OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 08:54:26 AM *
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 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: EP Cites Conditions for One Unified UOC in Ukraine  (Read 2160 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2012, 07:38:30 PM »

All this mess would be sorted out if there was some sort of universal authority over all the Orthodox Churches, you know, like an infallible supreme bishop.
Yeah, that works so well.


Sorry, couldn't resist  Grin
Ditto.

Wahahahah!
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,066



« Reply #46 on: November 19, 2012, 09:15:48 PM »

It is equivalent to autonomous.  Autonomous means self governing (as what sui juris means) but not really separate.  For example, US states are autnomous, they don't rule one another, but they are not totally free from the blanket authority of the Federal Government.  Autocephally would be more like the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Only patriarchal Churches are in some degrees like autonomous Churches. Churches primated by archbishops are far from it. However no sui iuris Church can glorify a Saint what is able to autocephalous, autonomous and self-ruled Churches.

What are you indicating here, Michal?  All Orthodox Churches that are "autocephalous," share equal status among the Holy Orthodox Churches, not-with-standing whether their primate has been accorded the dignity of "Patriarch."  Perhaps the Ancient Patriarchates have a slightly more revered status, due to their position in the Dyptics, but that is not significant administratively and not supported by anything in practice, other than their position in liturgical order, to the best of my knowledge.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 19, 2012, 09:23:53 PM »

It is equivalent to autonomous.  Autonomous means self governing (as what sui juris means) but not really separate.  For example, US states are autnomous, they don't rule one another, but they are not totally free from the blanket authority of the Federal Government.  Autocephally would be more like the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Only patriarchal Churches are in some degrees like autonomous Churches. Churches primated by archbishops are far from it. However no sui iuris Church can glorify a Saint what is able to autocephalous, autonomous and self-ruled Churches.

What are you indicating here, Michal?  All Orthodox Churches that are "autocephalous," share equal status among the Holy Orthodox Churches, not-with-standing whether their primate has been accorded the dignity of "Patriarch."  Perhaps the Ancient Patriarchates have a slightly more revered status, due to their position in the Dyptics, but that is not significant administratively and not supported by anything in practice, other than their position in liturgical order, to the best of my knowledge.

I mean RC patriarchal Churches.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,066



« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2012, 09:31:21 PM »

Just make Ukraine autocephalous and thats that.

Why won't the Vatican make its Ukrainian branch autocephalous?

Funnily most wordy people supporting the "necessity" of Ukrainian autocephaly are those, whose Church consider the concept of autocephaly heretical.
We're not supposed to notice that.



Quite true, 'sui juris' is NOT in any way equivalent to 'autonomous' let alone 'autocephalous.'

It is equivalent to autonomous.  Autonomous means self governing (as what sui juris means) but not really separate.  For example, US states are autnomous, they don't rule one another, but they are not totally free from the blanket authority of the Federal Government.  Autocephally would be more like the British Commonwealth of Nations.

"Autonomy" in Orthodox Church "order," or governance, is typically characterized by self-governance, but approval of the primatial election rests with the "mother church."  I don't think "autonomous churches" can consecrate Chrism, nor do they typically recognize saints.  Until the decision of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch that essentially demoted the diocesan ruling bishops to auxiliary's to the Primate, the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America had attained an "autonomous" status, except in more limited manner than is customary.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 976


« Reply #49 on: November 21, 2012, 09:37:21 AM »

Reply from Patriarch Bartholomew to Patriarch Alexis
July 11, 1995, Prot. No. 937
Your Beatitude and Most Holy ALEXIY, Patriarch of Moscow and all
Russia, our Modesty's most beloved and dear brotherin Christ God and
concelebrant, embracing Your venerable Beatitude fraternally in the
Lord, we greet You exuberantly....
.
Your venerable Beatitude's Beloved brother in Christ,
+BARTHOLOMEW of Constantinople
Was there a point in there somewhere (btw source?)?



