autocephalous Churches, they dropped the Greek (as none were) and changed the oriental (which had Ottoman, i.e. backwards, overtones) to Orthodox.


Regarding the Ukrainian Church divisions, there's another topic on "oc.net" that demonstrated that there are many separated churches therein, not just the two most prominent.  Also, in the mid-1990's when Patriarch Bartholomew was engaged in discussions with the two prominent separated Ukrainian Churches, he told them to resolve their differences, and return to discussions with the Ecumenical Patriarchate as an administratively united church.
and discuss what?
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
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,520



« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2011, 09:25:13 AM »

^regarding "Greek-Oriental", I remember, as a kid reading the inscription on a  way side Cross (1870) that run like "raised on the expenses of of  citizens of the Greek-Oriental, non-united religion" ("ridicata pre spesele cetatenilor de relgiune greco-orientala, neunita).
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2011, 10:58:21 AM »

^regarding "Greek-Oriental", I remember, as a kid reading the inscription on a  way side Cross (1870) that run like "raised on the expenses of of  citizens of the Greek-Oriental, non-united religion" ("ridicata pre spesele cetatenilor de relgiune greco-orientala, neunita).

Yeah, that was the usual way of speaking, it would seem. Read the Greek Rites entry in the New Catholic Dictionary (1910).

There's also this entry:

Quote
Non-Uniat Churches

Eight groups of schismatical or heretical Churches, which separated from Rome at various periods since the 4th century.

        Abyssinian Church
        Armenian Church
        Bulgarian Church (considers itself part of the "Orthodox" Church, but is not so considered by some bodies of the Orthodox Church)
        Coptic Church (Egypt)
        Jacobite Church (Syria)
        Malabar Christians (India)
        Nestorian Church (Persia)
        The "Orthodox" Church (with 17 subdivisions)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,867



« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2011, 01:22:07 PM »

In his Reply No. 30, ialmisry asks

"and discuss what?"

regarding my Reply No. 16, wherein I mentioned that Patriarch Bartholomew  had given guidance to the separated Ukrainian Churches for purposes of their discussions.

He knows well that in the mid 1990's the two most prominent separated Ukrainian Churches had petitioned the First Throne of the Holy Orthodox Churches for their return to the Ecumenical Patriarchate as initially an autonomous church, with intentions of promptly securing the Ecumenical Patriarchate's grant of autocephaly; and that a dialogue ensued at The Phanar.  Recall too that after the Church of Russia transferred their primatial see from Kiev, eventually to Moscow, a bishop remained in Kiev, who was under the Church of Constantinople for centuries thereafter. 
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2011, 03:00:47 PM »

In his Reply No. 30, ialmisry asks

"and discuss what?"

regarding my Reply No. 16, wherein I mentioned that Patriarch Bartholomew  had given guidance to the separated Ukrainian Churches for purposes of their discussions.

He knows well that in the mid 1990's the two most prominent separated Ukrainian Churches had petitioned the First Throne of the Holy Orthodox Churches for their return to the Ecumenical Patriarchate as initially an autonomous church, with intentions of promptly securing the Ecumenical Patriarchate's grant of autocephaly; and that a dialogue ensued at The Phanar.  Recall too that after the Church of Russia transferred their primatial see from Kiev, eventually to Moscow, a bishop remained in Kiev, who was under the Church of Constantinople for centuries thereafter. 

There's no need to spread the Ecumenical Patriarch's territory any further than it has already been (uncanonically) extended.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
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: 35,613



« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2011, 03:46:28 PM »

In his Reply No. 30, ialmisry asks

"and discuss what?"

regarding my Reply No. 16, wherein I mentioned that Patriarch Bartholomew  had given guidance to the separated Ukrainian Churches for purposes of their discussions.

