OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 10:06:09 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: Question for Orthodox regarding "irregular" Churches  (Read 4609 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« on: January 03, 2003, 11:46:39 AM »

I have seen it remarked several times on this forum that the UAOC and UOC-KP are not Orthodox and are outside the Church.  Surprisingly, though not exclusively, these comments have come from members of ROCOR, which while all concede is canonical is in an irregular situation also.

My question is what is the difference between ROCOR and UAOC's decision to become autocephalous and not recognize the MP.  Both were political decisions.  ROCOR left becasue of collaboration with the Soviets, UAOC left becasue they felt their ethnicity/nationality was being threatened.

It is stated that ROCOR is in cmmunion with Jerusalem and Serbia and therefore with everyone else.  But , as far as I know, the UAOC is in communion with the UOC-USA which is under the EP which makes them in communion with everyone else, does it not?  

I can understand more reservation regarding the UOC-KP, but just about every (if not all) other autocephalous Churches in Europe gained it the same way.  The Russians kidnapped the EP and refused to let him go until he granted them autocephaly.  The Bulagrian, Serbian, Romanian, and Albanian Churches all had to fight with the EP and undergo periods of excommunication until autocephaly was granted/recognized.  It will probably end up happenning in America as the GOA and AOA seek full autocephaly.  The MP was/is loathe to give full autocephaly to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, China, Japan, Ukraine, Belarus, or Moldova and I am sure we haven't seen the end of this situation.  Serbia is fighting with the Macedonians and the Montenegrins are looking restless.  It just seems to be the way autocephaly is gained today and has been since Moscow started the trend.

In Christ,
Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,518


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2003, 12:27:50 PM »

Quote
I have seen it remarked several times on this forum that the UAOC and UOC-KP are not Orthodox and are outside the Church.  Surprisingly, though not exclusively, these comments have come from members of ROCOR, which while all concede is canonical is in an irregular situation also.

Here’s the difference: ROCOR is in communion with at least one Church in the Orthodox communion, the Church of Serbia, and thus is Orthodox — and is recognized by all as such. The UOC-KP is in communion with NO Churches of the Orthodox communion.

Quote
My question is what is the difference between ROCOR and UAOC's decision to become autocephalous and not recognize the MP.

Because ROCOR isn’t set up to be a permanent replacement of the Russian Church — remember, it is the TEMPORARY Higher Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Its first hierarch never has proclaimed himself a patriarch like the UOC-KP head did. Granted, its setting up churches in the post-Soviet Russias (ROCORIR — the Russian Orthodox Outside of Russia in the Russias?) is confusing and arguably hypocritical and even schismatic in practice.

Quote
It is stated that ROCOR is in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia and therefore with everyone else.  But , as far as I know, the UAOC is in communion with the UOC-USA which is under the EP which makes them in communion with everyone else, does it not?

Then the UAOC is in. Good call.

Quote
The Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian, and Albanian Churches all had to fight with the EP and undergo periods of excommunication until autocephaly was granted/recognized.

But Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania and Albania are not Greece.

<donning asbestos suit>

Ukraine is one of the Russias.

Quote
It will probably end up happenning in America as the GOA and AOA seek full autocephaly.

That would be madness: then there’d be three Churches in America claiming to be autocephalous.

Quote
The MP was/is loathe to give full autocephaly to Finland

Fait accompli thanks to the Russian Revolution.

Quote
Estonia

I have some sympathy for the anti-Commie group under the EP but most of the Orthodox presence in and from this Baltic cousin to Finland (which like Finland is largely Lutheran) is Russian, including the patriarch of Moscow himself.

Quote
Latvia

The Orthodox there are Russian. The Latvians are divided between Catholics and Lutherans.

Quote
China, Japan

Small presence. The Orthodox in Japan, at the Nikolai-do cathedral, consist mainly of foreigners and russophile Japanese.

Quote
Ukraine, Belarus

Two of the three Russias. -ó-Ç-+ -+-ü-ü-+-+, -+-¦-+-+ -+-¦-Ç-+-¦, -+-¦-+-+ -â-ü-î. -¡-é-+ -¦-ï-+o, -¦-ü-é-î -+ -¦-â-¦-¦-é.