There is no source or proof that these letters are real.  The Ukrainian Catholic priest Fr. Serge (Brian)Kelleher had English translations published in a journal published by Keston College and he worked for Keston College.  No original copies of these letters have ever been found.  Keston College was not an academic institution but an organization founded by an Anglican minister to collect information on all religious groups in the former USSR.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 09:44:36 AM by Orest » Logged
cossack 316
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian orthodox Church
Posts: 143


« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2012, 10:19:47 AM »

Orest if they aren't real then why would the UOCC publish them in their Vysnyk? I have been told when confronted by parishioners in both Canada and the US, the UOCC and UOCUSA hierarchs have not denied them but they just don't publicly speak about them.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #51 on: November 21, 2012, 10:39:40 AM »

Orest if they aren't real then why would the UOCC publish them in their Vysnyk?
Agenda.
I have been told when confronted by parishioners in both Canada and the US, the UOCC and UOCUSA hierarchs have not denied them but they just don't publicly speak about them.
Why should they?  According to the letters, they weren't party to them.

Jurisdiction isn't a secret. That would defeat its purpose.
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
bergschlawiner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 235

Sarisan


« Reply #52 on: November 21, 2012, 04:01:03 PM »

Remembering all the years the ROGC Church pre-OCA went out of its way to avoid using the word Ukrainian!  What a shame that the Mother Church of all the Slavs was so supressed by the Moskals even in this country. Kiiv needs to be the equal if not superior to Moscow which was itself abolished by the whim of a ruler for centuries. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #53 on: November 21, 2012, 04:12:37 PM »

Remembering all the years the ROGC Church pre-OCA went out of its way to avoid using the word Ukrainian!
Because they were Ruthenian/Rusyn?
What a shame that the Mother Church of all the Slavs

you mean Bulgaria?
was so supressed by the Moskals even in this country.
The "Little Russians" ran most of this country, and Moscow.
Kiiv needs to be the equal if not superior to Moscow which was itself abolished by the whim of a ruler for centuries.
Brest 1596.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 04:12:52 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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 21, 2012, 06:24:40 PM »

Kiiv needs to be the equal if not superior to Moscow which was itself abolished by the whim of a ruler for centuries.
Brest 1596.

Actually, Andruszów 1667.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #55 on: November 21, 2012, 06:39:56 PM »

Kiiv needs to be the equal if not superior to Moscow which was itself abolished by the whim of a ruler for centuries.
Brest 1596.

Actually, Andruszów 1667.
Not on point.
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #56 on: November 21, 2012, 07:10:03 PM »

Now I know we have the evil's of an independent church i.e. National church, yet the Serbs, Romanians, Georgians, and Bulgarians have their own National Church. Why are they allowed but the EP and Moscow each argue that Ukraine is their territory. Didn't Serbia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Romania at one time be under either the EP or Moscow?

That is my thinking to.  If all those territories get autocephally and even Patriarchates, why not Ukraine?  Double standard.

Yes but Constantinople only argues it for the same reason why it argued with Poland, so that it can release it to autocephaly. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #57 on: November 21, 2012, 07:13:40 PM »

All this mess would be sorted out if there was some sort of universal authority over all the Orthodox Churches, you know, like an infallible supreme bishop.
Yeah, that works so well.


Sorry, couldn't resist  Grin
Ditto.

Bravo!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #58 on: November 21, 2012, 07:14:47 PM »

Now I know we have the evil's of an independent church i.e. National church, yet the Serbs, Romanians, Georgians, and Bulgarians have their own National Church. Why are they allowed but the EP and Moscow each argue that Ukraine is their territory. Didn't Serbia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Romania at one time be under either the EP or Moscow?

That is my thinking to.  If all those territories get autocephally and even Patriarchates, why not Ukraine?  Double standard.

Yes but Constantinople only argues it for the same reason why it argued with Poland, so that it can release it to autocephaly. 
Like Poland, Constantinople has no power to release it to autocephaly.
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #59 on: November 21, 2012, 07:42:09 PM »

Now I know we have the evil's of an independent church i.e. National church, yet the Serbs, Romanians, Georgians, and Bulgarians have their own National Church. Why are they allowed but the EP and Moscow each argue that Ukraine is their territory. Didn't Serbia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Romania at one time be under either the EP or Moscow?

That is my thinking to.  If all those territories get autocephally and even Patriarchates, why not Ukraine?  Double standard.

Yes but Constantinople only argues it for the same reason why it argued with Poland, so that it can release it to autocephaly. 
Like Poland, Constantinople has no power to release it to autocephaly.

