OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 05:01:58 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: The Hidden agenda becomes obvious:,the real reason why the UOC-KP will never be  (Read 1581 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« on: June 18, 2012, 09:51:52 AM »

From the following website: http://www.eposhta.com/newsmagazine/ePOSHTA_120617_CanadaUS_Eng.html

The Hidden agenda becomes obvious:,the real reason why the UOC-KP will never be welcomed into the EP

TOP

The visit of both His Holiness Patriarch Filaret (UOC-KP) and His Holiness Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Greek Church, as the heads of their respective churches in Ukraine, was considered to be a joyous event, which ePOSHTA had covered in a previous issue. "Камо грядеш, діаспорна православна церкво?" http://www.eposhta.com/newsmagazine/ePOSHTA_120428_CanadaUS.html#ed31).

As mentioned previously, Patriarch Filaret’s visit has opened a cache of problems in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church beyond the borders of Ukraine itself, which have been accumulating during the years since Ukraine’s declaration of independence.  What has recently come to light, is proof that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, whether consciously or not, is supporting Moscow in its attempts to regain power over all the Orthodox churches in Ukraine. By being united with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its leader, His Holiness Bartholomew,  they are tightening the noose around the UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate and handing it right into the hands of not only the Moscow Patriarchate  but into the hands of Russia’s current government.  Their objective, as always, has been the complete destruction of the Ukrainian nation and its subservient return to the powers of Moscow...




Post editted for the quote length - MK.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 10:14:02 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2012, 10:10:22 AM »

I was disappointed with Metropolitan George's actions during the visit of the Pochaiv Icon but this time he acted very wisely and responsibly. Cheers to him!
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: 37,960



« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2012, 10:19:43 AM »

From the following website: http://www.eposhta.com/newsmagazine/ePOSHTA_120617_CanadaUS_Eng.html

The Hidden agenda becomes obvious:,the real reason why the UOC-KP will never be welcomed into the EP

TOP

The visit of both His Holiness Patriarch Filaret (UOC-KP) and His Holiness Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Greek Church, as the heads of their respective churches in Ukraine, was considered to be a joyous event, which ePOSHTA had covered in a previous issue. "Камо грядеш, діаспорна православна церкво?" http://www.eposhta.com/newsmagazine/ePOSHTA_120428_CanadaUS.html#ed31).

As mentioned previously, Patriarch Filaret’s visit has opened a cache of problems in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church beyond the borders of Ukraine itself, which have been accumulating during the years since Ukraine’s declaration of independence.  What has recently come to light, is proof that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, whether consciously or not, is supporting Moscow in its attempts to regain power over all the Orthodox churches in Ukraine. By being united with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its leader, His Holiness Bartholomew,  they are tightening the noose around the UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate and handing it right into the hands of not only the Moscow Patriarchate  but into the hands of Russia’s current government.  Their objective, as always, has been the complete destruction of the Ukrainian nation and its subservient return to the powers of Moscow...




Post editted for the quote length - MK.
Of course, the Ukrainian Protestants of the Eastern Rite always discredit their rants by implying the Russians had a grand ol' time under the Soviet Union (many people were surprised when Russia declared its independence of the USSR), while no Ukrainian had any involvement with the Soviet authorities.

Why did the Vatican's Ukrainians welcome the deposed hierarch?  Consistency with its own agenda of divide and conquer.  Why did the UOCC and UOCUSA not have anything to do with him?  Consistency with Orthodox canonical order.

Not a great mystery.
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
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2012, 10:24:23 AM »

From the following website: http://www.eposhta.com/newsmagazine/ePOSHTA_120617_CanadaUS_Eng.html

The Hidden agenda becomes obvious:,the real reason why the UOC-KP will never be welcomed into the EP

TOP

The visit of both His Holiness Patriarch Filaret (UOC-KP) and His Holiness Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Greek Church, as the heads of their respective churches in Ukraine, was considered to be a joyous event, which ePOSHTA had covered in a previous issue. "Камо грядеш, діаспорна православна церкво?" http://www.eposhta.com/newsmagazine/ePOSHTA_120428_CanadaUS.html#ed31).