Quote
or Moldova

Should be part of the Church of Romania.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2003, 01:24:16 PM by Serge » Logged

bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2003, 01:09:29 PM »

Quote
Quote
Ukraine, Belarus

Two of the three Russias. -ó-Ç-+ -+-ü-ü-+-+, -+-¦-+-+ -+-¦-Ç-+-¦, -+-¦-+-+ -â-ü-î. -¡-é-+ -¦-ï-+, -¦-ü-é-î -+ -¦-â-¦-¦-é.





            hmmmmmm  next I expect the term "Little Russia"  Tongue  

Ukrainians, Stand up against such Chauvinism!!!
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,518


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2003, 01:18:50 PM »

A Russian told me the first people to call Ukraine ‘Little Russia’ (-£-¦-+-+-Ç-â-ü-î) were the Ukrainians themselves to distinguish themselves from Poles — not the Great Russians.
Logged

sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2003, 02:29:32 PM »

All of these administrative divisions in Orthodoxy...if only the church could pay attention to the salvation of the souls that belong to it and not spend so much time focusing on political games.  It gives me one big headache and leaves me confused  Huh
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2003, 06:34:16 PM »

Quote
The MP was/is loathe to give full autocephaly to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, China, Japan, Ukraine, Belarus, or Moldova and I am sure we haven't seen the end of this situation.
 

The problem in Moldova is that before the Soviets arrived, it had been part of Romania and its people was ethnicaly Romanian, plus some Gagauzi and Slav minorities. After Moldova's independence many ethnic Romanians and their priests requested to be received in the Romanian Orthodox Church and to break communion with the MP. Moscow claims that Rom Patriarchate has abused and that Mildova is a Russian canonical territory (the problem is similar like that one between MP and Rome, about Ukraine). The problem here is more complex, it's possible that the Russians are right in their claim, because, in spite of the Romanian ethnicity of the Moldovan people, even before the Soviet invation, the churches there (Slavs, Gagauzi and ethnic Romanian parishes) had been under the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian bishops and not under the Romanian Church.

Quote
Serbia is fighting with the Macedonians and the Montenegrins are looking restless.

The Macedonian conflict is also complex because there have been other factors involved, politics and also uniatism. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has tried to solve the problem, but the Serbians have made clear that an intervention of the EP will not well seen unless it is to restore Serbian rule in Macedonia (so now everybody seems to undermine the EP's authority). The Macedonian Church has tides with Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks and this is why the three groups want to have it, and the Macedonians want to find their identity as a separated Church. There've been some rumours about the probable incorporation of the Macedonian Greek Catholic Exarchate to the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the formation of an autocephalous Church supported by Rome. I had thought that these rumours were just a joke but recently some Serbian Bishops sent a letter to the EP asking it to break all contacts with the Macedonian Church, among the reasons they list that Bishops of the "Macedonian schismatic Church" had concelebrated the liturgy with Latin Bishops in Rome and Skopje. I wonder how true this could be.
Logged
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2003, 06:57:05 PM »

A Russian told me the first people to call Ukraine ‘Little Russia’ (-£-¦-+-+-Ç-â-ü-î) were the Ukrainians themselves to distinguish themselves from Poles — not the Great Russians.


 I remember a dear Ukrainian Catholic nun complaining jokingly about her brother who had "doxed"  "Now that he is Orthodox, the Ukies aren't good enough for him anymore!  He thinks he's Great Russian!!!!!!"    Grin
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2003, 08:18:09 PM »

Reader Serge,

I am not denying the historical connection between Russia and Ukraine and Belarus or Serbia and Macedonia.  But today they are seperate countries, why shouldn't they all be granted autocephaly?  It was the right thing for Bulagria, Serbia, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic, and Slovakia.  Somewhere along the line Orthodoxy is going to have to adopt some objective standard for granting autocephaly and nationhood seems the most likely as the current criteria based on ethnicity and relative need or greed of the Mother Church just isn't working.

In Christ,
Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2003, 09:10:02 PM »

Reader Serge,

I am not denying the historical connection between Russia and Ukraine and Belarus or Serbia and Macedonia.  But today they are seperate countries, why shouldn't they all be granted autocephaly?  It was the right thing for Bulagria, Serbia, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic, and Slovakia.  Somewhere along the line Orthodoxy is going to have to adopt some objective standard for granting autocephaly and nationhood seems the most likely as the current criteria based on ethnicity and relative need or greed of the Mother Church just isn't working.

In Christ,
Lance

I agree Lance.  I could not have said it better myself.
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2003, 10:52:27 PM »

[I remember a dear Ukrainian Catholic nun complaining jokingly about her brother who had "doxed"  "Now that he is Orthodox, the Ukies aren't good enough for him anymore!  He thinks he's Great Russian!!!!!!" ]

Then of course there is the Russian joke that goes -

Question:  What do you get when you cross a Russian with a Polok?