He knows well that in the mid 1990's the two most prominent separated Ukrainian Churches had petitioned the First Throne of the Holy Orthodox Churches for their return to the Ecumenical Patriarchate as initially an autonomous church, with intentions of promptly securing the Ecumenical Patriarchate's grant of autocephaly; and that a dialogue ensued at The Phanar.  Recall too that after the Church of Russia transferred their primatial see from Kiev, eventually to Moscow, a bishop remained in Kiev, who was under the Church of Constantinople for centuries thereafter.  
No, a bishop did NOT remain in Kiev. In fact, at the time, there wasn't much of Kiev to stay in.  That bishop who ended up in Moscow was the Metropolitan of Kiev (hence why Isodore of Kiev (mis)represented Moscow at Florence).  When the Orthodox Church of Russia became autocephalous by default after Constantinople's apostacy, it was the Metropolitan of Kiev at Moscow and of All Rus'.
I've seen various dates of the break up, muddled by the events ot the times.  But these dates cannot be.  Isodore of Kiev (actually a Greek from Thessalonica) was appointed Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' in 1437.  He wasn't deposed until 1441. (to show his true stripes, he did a stint as Latin EP).  In 1458 the EP appointed Gregory the Bulgarian, a disciple of Isodore, as Met. of Kiev, Galych and All Rus' and Isodore's successor.

However, the bishops of Rus' elected St. Jonah as Orthodox successor to Isodore, and did not seek approval from apostate Constantinople.  Nor did she break off from Kiev: his title remained Metropolitan of All Rus', including Kiev.  IOW, he continued the line of Metropolitans of Kiev resident in Moscow since St. Peter moved it there in 1325.  Somewhere here I've posted a link to an article on the elevation of the Metropolitan to Patriarch which I think covers that.  It would seem that then, with all the councils going on with all the primates over the elevation to their rank of Moscow, that Kiev was seperated from the new Patriarchate.

No. Isodore ran off to Rome to become a cardinal (and a Latin one at that).  The Vatican appointed Gregory I the Bulgarian as Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia and All Rus', and he was confirmed by the "Patriarch of Constantinople" Gregory III, who supported the Emperor in forcing the "Union" of Florence (EP Metrophanes II dying within the day of signing it. God forgive him) on New Rome, until Gregory abandoned his see and fled to Old Rome, where he wrote polemics against St.Mark of Ephesus. The Orthodox, following St. Mark, igonred "EP" Gregory and his appointed "Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia and All Rus'" Gregory, and instead St. Jonah succeeded as Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'. Met. Gregory went to Lithuania, which was under in league with the Vatican and was preening itself as the successor state to Kievan Rus': hence the "the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" (and not kingdom. Btw, its official language was Ruthenian), like "the Grand Duchy of Moscow."