As mentioned previously, Patriarch Filaret’s visit has opened a cache of problems in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church beyond the borders of Ukraine itself, which have been accumulating during the years since Ukraine’s declaration of independence.  What has recently come to light, is proof that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, whether consciously or not, is supporting Moscow in its attempts to regain power over all the Orthodox churches in Ukraine. By being united with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its leader, His Holiness Bartholomew,  they are tightening the noose around the UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate and handing it right into the hands of not only the Moscow Patriarchate  but into the hands of Russia’s current government.  Their objective, as always, has been the complete destruction of the Ukrainian nation and its subservient return to the powers of Moscow...




Post editted for the quote length - MK.
Of course, the Ukrainian Protestants of the Eastern Rite always discredit their rants by implying the Russians had a grand ol' time under the Soviet Union (many people were surprised when Russia declared its independence of the USSR), while no Ukrainian had any involvement with the Soviet authorities.

Why did the Vatican's Ukrainians welcome the deposed hierarch?  Consistency with its own agenda of divide and conquer.  Why did the UOCC and UOCUSA not have anything to do with him?  Consistency with Orthodox canonical order.

Not a great mystery.

According to the article which had been edited out of the post..To understand all the underground currents between the not inclined to be supportive Constantinople to Orthodox Ukrainian Konstatynopolem and the hostile to them Moscow, an extract is provided from a unique correspondence between the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Alexei of Moscow. (Note that the current Patriarch Kirill is implementing a much tougher policy towards Ukraine and the Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate, than its predecessor Alexei.):

“of course to a certain extent we can comprehend the fears Your Beatitude and your Holy Synod have as to the consequences which the settlement of the Ukrainians in the Diaspora could eventually have had on the general situation in Ukraine, if proper care had not been taken.

In this regard we would like to assure you that the induction of the Ukrainian communities into the canonical order of the Orthodox Church by receiving them under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch will, we believe, finally prove to be beneficial for the relationship between the Most Holy Church of Russia and the faithful in Ukraine.

This is so because on the one hand those received were obligated to formally declare that they will not seek autocephaly of the Ukrainian church, or even a part of it, through known methods employed by the “autocephalists” who operate in every way possible.”
Logged
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2012, 10:33:42 AM »

1/8 Brotherhood for the Revitalization of Ukrainian Orthodoxy in Canada - Highlights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3LJ-3UqAco



Video title prepended to post to make post compliant with forum rule against naked links  -PtA
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 10:34:57 AM by PeterTheAleut » 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: June 18, 2012, 10:48:25 AM »

From the following website: http://www.eposhta.com/newsmagazine/ePOSHTA_120617_CanadaUS_Eng.html

The Hidden agenda becomes obvious:,the real reason why the UOC-KP will never be welcomed into the EP

TOP

The visit of both His Holiness Patriarch Filaret (UOC-KP) and His Holiness Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Greek Church, as the heads of their respective churches in Ukraine, was considered to be a joyous event, which ePOSHTA had covered in a previous issue. "Камо грядеш, діаспорна православна церкво?" http://www.eposhta.com/newsmagazine/ePOSHTA_120428_CanadaUS.html#ed31).

As mentioned previously, Patriarch Filaret’s visit has opened a cache of problems in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church beyond the borders of Ukraine itself, which have been accumulating during the years since Ukraine’s declaration of independence.  What has recently come to light, is proof that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, whether consciously or not, is supporting Moscow in its attempts to regain power over all the Orthodox churches in Ukraine. By being united with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its leader, His Holiness Bartholomew,  they are tightening the noose around the UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate and handing it right into the hands of not only the Moscow Patriarchate  but into the hands of Russia’s current government.  Their objective, as always, has been the complete destruction of the Ukrainian nation and its subservient return to the powers of Moscow...




Post editted for the quote length - MK.
Of course, the Ukrainian Protestants of the Eastern Rite always discredit their rants by implying the Russians had a grand ol' time under the Soviet Union (many people were surprised when Russia declared its independence of the USSR), while no Ukrainian had any involvement with the Soviet authorities.

Why did the Vatican's Ukrainians welcome the deposed hierarch?  Consistency with its own agenda of divide and conquer.  Why did the UOCC and UOCUSA not have anything to do with him?  Consistency with Orthodox canonical order.