Answer:  A Ukrainian!

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2003, 11:19:39 PM »

[I remember a dear Ukrainian Catholic nun complaining jokingly about her brother who had "doxed"  "Now that he is Orthodox, the Ukies aren't good enough for him anymore!  He thinks he's Great Russian!!!!!!" ]

Then of course there is the Russian joke that goes -

Question:  What do you get when you cross a Russian with a Polok?

Answer:  A Ukrainian!

Orthodoc  

All these ethnic "jokes" hit a sensitive area below the belt.  My widowed European-born RC ultra-Polish Galician mother-in-law's reaction when my family (wife, children) and I (I'm descended ethnically/religiously from *both* Polish RC's *and* Ukrainian Uniates) moved "home" from the Unia to Orthodoxy was: "You've joined the Church of 'THE ENEMY!'"  I've been "persona non grata" to her ever since, and there's been a rift with my in-laws that remains unhealed to this day despite all attempts by me to end the "Cold War."

Hypo-Ortho

Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,518


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2003, 11:50:40 PM »

Quote
Then of course there is the Russian joke that goes -

Question:  What do you get when you cross a Russian with a Polack?

Answer:  A Ukrainian!

The joke is blunt but true. The language and culture of far southwestern Ukraine (the rest is Russian) and of the diaspora active in North America are exactly that, a mixture of the two. Elements of Russian culture — Byzantine Rite, Cyrillic alphabet — to show they’re not Polish, but elements of Polish culture — Catholic allegiance, linguistic differences — to show they’re not Great Russian. Ukrainianism sometimes seems a matter of negation.

Though the southern Russian and Ukrainian accents have something in common not with Polish but rather with Slovak — the accent is softer, less guttural, with the hard g’s of Russian and Polish turning into h sounds.
Logged

Economan
Guest
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2003, 05:32:27 PM »

"Somewhere along the line Orthodoxy is going to have to adopt some objective standard for granting autocephaly and nationhood seems the most likely as the current criteria based on ethnicity and relative need or greed of the Mother Church just isn't working.?

I think other people have mentioned this, but I think the answer lies in large regional Patriarchates, rather than the current model of one patriarchate=coterminous with the boundaries of a nation-state. I think that national autocephalous churches takes away from the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church. Of course, every ethnic group/nation thinks they are entitled to their own church, but I don't think that's really right.

Economan

Logged
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2003, 12:22:43 AM »

Quote
Quote from: Orthodoc link=board=3;threadid=428;start=0#3779 date=
[/quote

All these ethnic "jokes" hit a sensitive area below the belt.  My widowed European-born RC ultra-Polish Galician mother-in-law's reaction when my family (wife, children) and I (I'm descended ethnically/religiously from *both* Polish RC's *and* Ukrainian Uniates) moved "home" from the Unia to Orthodoxy was: "You've joined the Church of 'THE ENEMY!'"  I've been "persona non grata" to her ever since, and there's been a rift with my in-laws that remains unhealed to this day despite all attempts by me to end the "Cold War."

Hypo-Ortho




     Yeah, Ortho,  my old Byzantine Catholic Spiritual Father although he was very Orthodox in his Praxis and his theology could not bring himself to be become Orthodox because he felt it would be a betrayal to those in his family (including some bishops) who refused to become Orthodox when the Soviets forcibly liquidated the Ukrainian  Catholic Church in the 40's.  He had met men who had suffered in the Gulag for not "signing over"-  I can to a certain extent understand this sense of solidarity with those who suffered,  He joyfully gave his blessing to my inquiring into Orthodoxy as long as he knew i wasn't fleeing my former Faith but moving "towards" Orthodoxy.
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
Mudriy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


Token Ukrainian Nationalist


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2003, 12:44:07 AM »

Serge stated: "Ukraine is one of the Russias."

How about Russia is one of the Ukraines Tongue

Reader Serge later stated:

"The joke is blunt but true. The language and culture of far southwestern Ukraine (the rest is Russian)"

True but not true. Yes Western Ukraine the place where our language is most used, that is the language of Taras Shevchenko (pure Ukrainian). Some Polish may be mixed but rare. People there are staunch Ukes and try to keep themselves pure. The most Polish influence you will hear is Shvyatiy instead the proper Svyatiy. Not a big deal. But in western Ukraine, the language is really proper.

Actually Russian is used a lot in central, southern, and eastern Ukraine, but Ukrainian is coming back, thank God.