Met. Gregory went off to Lithuania, and when he comemorated the pope of Rome with the EP, the Orthodox refused to have him.  In 1469 he repented, went to Constantinople (which had returned to Orthodoxy) and was appointed Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'. Met. St. Jonah, however, had hand picked his successor Met. Theodosius, blessed by the Metropolitan of Caesarea Philippi on behalf of the EP in 1464. Met. Theodosius in turn hand picked his successor Met. Philip, who arranged the marriage of the niece of the last Emperor of New Rome to the Grand Duke and successor of St. Volodymyr/Vladimir as Grand Prince of All Rus' at Moscow while banning the legates who came from the Vatican with her from setting foot in Moscow. He and his predecessors had fought Met. Gregory and Lithuania and the attempt of the Vatican to encrouch on the Rus'. Hence when the EP called on Moscow to recognize Met. Gregory as Metropolitan of All Rus', they balked, affirmed their autocephaly, and banned both Met. Gregory and any bishop associated with him from entering the Grand Duchy of Moscow.  Across the border, the Orthodox didn't trust Met. Gregory and refused to accept him.  When Lithuania appointed Met. Misael to succeed him (who flirted with the idea of submitting to the Vatican), Constantinople refused to confirm him, and in 1480 appointed a (Great) Russian Spyridon, a subject of Lithuania, as Metropolitan of Kiev.  He proved too popular with the Orthodox population in hte Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Grand Duke expelled him to Moscow, after arresting and imprisoning him for two years as "a Turkish spy" because of his pro-Constantinople stance. The Grand Duke of Lithuania, however, saw to counter Moscow in the race to succeed Kievan Rus' he had to win over his Orthodox subjects and let them, 1481 onward, elect their own Metropolitans with a legate of the EP confirming on the spot. How canonical that was, since the Rus' had been autocephalous by then for a generation, is questionable (the Met. Daniel tried Maxim the Greek in 1531 for not recognizing the Metropolitan and spying for Turkey) until 1589, when EP Joachim came to Moscow begging alms and elevated the see to Patriarch (thinking he would be appointed to it), when the relationship of Moscow, Kiev and Constantinople was regularized. Constantiople did start to make a distintion between Minor (the Rus' controlled by Lithuania) and Major (the Grand Duke/Czar of All Rus') Rus', viewing the fomer as de jure and the latter de facto until 1589
http://books.google.com/books?id=2cP0wc_E6yEC&pg=PA86&dq=Orthodox+Metropolitan+of+Lithuania&hl=en&ei=nXCATJbHJtPsngfO0tGxAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Orthodox%20Metropolitan%20of%20Lithuania&f=false
The Orthodox Church in the history of Russia By Dimitry Pospielovsky
http://books.google.com/books?id=hFVEOVpoHLsC&pg=PA292&dq=Orthodox+Metropolitan+of+Lithuania&hl=en&ei=nXCATJbHJtPsngfO0tGxAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA
The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire By J. M. Hussey, Andrew Louth
http://books.google.com/books?id=xSpEynLxJ1MC&pg=PA18&dq=Orthodox+Metropolitan+of+Lithuania&hl=en&ei=nXCATJbHJtPsngfO0tGxAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Orthodox%20Metropolitan%20of%20Lithuania&f=false
The reconstruction of nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 By Timothy Snyder
http://books.google.com/books?id=teyNhL3AuGEC&pg=PA389&dq=Orthodox+Metropolitan+of+Lithuania&hl=en&ei=nXCATJbHJtPsngfO0tGxAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Orthodox%20Metropolitan%20of%20Lithuania&f=false
Russian travelers to Constantinople in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries By George P. Majeska

As shown by the attempt to get Moscow to recognize Met. Gregory shows that they did not see Moscow as a seperate entity from Rus'. And it was between Moscow and Lithuania, there being no seperate entity as Ukraine at the time.  Although the EP's legate did ratify the elections in Lithuania 1481-1589 before that latter date no ratification of his autority to do so had been made by the autocephalous Metropolitan of All Rus'.

Yes, that is the irony of the Ukraine-Russia issue.  On the one hand, the Church services etc. refer to Kiev as "Mother of Russia/Russian cities", but Russia is refered to as "Mother Church."

A full answer would be political, but just in brief, the origin in the irony is that St. Jonah, the first autocephalous head of the Russian Church was actually the Metropolitan of Kiev (he replaced the apostate Greek Isodore of Kiev, later Cardinal Isodore.  He later switched to the Latin rite and became Latin EP and Archbishop of Cyprus as well), as was St. Job, the last Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus and the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus.  Constantinople, then under the Vatican, organized a successor to Met. Isodore, Gregory the Bulgarian, and that line got involved with the "Union" forced by the Polish crown.  At the time that St. Job was elevated, Kiev was detached from, later reunited to, Moscow (at the time of the elevatio it wasn't within the Kingdom of Russia, but the Kingdom of Poland within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.  Not a minor detail: the Tomos that the EP and his synod gave to Poland, a part of the Patriarchate of Moscow, states in pertinent part:

Quote
bowing before the demands of canonical obligations, which impose upon our Holy Ecumenical See concern for Orthodox Churches, who are in need; considering also the fact, which is not contradicted by history (for it is recorded that the first separation from our See of the Kyivan Metropolia and the Orthodox Metropolia of Lithuania and Poland, dependent upon it, as well as their incorporation within the Holy Moscovite Church was accomplished contrary to canon law, as also all that which was agreed upon regarding the full church autonomy of the Kyivan Metropolitan, who at the time had the title Exarch of the Ecumenical See), We and our Holy Metropolitans, Our beloved brothers and co-workers in the Holy Spirit, considered it our obligation to give ear to the request presented to Us by the Holy Orthodox Church in Poland and to give Our blessing and approval to its autocephalous and independent administration
which Ukrainians who have taken autocephaly use as a basis for canonical cover for what they have done.
http://www.ukrainianorthodoxchurchinexile.org/1924_tomos_of_autocephaly.html

which has other repecusions: if Cyprus next month puts its stamp of approval on the EP's take on canon 28 and the canonical situation of North America, a pertinent part being the claim that North America doesn't fall within the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Moscow when it was created, the problem would arise that neither was Ukraine included within those boundaries, and would thus be technically "diaspora."  With the EP's interpretation of canon 28, he would be free make a deal with the Ukrainian government of Yushchenko, as was done in Poland (the 1924 EP tomos refers to "the God-Protected Polish State"), and to do as was done in North America, including using the secular courts in the attempt to take over Churches that don't agree.  That he is discussing with the Ukrainian President, and NOT with the canonical (even according to the EP) Ukrainian Primate, over opening a metochion, an ECCLESIASTICAL institution that requires the cession of territory by the canonical primate not the secular authorities, on the eve of the Cyprus meeting should give the Patriarch of Mosocw all the warning he needs (as if he needed any) that the agenda does not only involve the OCA.

And if the question is raised, "What does this have to do with the OP 'The Canonical Declaration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate)'," the document linked in the OP explicitely refers to the official acts of the EP (e.g. the Tomos to Poland above), explicitely refers to the words of the present EP Bartholomew (e.g. the reprimand of Met. Volodymyr of Kiev-MP, ironicly in an affirmation of Moscow's jurisdiction, an the claims of the jursidcition of the EP over "unity"), explicitely refers to the preparations for the All Orthodox Council by the All Orthodox Assembly (meeting next month in Cyprus), explicitely refers to certain acts signed by the Ukrainians explicitely in the presence of the EP having him (i.e. not Pat. Kyrill) for the ordering of the Ukraine's Church, etc., as the canonical basis of its autocephaly).

In other words, the primate of Kiev, which is in Ukraine, was made Patriarch of the Kingdom of Russia.  To this day, the Patriarch of Moscow is enthroned by the Met. of Kiev giving him the staff of St. Peter, who moved the see of Kiev to Moscow (sort of like how the Patriarch of Antioch is now in Damascus).  Met. Volodymyr said while handing it over

Quote
'Your Holiness! On behalf of the Local Council, which elected you, I solemnly hand you the staff of the Primates of Moscow on this joyous day when our Church got the sixteenth Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.


'This staff belonged to Metropolitan Peter of Kiev and Moscow, the miracle-worker, who transferred the primatial see to Moscow. We hope that you will continue the ministry of the holy Primates of Moscow who worked tirelessly to build and order the Church of Christ, who consolidated the unity of Holy Russia, which by God's Providence has begun its life in the holy baptismal font of Kiev. We promise to help Your Holiness in this sacred cause

...
http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=44058
with pictures of the handing off.

The situation, btw, is not dissimilar from how Old Rome felt about New Rome.
According to his own interpretation of the canons (not correct IMHO, but Lord willing we will get to that) Ukraine, not having any sovereignty nor independence, but rather having the Czar as its sovereign (not "the mighty barons of Muscovy" but the "Great Lord Czar of the Russian/Rus' Kingdom," "By the Grace of God Lord Czar and Grand Duke of All Great and Little Russia" and dependent on Moscow, yes it was in accord with the canons that alll the Orthodox of Ukraine have the Patriarch of Moscow as its Primate and first Hierarch.  More so because the "Patriarch of Moscow – by that time, the Metropoly of Moscow had already morphed into “Patriarchy," due to the means that had been beyond question (with the population, history, and influence both ecclesiastical and polical backing such a move as had happened in Constantinople, Bulgaria, Turnovo, Ohrid, etc. before...)-came there as the Metropolitan of Kiev, translated by St. Metropolitan Peter of Kiev and All Rus'.