Not a great mystery.

According to the article which had been edited out of the post..To understand all the underground currents between the not inclined to be supportive Constantinople to Orthodox Ukrainian Konstatynopolem and the hostile to them Moscow, an extract is provided from a unique correspondence between the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Alexei of Moscow. (Note that the current Patriarch Kirill is implementing a much tougher policy towards Ukraine and the Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate, than its predecessor Alexei.):

“of course to a certain extent we can comprehend the fears Your Beatitude and your Holy Synod have as to the consequences which the settlement of the Ukrainians in the Diaspora could eventually have had on the general situation in Ukraine, if proper care had not been taken.

In this regard we would like to assure you that the induction of the Ukrainian communities into the canonical order of the Orthodox Church by receiving them under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch will, we believe, finally prove to be beneficial for the relationship between the Most Holy Church of Russia and the faithful in Ukraine.

This is so because on the one hand those received were obligated to formally declare that they will not seek autocephaly of the Ukrainian church, or even a part of it, through known methods employed by the “autocephalists” who operate in every way possible.”
Again, not a mystery, nor news.  This has been known all along that part of the deal was to cut ties and support to uncanonical groups within Ukraine.
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
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2012, 10:51:55 AM »

So how does Ukraine go about getting her own patriarchate separate from Moscow and Constantinople if neither of them want to allow for an independent Ukrainian Patriarchate?
Logged
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2012, 10:54:20 AM »

If the canonical way is for each Patriarch to vote for it, it will NEVER happen as the Russian Orthodox Church will NEVER be in support of an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate and neither will the Eccumenical Patriarchate as they wish to absorb the UOCKP as a metropolis, similar to the arrangement they have with the UOCC and UOCUSA and similar to the UOCMP is with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2012, 11:01:15 AM »

So how does Ukraine go about getting her own patriarchate separate from Moscow and Constantinople if neither of them want to allow for an independent Ukrainian Patriarchate?

Why does the Ukraine need one? Anything better than nationalism, because I doubt it? In any case my understanding is that you'd have to go to the mother Church, which is Moscow, but I'm sure you know that. In my opinion we'd all be better off with rather fewer Patriarchates and we certainly shouldn't be creating new ones every time a country fragments. We're supposed to be one Church and Phyletism certainly doesn't promote unity.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2012, 11:07:26 AM »

So how does Ukraine go about getting her own patriarchate separate from Moscow and Constantinople if neither of them want to allow for an independent Ukrainian Patriarchate?

Why does the Ukraine need one? Anything better than nationalism, because I doubt it? In any case my understanding is that you'd have to go to the mother Church, which is Moscow, but I'm sure you know that. In my opinion we'd all be better off with rather fewer Patriarchates and we certainly shouldn't be creating new ones every time a country fragments. We're supposed to be one Church and Phyletism certainly doesn't promote unity.

James

So would you have a problem if the Romanian Orthodox Church was no longer a Patriarchate but rather went under the Russian Orthodox Church or the Eccumnical Patriarchate?
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2012, 11:14:00 AM »

So how does Ukraine go about getting her own patriarchate separate from Moscow and Constantinople if neither of them want to allow for an independent Ukrainian Patriarchate?

Why does the Ukraine need one? Anything better than nationalism, because I doubt it? In any case my understanding is that you'd have to go to the mother Church, which is Moscow, but I'm sure you know that. In my opinion we'd all be better off with rather fewer Patriarchates and we certainly shouldn't be creating new ones every time a country fragments. We're supposed to be one Church and Phyletism certainly doesn't promote unity.

James

So would you have a problem if the Romanian Orthodox Church was no longer a Patriarchate but rather went under the Russian Orthodox Church or the Eccumnical Patriarchate?

Not that it's actually analogous (because you're talking about the Ukrainians unilaterally leaving the fold of Moscow, not an already autocephalous church being absorbed into another) but no I genuinely wouldn't. So long as the Church can continue to provide the Liturgy in Romanian and leaves local customs alone (as Romanian practices differ from both Greek and Russian) I don't believe it matters what ethnicity or nationality my Patriarch is. I find it said that you appear to put nationalism first and the Church second.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2012, 11:20:33 AM »

So Ukrainian customs and traditions aren't different from Russian. Why is it ok for other nations to have their national churches (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc) but not ok for Ukraine to have her own?