Nonsense.  Look at the Tomos for Moscow.  Moscow is obliged to recognize Constantinople as "his head and protos"
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #60 on: November 21, 2012, 07:44:51 PM »

^Sorry, that is a bit off point.  The point is that Moscow was given territory over the northern lands (not Kyivan Rus).  Now de facto, we know that under Peter the Great, Constantinople temporarily gave jurisdicion to St. Petersburg over Ukraine.  The legth in which this happened is the only thing that makes this a dispute. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #61 on: November 21, 2012, 07:47:34 PM »

Now I know we have the evil's of an independent church i.e. National church, yet the Serbs, Romanians, Georgians, and Bulgarians have their own National Church. Why are they allowed but the EP and Moscow each argue that Ukraine is their territory. Didn't Serbia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Romania at one time be under either the EP or Moscow?

That is my thinking to.  If all those territories get autocephally and even Patriarchates, why not Ukraine?  Double standard.

Yes but Constantinople only argues it for the same reason why it argued with Poland, so that it can release it to autocephaly. 
Like Poland, Constantinople has no power to release it to autocephaly.

Nonsense.
 
Just the facts, Father.
Look at the Tomos for Moscow.

There is no Tomos of Autocephaly for Moscow.  Her Mother Church apostacized, and she refused to follow to go off the cliff.
Moscow is obliged to recognize Constantinople as "his head and protos"
Give us all what you are referring to, Father.
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #62 on: November 21, 2012, 08:10:02 PM »

^Sorry, that is a bit off point.  The point is that Moscow was given territory over the northern lands (not Kyivan Rus).  Now de facto, we know that under Peter the Great, Constantinople temporarily gave jurisdicion to St. Petersburg over Ukraine.

The final take over by the Church of Moscow of the Church in Rzeczpospolita was agreed on Grzymułtowski's Treaty in 1686 (during the rule of Metropolitan Gedeon Chetvertynsky). Several decades before Peter the Great. And nothing about temporarily thing there.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 08:19:28 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #63 on: November 21, 2012, 08:29:40 PM »

Now I know we have the evil's of an independent church i.e. National church, yet the Serbs, Romanians, Georgians, and Bulgarians have their own National Church. Why are they allowed but the EP and Moscow each argue that Ukraine is their territory. Didn't Serbia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Romania at one time be under either the EP or Moscow?

That is my thinking to.  If all those territories get autocephally and even Patriarchates, why not Ukraine?  Double standard.

Yes but Constantinople only argues it for the same reason why it argued with Poland, so that it can release it to autocephaly. 
Like Poland, Constantinople has no power to release it to autocephaly.

Nonsense.
 
Just the facts, Father.
Look at the Tomos for Moscow.

There is no Tomos of Autocephaly for Moscow.  Her Mother Church apostacized, and she refused to follow to go off the cliff.
Moscow is obliged to recognize Constantinople as "his head and protos"
Give us all what you are referring to, Father.

There was a tomos (synodal charter) or else Moscow could not even be autocephalous let alone a patriarchate.  I will give you some of what I was talking about (the rest being reserved for when I need them):

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/48694.htm

Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #64 on: November 21, 2012, 08:36:03 PM »

^Sorry, that is a bit off point.  The point is that Moscow was given territory over the northern lands (not Kyivan Rus).  Now de facto, we know that under Peter the Great, Constantinople temporarily gave jurisdicion to St. Petersburg over Ukraine.

The final take over by the Church of Moscow of the Church in Rzeczpospolita was agreed on Grzymułtowski's Treaty in 1686 (during the rule of Metropolitan Gedeon Chetvertynsky). Several decades before Peter the Great. And nothing about temporarily thing there.

This was not recognized by the mother Church, and so is of no avail as it was a political treaty, not an ecclesiastical recognition. 

"By signing this treaty, Russia became a member of the anti-Turkish coalition, which comprised Poland, the Holy Roman Empire and Venice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Peace_Treaty_of_1686

Constantinople only recognized, and that temporarily, the ecclesiastical oversight by the ROC after Peter the Great (much like today's "new lands" by the Church of Greece). 

Ukraine belongs to its mother, Constantinople, who wishes to free her.  Moscow is the daughter of Kyiv, not its mother. 
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #65 on: November 21, 2012, 08:49:27 PM »

This was not recognized by the mother Church, and so is of no avail as it was a political treaty, not an ecclesiastical recognition.

AFAIR I've read the Constantinople recognized it then. I have the book in Białystok ("Diecezja Białoruska w XVII I XVIII wieku", Mironowicz Antoni) so I'll give some details on the weekend.

Ukrainian wikipedia also confirms that: http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD_%28%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA-%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%29

"У травні 1686 московський уряд з допомогою підкупу добився згоди на визнання цього акту Константинопольським Патріархом Діонісієм."