Fr. V. is no doubt aware, although he obfuscates this by saying "+PETER, Metropolitan of Muscovy – a native of the Volyn Region of what is now Ukraine" when he was Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', and the Volyn Region is now Ukraine only by the grace of Stalin.  So why not canonize Stalin? After all, he, also did a lot to “increase the land of Ukraine,” with the Volyn, Galicia and the Crimea?  "The decision to get rid of the ecclesiastically autonomous Orthodox jurisdiction with the center in Kyiv stayed" because there was no reason for it not to.  According to Fr. V's own reading of the canons "the government of the Tzar...had captured the secular power all over Ukraine. They needed the soul of the Ukrainian people. Where is this soul? Of course, in the Church": The Czar ruled in Kiev as did those who wore the cap of Monomakh, the sons of St. Vladimir and the Roman Emperors of Tsarigrad (i.e. Constantinople) having brought it to Moscow, where Patriarch Filaret (the first Romanov), holding the staff of his predecessor St. Peter Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' placed the Golden Cap on the head of his son Michael, crowing him successor to Rurik, Oleg and St. Vladimir.

So after the not so-called but actual re-unification (1654) of the Lands of the Rus' was satisfied, they again had in one domain the realm of Grand Prince St. Vladimir/Volodymyr. It was now ruled from the land his great-grandson (through Yaroslave the Wise) and namesake, the Monomakh grandson of Vladimir and the Roman Emperor Monomakhos of New Rome, brought from the periphery to the center.  Vladimir (or do you say Volodymyr) Monomokh's own son Yurij (namesake of Yaroslav's Christian name) founded the new capital and heir of Kiev and Constantinople, Moscow, the Third Rome. And so the symphonia of the Second Rome would of course call for its replication in the Third Rome. As the line of Grand Princes of Kiev St. Vladimir-Yaroslav the Wise-Vladimir Monomakh-Yurij ended in Alexis I sitting on the throne of All Rus' in Moscow, it was fitting that the line that Gregory the Bulgarian split off from the Orthodox Metropolitans of Kiev that succeeded St. Michael, via St. Peter of Galicia, at Moscow (when Moscow deposed the apostate Greek (later cardinal) Isodore of Kiev (and according to the Vatican, Constantinople)), it was fitting that it should be restored to be woven back into the seamless garment of the Orthodox Rus'.  Not "raising the issue of subjugating the Kyiv Metropoly to Moscow," but the reintegration of the Synod of the Rus' under one head again.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37516.msg593467.html#msg593467
If the Phanar discusses anything with any ecclesial communion other than the UOC-MP, we-the rest of the Orthodox, will be discussing the deposition of the EP for interference in the affairs of another Church.  It has been done over Mt. Sinai.  It will be done over Ukraine.

The only time Ukraine was not in union with Russia and canonically under the Phanar was 1589-1685.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 03:51:00 PM by ialmisry » 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
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2011, 10:36:51 PM »

One aspect of the problem is that by granting autocephaly to these breakaway churches that form on modern nation-state lines, we give fuel to the heresy of ethnophyletism.

What difference does it make to the Macedonians, for example, that their hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Serbia? They just want to be able to call themselves "Macedonian Orthodox", when we all know there is no such thing as "Greek Orthodoxy", "Russian Orthodoxy" or any other so-described Orthodoxy. And, in order to achieve this, they are willing to go into schism: according to many of the Fathers, a worse sin than any other.

My hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Would I be better off spiritually if they commemorated the Patriarch of Sydney and All Australia (even better if he's some blonde, surfer dude so we Aussies can relate to our leadership)? Doubtfully, but I certainly wouldn't go into schism to acheive such a blessed spiritual state.

Eventually, there should be a united Australian church. What there is now is not the ideal.