If national churches are bad, why not eliminate all the national churches, and become more like the Catholic church with one central leader/patriarch?

It seems to me that a national/independent church is ok for other nations, but not Ukraine, is that what you are telling me?
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2012, 11:40:01 AM »

So Ukrainian customs and traditions aren't different from Russian. Why is it ok for other nations to have their national churches (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc) but not ok for Ukraine to have her own?

If national churches are bad, why not eliminate all the national churches, and become more like the Catholic church with one central leader/patriarch?

It seems to me that a national/independent church is ok for other nations, but not Ukraine, is that what you are telling me?

No, I'm saying that creating all those national Patriarchates was a mistake. When the original Pentarchy was created there was one country (the Empire) with 5 Patriarchs. The Patriarchates were never meant to conform to the borders of the nation state - otherwise Rome's claims would in fact be correct. It's understandable, given the history that we ended up with all those new national Patriarchs but  that doesn't it was a good idea to create them in the first place, and I don't believe it was. We certainly shouldn't have one Patriarch like the RCs but secular national borders should not determine the boundaries of the Patriarchates.

As to why it is OK for Romania to have autocephaly and not the Ukraine, the answer's simple. Romania's mother Church (Constantinople) granted Romania autocephaly. Ukraine's mother Church (Moscow) has not done so. Instead the UOC-KP has unilaterally declared autocephaly and in doing so has created a schism.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2012, 11:45:27 AM »

If my history is correct, didn't the Russian Orthodox Church and Bulgarian Orthodox ( and I think a few more) first create a schism by declaring autocephally without being granted. (I think in the case of the Russian church, they waited 144 years before they were recognized by the other patriarchates) I'm not sure about the other patriarchates, but i believe the Serbian, Romanian, and Georgian declared their independent Patriarchates first, then after years, they were gradually accepted by the other churches.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2012, 11:58:36 AM »

If my history is correct, didn't the Russian Orthodox Church and Bulgarian Orthodox ( and I think a few more) first create a schism by declaring autocephally without being granted. (I think in the case of the Russian church, they waited 144 years before they were recognized by the other patriarchates) I'm not sure about the other patriarchates, but i believe the Serbian, Romanian, and Georgian declared their independent Patriarchates first, then after years, they were gradually accepted by the other churches.

I don't know the history of the others but yes the Romanian Church declared autocephaly first. As I say, however, I do not consider it to have been a good idea. The difference, however, is that the Romanian church negotiated with Constantinople and was eventually granted autocephaly. If Ukraine were to become autocephalous (I reiterate that I think it would be a mistake) there is nothing to prevent it but it would have to be negotiated with Moscow. As things stand a fragment of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine has gone into schism and declared itself a Patriarchate. No other Church will recognise them until Moscow does. It's not up to the other churches but the mother church.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2012, 12:01:33 PM »

I think 14 million followers is a bit more than a (fragment)
Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 980


« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2012, 12:39:31 PM »

I was disappointed with Metropolitan George's actions during the visit of the Pochaiv Icon but this time he acted very wisely and responsibly. Cheers to him!

You were told before that Metropolitan Yurij's legal name is Yurij not George. 
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 #17 on: June 18, 2012, 01:02:22 PM »

So Ukrainian customs and traditions aren't different from Russian. Why is it ok for other nations to have their national churches (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc) but not ok for Ukraine to have her own?

If national churches are bad, why not eliminate all the national churches, and become more like the Catholic church with one central leader/patriarch?

It seems to me that a national/independent church is ok for other nations, but not Ukraine, is that what you are telling me?
that you have a chip on your shoulder.

No one said Ukraine can't have its national Church, but this nonsense shows why everyone is being extra cautious about going about it.  Belarus doesn't have a national Church.  Nor does Lebanon, nor Jordan, nor Iraq.  Japan has one, but it is also under Moscow.  So Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia seems irrelvant to your case.
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
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 #18 on: June 18, 2012, 01:03:24 PM »

I think 14 million followers is a bit more than a (fragment)
so a big fragment.
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
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 #19 on: June 18, 2012, 01:07:08 PM »

So Ukrainian customs and traditions aren't different from Russian. Why is it ok for other nations to have their national churches (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc) but not ok for Ukraine to have her own?