We went to my grandfathers village outside of Poltava and pure Ukrainian was spoken, again an area of nationally aware people. This is the historic center of Kozak Ukraine. We heard lots of Ukrainian in Kyiv as well along with Kharkiv and other major cities. Although Russian was used, Ukrainian is comming back strong. Odesa is the most Russified city along with the whole Crimea so Russian is predominant there.


"and of the diaspora active in North America are exactly that, a mixture of the two. Elements of Russian culture — Byzantine Rite, Cyrillic alphabet"

Maybe elements of Ukrainian culture in Russia hmmmm....

"— to show they’re not Polish, but elements of Polish culture — Catholic allegiance,"

True.
 linguistic differences — to show they’re not Great Russian."

Not really. Ukrainian is it's own language, different from Russian, different from Polish. It is very evident to native speakers, yet some Ukrainian dialects will mix either some Russian or Polish.

"Ukrainianism sometimes seems a matter of negation."

Well don't forget there is a Ukrainian language seperate to that of all other 12 major Slavic rooted languages.
Ukrainian is the root of all Slavic languages, but like all languages, they evolve.

"Though the southern Russian and Ukrainian accents have something in common not with Polish but rather with Slovak — the accent is softer, less guttural, with the hard g’s of Russian and Polish turning into h sounds."

Yes beacuse southern Ukraine is heavily Russified.

Hypo-Orthodox stated: "All these ethnic "jokes" hit a sensitive area below the belt."

True. the popular belief in this thread is that Ukrainian people, language, culture, history, etc. is a mix of Polish and Russian which is very biased and in many cases not true. Ukrainians aren't a mix of Russians and Poles, although some maybe be, no different than Russians having Swedish blood or Poles having German.

surferuke
Logged

"Tranquil Light of the Holy Glory, of the Immortal, Heavenly Holy, Blessed Father.... As we come upn the Sunset, as we see the Evening Light, we sing to God: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. At all times you are worthy...."
TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2003, 02:33:44 AM »


Ukrainian is the root of all Slavic languages, but like all languages, they evolve.


This is the first I have heard of this and I did post-grad work in Old Church Slavic...
Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2003, 09:41:04 AM »


Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian have a common root in East Slavic.
Logged
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2003, 12:12:32 PM »

Thanks prodromos.

I wonder what those unnamed clusters are.  Must have not ripened yet.  Till summer I suppose.

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2003, 01:34:43 PM »


I notice on the tree that one of the branches for S. Slavic has a branch called 'Slovene' and another branch under W. Slavic called 'Slovak'.  What is the difference between the two?

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2003, 01:55:38 PM »


I notice on the tree that one of the branches for S. Slavic has a branch called 'Slovene' and another branch under W. Slavic called 'Slovak'.  What is the difference between the two?

Orthodoc

Well to start Slovak is the language of modern Slovakia (part of former Czechoslovakia) and is a West Slav language while Slovene is the language of modern Slovenia (part of former Yugoslavia) and as the chart shows is a South Slav language.

I did 3 years of undergrad work in Slovak here in the USA and some (2 semesters basically) in Slovakia so I know a little about Slovak.  I also did post-grad work in Old Church Slavic.  I don't know much about Slovene (it seems to be usually [perhaps erroneously] called Slovenian), except that it seems to be the only modern Slav lanuguage that has preserved the use of the grammatical dual.

Maybe I can find a link if you are really interested.  I highly recommend the book "The Dawn of Slavic" by Alexander Schenker we used it as a text at Pitt for OCS and it discusses the oldest forms of the language and the modern languages as well.
Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2003, 05:30:21 PM »

[Well to start Slovak is the language of modern Slovakia (part of former Czechoslovakia) and is a West Slav language while Slovene is the language of modern Slovenia (part of former Yugoslavia) and as the chart shows is a South Slav language.]

Thanks Tony.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,518


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2003, 05:54:42 PM »

Slavonic may have been South Slavic to begin with, but all Slavic (Slavonic to the British) languages were close together back then, and today in my estimation the Slavonic in church is about as intelligible to Russians as Chaucer’s ‘Whan that April with his showres soote’ is to us.
Logged

prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2003, 04:00:00 AM »

I wonder what those unnamed clusters are.  Must have not ripened yet.  Till summer I suppose.
Oh those, they're just a few insignificant branches  that are hardly worth mentioning. You know, like Greek, Latin, Celtic and those piddly east asian languages Grin

John.
Logged
Tags: canonicity 
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 0.087 seconds with 49 queries.