I completely agree (and I'm the first person to complain loudly about the situation here) -- but that is no excuse for schism.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2011, 10:37:52 PM »

One aspect of the problem is that by granting autocephaly to these breakaway churches that form on modern nation-state lines, we give fuel to the heresy of ethnophyletism.

What difference does it make to the Macedonians, for example, that their hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Serbia? They just want to be able to call themselves "Macedonian Orthodox", when we all know there is no such thing as "Greek Orthodoxy", "Russian Orthodoxy" or any other so-described Orthodoxy. And, in order to achieve this, they are willing to go into schism: according to many of the Fathers, a worse sin than any other.

My hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Would I be better off spiritually if they commemorated the Patriarch of Sydney and All Australia (even better if he's some blonde, surfer dude so we Aussies can relate to our leadership)? Doubtfully, but I certainly wouldn't go into schism to acheive such a blessed spiritual state.

Interestingly, in the United States and Canada, it is phyletism that is keeping the various jurisdictions from uniting into a national/jurisdictional autocephalous church. Both of these countries/geographical entities of vast dimensions are not comprised of a single ethnic group, thus ironically they cannot commit phyletism.

Incidentally, we all talk of phyletism as a problem when a part of a church tries to establish its own identity. It is historical fact that some churches have often acted in the interests of the dominant ethnicity, even to the point of trying to eradicate (even forcefully) the identity of other ethnic constituents. Of the top of my head, I can think of the Churches of Constantinople, Russia and Serbia who have committed the second example of phyletism.

Thank you for this.

Yes, the ethnophyletist heresy can manifest in the other direction, also. This is why it's important to listen to the arguments people put forward in favour of their position, not just the particular position they advocate for.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,867



« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2011, 04:00:46 AM »

I'll have to defer to your information in Reply No. 35, ialmisery, although it does demonstrate a Kievian administrative affiliation with Constantinople for 96 years.  That must be what I had read a while ago, but my recollection exaggerated the time period and nature of this affiliation.

While Patriarch Bartholomew did meet with the separated Ukrainian churches in the mid '90's, in response to their requests, and with the last President of Ukraine regarding the schism just a few years ago, he publically stated, on numerous occasions, that the Ukrainian schism was a matter internal to the Church of Russia, and as such, Constantinople would not unilaterally act in connection with the matter.  He also claimed to be appraising the Moscow Patriarchate of the discussions though the Chief Secretary of Constantinople's Holy and Sacred Synod at the time.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2011, 11:51:16 AM »

What about the parishioners of the UOC-USA and diaspora and the UOCC? Where do they commune when in Ukraine - UOC-MP, UOC-KP or UAOC?

The commune, er. should commune, with those to whom Constantinople does.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 35,613



« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2011, 12:49:02 PM »

I'll have to defer to your information in Reply No. 35, ialmisery, although it does demonstrate a Kievian administrative affiliation with Constantinople for 96 years.  That must be what I had read a while ago, but my recollection exaggerated the time period and nature of this affiliation.
Not your fault.  Such facts are often ignored, and so the information you probably received was faulty.  Constantinople, once she returned to Orthodoxy, did try to reassert jurisdiction, the Met. of Kiev they recognized being sent to go to the Grand Duchy of Moscow, and turned away at the border or imprisioned.  The arrival of EP in Moscow in 1589 and the Council of Constantinople of 1593 regularized the situation somewhat, and recognized Kiev and Little Russia (a Greek, not Russian term) as an eparchy seperate from Moscow and under Constantinople.  But even then, the Metropolitan of Kiev and Patriarch of Moscow both claimed to be of "All Rus'"
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
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,854



« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2011, 02:22:15 PM »

While Patriarch Bartholomew did meet with the separated Ukrainian churches in the mid '90's, in response to their requests, and with the last President of Ukraine regarding the schism just a few years ago, he publically stated, on numerous occasions, that the Ukrainian schism was a matter internal to the Church of Russia
Can you give a reliable source for that?
Logged
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 0.169 seconds with 69 queries.