If national churches are bad, why not eliminate all the national churches, and become more like the Catholic church with one central leader/patriarch?

It seems to me that a national/independent church is ok for other nations, but not Ukraine, is that what you are telling me?

No, I'm saying that creating all those national Patriarchates was a mistake. When the original Pentarchy was created there was one country (the Empire) with 5 Patriarchs. The Patriarchates were never meant to conform to the borders of the nation state - otherwise Rome's claims would in fact be correct. It's understandable, given the history that we ended up with all those new national Patriarchs but  that doesn't it was a good idea to create them in the first place, and I don't believe it was. We certainly shouldn't have one Patriarch like the RCs but secular national borders should not determine the boundaries of the Patriarchates.

As to why it is OK for Romania to have autocephaly and not the Ukraine, the answer's simple. Romania's mother Church (Constantinople) granted Romania autocephaly. Ukraine's mother Church (Moscow) has not done so. Instead the UOC-KP has unilaterally declared autocephaly and in doing so has created a schism.

James
Actually no:besides the 5 patriarchates, there was always the Church of Cyprus, autocephalous but in the same empire.  While the Pentarchy was being formed, there was also Armenia, Georgia and Albania (in the Caucasus) outside of the empire.

In Romania, nearly all ties with Constantinople had been cut and the Phanariots had left.  Ukraine is not so cut off from Russia (and Belarus).
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
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 #20 on: June 18, 2012, 01:09:22 PM »

If my history is correct, didn't the Russian Orthodox Church and Bulgarian Orthodox ( and I think a few more) first create a schism by declaring autocephally without being granted. (I think in the case of the Russian church, they waited 144 years before they were recognized by the other patriarchates) I'm not sure about the other patriarchates, but i believe the Serbian, Romanian, and Georgian declared their independent Patriarchates first, then after years, they were gradually accepted by the other churches.
No, only Romania did so, and even then it did not push the issue but continued to defer to Constantinople until Constantinople was reconciled to it.  Communion was never broken off.

Bulgaria did create a schism, at least in part, but Russia did not.
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
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 980


« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2012, 01:13:23 PM »



Of course, the Ukrainian Protestants of the Eastern Rite always discredit their rants by implying the Russians had a grand ol' time under the Soviet Union (many people were surprised when Russia declared its independence of the USSR), while no Ukrainian had any involvement with the Soviet authorities.

Why did the Vatican's Ukrainians welcome the deposed hierarch?  Consistency with its own agenda of divide and conquer.  Why did the UOCC and UOCUSA not have anything to do with him?  Consistency with Orthodox canonical order.

Not a great mystery.

Some further information may be helpful for those in our group who are not Canadians which I assume is 99.9%

1)   E-poshta is an internet newsletter that goes out to e-mail addresses.  The founder and the people involved are Ukrainian Catholics.  

2)   The visits and banquets planned for Patriarch Filaret while he was in Toronto were spearheaded by UNO which is an organizations founded by Ukrainian Catholics and whose present membership is primarily Ukrainian Catholics or by the Ukrainian Canadian Conference (KYK) which is primarily Ukrainian Catholic.

3)   There is an organization in Toronto called “The Friends of the Kyiv Patriachate”founded by Iryna Washchuk who is Ukrainian Catholic.


4)   Patr. Filaret choose to come to Toronto ahead of the rest of the delegates of the conference that was supposed to take place at the University of Toronto but was cancelled.  Why?  Did he plan a confrontation?  For example, Patriarch Sviatoslav the Ukrainian Catholics & Metr. Methodiy (UAOC) arrived with the rest of delegates Sunday night.