"At May 1686 Muscovite authorities with bribery obtained approval of this act from Patriarch Dionisius of Constantinople."
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 08:52:38 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #66 on: November 21, 2012, 09:09:08 PM »

This was not recognized by the mother Church, and so is of no avail as it was a political treaty, not an ecclesiastical recognition.

AFAIR I've read the Constantinople recognized it then. I have the book in Białystok ("Diecezja Białoruska w XVII I XVIII wieku", Mironowicz Antoni) so I'll give some details on the weekend.

Ukrainian wikipedia also confirms that: http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD_%28%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA-%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%29

"У травні 1686 московський уряд з допомогою підкупу добився згоди на визнання цього акту Константинопольським Патріархом Діонісієм."

"At May 1686 Muscovite authorities with bribery obtained approval of this act from Patriarch Dionisius of Constantinople."

But this was rescinded by the Synod as an illegal act.  Dionysius was deposed and Patriarch James restored and in 1687 the entire Holy Synod anathematized "Dionysios the Muslim-minded" (or "Muslimes" i.e. "the Muslim") and declared his action null and void.  This decision was never reversed in Constantinople, and as it was an anti-Synodal decision, it never had legitimacy. 
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #67 on: November 21, 2012, 09:13:06 PM »

The question arises: was declaring his action null and void legally binding?

I mean if a company takes a large loan and it's CEO is later removed from the office does that mean that bank cancels the loan? I don't think it works that way.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #68 on: November 21, 2012, 09:18:10 PM »

Moreover, the EP labels his deposition as "unfair": http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en&id=184
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #69 on: November 21, 2012, 09:40:18 PM »

The question arises: was declaring his action null and void legally binding?

I mean if a company takes a large loan and it's CEO is later removed from the office does that mean that bank cancels the loan? I don't think it works that way.

A loan is a loan, not a buy
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2012, 09:42:35 PM »

Moreover, the EP labels his deposition as "unfair": http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en&id=184

Wrong Patriarch Michal.  This is Dionysios III.  We are talking about Dionysios IV (Muslimes)
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2012, 09:49:44 PM »

Now I know we have the evil's of an independent church i.e. National church, yet the Serbs, Romanians, Georgians, and Bulgarians have their own National Church. Why are they allowed but the EP and Moscow each argue that Ukraine is their territory. Didn't Serbia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Romania at one time be under either the EP or Moscow?

That is my thinking to.  If all those territories get autocephally and even Patriarchates, why not Ukraine?  Double standard.

Yes but Constantinople only argues it for the same reason why it argued with Poland, so that it can release it to autocephaly. 
Like Poland, Constantinople has no power to release it to autocephaly.

Nonsense.
 
Just the facts, Father.
Look at the Tomos for Moscow.

There is no Tomos of Autocephaly for Moscow.  Her Mother Church apostacized, and she refused to follow to go off the cliff.
Moscow is obliged to recognize Constantinople as "his head and protos"
Give us all what you are referring to, Father.

There was a tomos (synodal charter) or else Moscow could not even be autocephalous let alone a patriarchate.
In the right circumstances, you can do both without a Tomos, Father.  Constantinople only has a canon (or two) and a Novella.  Bulgaria restored its Patriarchate, for instance, without a Tomos in 1953: it didn't need one.

I will give you some of what I was talking about (the rest being reserved for when I need them):
Rest of what for what need?

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/48694.htm

It also approved the patriarchal chrysobullon and resolved that Iov should enjoy ‘the honour and mention’ after the Patriarch of Jerusalem, while regarding the Patriarch of Constantinople as ‘his head and the first one’ just as the rest patriarchs did.
Alexandria did not seek Constantinople's approval to extend its jurisdiction over "All of Africa," nor did Antioch when it granted Autocephaly to its daughter Georgia and Abkhazia, and the re-establishment of the autocephaly of Jerusalem was agreed on by it and Antioch without Constantinople's input.  And New Rome did not seek Old Rome's approval in extending the former's jurisdiction into the jurisdiction of the latter.  I might be head of the family after my father's decease as the first born one, but that doesn't prevent my brothers from running their homes.
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2012, 10:01:35 PM »

Now I know we have the evil's of an independent church i.e. National church, yet the Serbs, Romanians, Georgians, and Bulgarians have their own National Church. Why are they allowed but the EP and Moscow each argue that Ukraine is their territory. Didn't Serbia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Romania at one time be under either the EP or Moscow?