5)   Members of  KYK attempted to bring Patriarch  Filaret to a UOCC Church as a guest and that is why Metr. Yuriy issued his press release.  If Metr. Yurij had not done so Patriarch Filaret and an entourage of Ukrainian Catholics would have walked in on the service uninvited.  The president of the parish Oleh Holowaty was informed that a delegation of KYK would be bringing Patriarch Filaret to the service and that they would be in the front of the church.  Then we Orthodox were taunted by the Catholics in the press & on blogs saying we were unchristian and that anyone should be allowed to go to an Ukrainian Orthodox Church service as a “guest”.   To me this looks like a provocation.

6)   At the various meetings of a new brotherhood of Ukrainian Orthodox only 100 to 150 people have shown up.  That is an insignificant number and if you look at the videos and see the people in the audience you will be surprised (or maybe not surprised) to recognize the faces of prominent Toronto Ukrainian Catholics in the audience.

7)   A group of malcontents in British Columbia got themselves elected to form a new parish council in a small church and then withdrew from the UOCC and joined the UOC-KP.   The matter is now in the hands of the courts.  That in itself is a reason why members of the UOCC would not welcome Patriarch Filaret.

8)A campaign of misinformation was started.  One small example is that the quote from Fr. Kroner was distorted in the article in E-poshta.

I am sure there all other points that I have forgotten to mention but this should at least give Americans unfamiliar with this campaign to start a schism in the UOCC a brief background.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 01:16:05 PM by Orest » Logged
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2012, 01:16:44 PM »

So Ukrainian customs and traditions aren't different from Russian. Why is it ok for other nations to have their national churches (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc) but not ok for Ukraine to have her own?

If national churches are bad, why not eliminate all the national churches, and become more like the Catholic church with one central leader/patriarch?

It seems to me that a national/independent church is ok for other nations, but not Ukraine, is that what you are telling me?
that you have a chip on your shoulder.

No one said Ukraine can't have its national Church, but this nonsense shows why everyone is being extra cautious about going about it.  Belarus doesn't have a national Church.  Nor does Lebanon, nor Jordan, nor Iraq.  Japan has one, but it is also under Moscow.  So Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia seems irrelvant to your case.

Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq all have Orthodox populations in the 100,000's, Japan I believe even smaller. Ukraine has over 25 million orthodox faithful when you combine the UOCKP, UOCMP, and UAOC. (30 million if you count the UGCC) I don't find it irrelevant. I have a chip on my shoulder because after 18 years, what steps has the EP  done to promote an independent UOC? Nothing..., the protocol 937 between Pat Bartholomew and Pat Aleksi shows that the EP will NOT push for an independent UOC. My chip is that Constantinople and Moscow seemed to have made a corrupt bargain for the church of Ukraine and after being a part of the UOCUSA for my entire life, I am having severe repercussions. I have been looking for some hope that the EP has the best interests of the Ukrainian church and Ukrainian diaspora at heart but rather, I have been discovering that the UOCUSA and UOCC bishops are wolves in sheeps clothing that have undone everything that Patriarch Mystyslav fought for. I have been wavering on whether or not to join a UOCKP parish but well I can start to understand why those 15 parishes in the US and 2 in Canada rejoined the UOCKP.
Logged
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2012, 01:22:40 PM »

This is from a Uki Orthodox Member in Canada...
It seems that 100-150 member of the Brotherhood in Canada even if there were some Uki Catholics is a large number...

http://uamuzik.blogspot.com/2012/04/not-so-holy-visit.html

A not so holy visit
  

With the most holy of days of the Christian calendar just passed, most lay people will have probably recognized only one thing, that Easter, the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, fell one week later for Orthodox Christians than for other Christian denominations this year.

However, very few lay people and not that many more Christians know the difference between the Russian Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. They recognize that the various church groups set their Easter calendars according to different parameters but their understanding in many cases goes no further...


Post editted for the quote length. Next time you copy the whole text I'm warning you - MK.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 01:42:30 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 980


« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2012, 01:32:36 PM »

I fogot to add as point # 9 to my post above.
The misinformation includes something another poster calls:
 "the protocol 937 between Pat Bartholomew and Pat Aleksi" published in a Ukrainian Catholic journal called "Logos".

Ukrainian Catholic Churches like St. Demetrius which hosted Patr. Filaret and St. Elias are openly supporting a schism in the UOCC.
http://sainteliaschurch.blogspot.ca/2012/04/patriarch-filaret-not-so-holy-visit.html
Logged
pious1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 170


« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2012, 01:37:37 PM »

Orest, i think what you call a schism is rather support for an independent Ukrainain Orthodox Church. as for protocol 937,this is in the Eastern Christian Journal Metrop. John was on the advisory board of this Eastern Churches Journal, go to the Toronto library and check it out, or contact the journal and get a copy to prove to yourself that it is real. This has been public for years, it was quoted in the UOCC Visnyk as well. People just didn't care when it came out, or did not want to believe.... The hierarchs all know about these documents, they just don't want the common person to know or care.UOCC Visnyk January 1996 page 13 quotes and addresses the protocol clearly, do the hierarchs of the UOCC print false information? Did the bishops lie to you about the response of Bartholomew to the MP?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2012, 01:42:53 PM »

Post editted for the quote length. Next time you copy the whole text I'm warning you - MK.
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: 37,960



« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2012, 03:22:42 PM »

So Ukrainian customs and traditions aren't different from Russian. Why is it ok for other nations to have their national churches (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc) but not ok for Ukraine to have her own?

If national churches are bad, why not eliminate all the national churches, and become more like the Catholic church with one central leader/patriarch?

It seems to me that a national/independent church is ok for other nations, but not Ukraine, is that what you are telling me?
that you have a chip on your shoulder.

No one said Ukraine can't have its national Church, but this nonsense shows why everyone is being extra cautious about going about it.  Belarus doesn't have a national Church.  Nor does Lebanon, nor Jordan, nor Iraq.  Japan has one, but it is also under Moscow.  So Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia seems irrelvant to your case.

Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq all have Orthodox populations in the 100,000's, Japan I believe even smaller. Ukraine has over 25 million orthodox faithful when you combine the UOCKP, UOCMP, and UAOC.

It also has several million Russian Orthodox, and an untold number of Russophiles (yes, I've been shocked to find out that they exist, even among UGCC).

(30 million if you count the UGCC)
I never do. Why would I?

I don't find it irrelevant. I have a chip on my shoulder because after 18 years, what steps has the EP  done to promote an independent UOC? Nothing...
why should HAH do anything?

the protocol 937 between Pat Bartholomew and Pat Aleksi shows that the EP will NOT push for an independent UOC.
Like I said, not news.

My chip is that Constantinople and Moscow seemed to have made a corrupt bargain for the church of Ukraine and after being a part of the UOCUSA for my entire life, I am having severe repercussions. I have been looking for some hope that the EP has the best interests of the Ukrainian church and Ukrainian diaspora at heart but rather, I have been discovering that the UOCUSA and UOCC bishops are wolves in sheeps clothing that have undone everything that Patriarch Mystyslav fought for.
Patriarch Mystyslav?  No such hierarch in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

I have been wavering on whether or not to join a UOCKP parish but well I can start to understand why those 15 parishes in the US and 2 in Canada rejoined the UOCKP.
phyletism.  We know that.
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
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2012, 03:36:51 AM »

So Ukrainian customs and traditions aren't different from Russian. Why is it ok for other nations to have their national churches (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc) but not ok for Ukraine to have her own?

If national churches are bad, why not eliminate all the national churches, and become more like the Catholic church with one central leader/patriarch?

It seems to me that a national/independent church is ok for other nations, but not Ukraine, is that what you are telling me?

No, I'm saying that creating all those national Patriarchates was a mistake. When the original Pentarchy was created there was one country (the Empire) with 5 Patriarchs. The Patriarchates were never meant to conform to the borders of the nation state - otherwise Rome's claims would in fact be correct. It's understandable, given the history that we ended up with all those new national Patriarchs but  that doesn't it was a good idea to create them in the first place, and I don't believe it was. We certainly shouldn't have one Patriarch like the RCs but secular national borders should not determine the boundaries of the Patriarchates.

As to why it is OK for Romania to have autocephaly and not the Ukraine, the answer's simple. Romania's mother Church (Constantinople) granted Romania autocephaly. Ukraine's mother Church (Moscow) has not done so. Instead the UOC-KP has unilaterally declared autocephaly and in doing so has created a schism.

James
Actually no:besides the 5 patriarchates, there was always the Church of Cyprus, autocephalous but in the same empire.  While the Pentarchy was being formed, there was also Armenia, Georgia and Albania (in the Caucasus) outside of the empire.

In Romania, nearly all ties with Constantinople had been cut and the Phanariots had left.  Ukraine is not so cut off from Russia (and Belarus).

OK, I'll grant you that but it doesn't actually alter what I was saying. To be honest I'd forgotten about Cyprus but the Churches outside the empire were not relevant to the point I was making. As to your point re. Romania, I was going to say much the same but you beat me to it. The metropolitan of Moldova had actually been autonomous since 15th century. I'm less sure of the history with Tara Romaneasca but I'm pretty certain they were also autonomous at the time Romania was formed.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Byron
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Nationalist
Posts: 472



« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2012, 07:54:03 AM »

I fogot to add as point # 9 to my post above.
The misinformation includes something another poster calls:
 "the protocol 937 between Pat Bartholomew and Pat Aleksi" published in a Ukrainian Catholic journal called "Logos".

Ukrainian Catholic Churches like St. Demetrius which hosted Patr. Filaret and St. Elias are openly supporting a schism in the UOCC.
http://sainteliaschurch.blogspot.ca/2012/04/patriarch-filaret-not-so-holy-visit.html

Orest - what is the rough split between Orthodox and Catholic Ukrainians in Canada? 40/60?

Also do Orthodox and Catholics socialise with each other or usually only amongst their own kind? I'm talking about friendships, parties, etc.

I've noticed Lebanese tend to socialise more within their own religious community whether Orthodox, Catholic, Shiite or Sunni.

How are you as an Orthodox perceived by your Catholic compatriots? Is there hostility towards you, or they don't care.  
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 07:55:39 AM by Byron » Logged

I. Metaxas - 4th of August Regime

"Country, Loyalty, Family and Religion".

Nationalism, Monarchy, Family and Orthodoxy.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2012, 09:19:58 AM »

... Protestants of the Eastern Rite ...

According to some Orthodox, nobody who isn't Orthodox can really be Eastern.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2012, 09:21:19 AM »

Why did the Vatican's Ukrainians welcome the deposed hierarch? 

Welcome in what sense?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2012, 01:25:46 AM »

I fogot to add as point # 9 to my post above.
The misinformation includes something another poster calls:
 "the protocol 937 between Pat Bartholomew and Pat Aleksi" published in a Ukrainian Catholic journal called "Logos".

Ukrainian Catholic Churches like St. Demetrius which hosted Patr. Filaret and St. Elias are openly supporting a schism in the UOCC.
http://sainteliaschurch.blogspot.ca/2012/04/patriarch-filaret-not-so-holy-visit.html

Orest - what is the rough split between Orthodox and Catholic Ukrainians in Canada? 40/60?

Also do Orthodox and Catholics socialise with each other or usually only amongst their own kind? I'm talking about friendships, parties, etc.

I've noticed Lebanese tend to socialise more within their own religious community whether Orthodox, Catholic, Shiite or Sunni.

How are you as an Orthodox perceived by your Catholic compatriots? Is there hostility towards you, or they don't care.  

In the Ukrainian Catholic church I attend, there is an annual cultural event they celebrate of "Ukraine's Shakespeare".  This is attended by both the Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox.  The past event was held in the large hall of the Ukrainian Catholic parish downtown.  The Ukrainian Orthodox here are very anti-Moscow.  They'd rather celebrate with the Ukrainian Catholics than with a Russian Orthodox.  Although I met a Ukrainian fellow today at the OCA parish I sometimes visit and he told me that he doesn't want to attend a Ukrainian parish because he doesn't like ethnic parishes.  He feels that Ukraine is worshiped more than Jesus in those parishes.


As for the earlier question on why Ukraine deserves a Patriarchate.  Well, Prince Volodymyr or Vladimir to the Russians, who we celebrate today, is from Kyievian Rus.  Kyiv as we know it today.  And where is this place other than Ukraine.  If the Christians of Rus are to have a Patriarchate, it should be where their people were first baptized.  Moscow is the daughter of Kyiv, so why does the daughter rule the mother?
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 0.139 seconds with 61 queries.