That is my thinking to.  If all those territories get autocephally and even Patriarchates, why not Ukraine?  Double standard.

Yes but Constantinople only argues it for the same reason why it argued with Poland, so that it can release it to autocephaly. 
Like Poland, Constantinople has no power to release it to autocephaly.

Nonsense.
 
Just the facts, Father.
Look at the Tomos for Moscow.

There is no Tomos of Autocephaly for Moscow.  Her Mother Church apostacized, and she refused to follow to go off the cliff.
Moscow is obliged to recognize Constantinople as "his head and protos"
Give us all what you are referring to, Father.

There was a tomos (synodal charter) or else Moscow could not even be autocephalous let alone a patriarchate.
In the right circumstances, you can do both without a Tomos, Father.  Constantinople only has a canon (or two) and a Novella.  Bulgaria restored its Patriarchate, for instance, without a Tomos in 1953: it didn't need one.

I will give you some of what I was talking about (the rest being reserved for when I need them):
Rest of what for what need?

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/48694.htm

It also approved the patriarchal chrysobullon and resolved that Iov should enjoy ‘the honour and mention’ after the Patriarch of Jerusalem, while regarding the Patriarch of Constantinople as ‘his head and the first one’ just as the rest patriarchs did.
Alexandria did not seek Constantinople's approval to extend its jurisdiction over "All of Africa," nor did Antioch when it granted Autocephaly to its daughter Georgia and Abkhazia, and the re-establishment of the autocephaly of Jerusalem was agreed on by it and Antioch without Constantinople's input.  And New Rome did not seek Old Rome's approval in extending the former's jurisdiction into the jurisdiction of the latter.  I might be head of the family after my father's decease as the first born one, but that doesn't prevent my brothers from running their homes.

The point is that Moscow had one, but as to your latter points, Constantinople has far more than that.  It has the thorough Acts of the 4th-7th Councils.  Bulgaria restored its Patriarchate without one, but only because it had an initial one, namely the Tomos granted at the council of Lampsakos.  Alexandria was well within its canonical rights regarding vacated episcopates after 30 years.  Georgia was approved by Constantinople in Constantinople.  So what are you going on about?   
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #73 on: November 21, 2012, 10:03:13 PM »

Moreover, the EP labels his deposition as "unfair": http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en&id=184

Wrong Patriarch Michal.  This is Dionysios III.  We are talking about Dionysios IV (Muslimes)

Alt. spelling Mouselimes

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #74 on: November 21, 2012, 10:03:47 PM »

This was not recognized by the mother Church, and so is of no avail as it was a political treaty, not an ecclesiastical recognition.

AFAIR I've read the Constantinople recognized it then. I have the book in Białystok ("Diecezja Białoruska w XVII I XVIII wieku", Mironowicz Antoni) so I'll give some details on the weekend.

Ukrainian wikipedia also confirms that: http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD_%28%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA-%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%29

"У травні 1686 московський уряд з допомогою підкупу добився згоди на визнання цього акту Константинопольським Патріархом Діонісієм."

"At May 1686 Muscovite authorities with bribery obtained approval of this act from Patriarch Dionisius of Constantinople."

But this was rescinded by the Synod as an illegal act.  Dionysius was deposed and Patriarch James restored and in 1687 the entire Holy Synod anathematized "Dionysios the Muslim-minded" (or "Muslimes" i.e. "the Muslim") and declared his action null and void.  This decision was never reversed in Constantinople, and as it was an anti-Synodal decision, it never had legitimacy. 
It was as legitimate as anything else going on in Constantinople at the time, where patriarchs were deposed and rotated on a cyclical basis. EP Dionysios IV was restored in 1693.

Under Canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Act was canonical and warranted.
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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #75 on: November 21, 2012, 10:21:15 PM »

The point is that Moscow had one

No, it did not. It did receive a Tomos for its elevation to Patriarchate-the same package deal as how Kiev and the rest of Ukraine were translated back to Constantinople.
but as to your latter points, Constantinople has far more than that.  It has the thorough Acts of the 4th-7th Councils.
 
Moscow as that as precedent: the PoM is doing no more than the EP did when he had to regard the Pope of Old Rome as ‘his head and the first one.’

Bulgaria restored its Patriarchate without one

That is what I said, Father.
but only because it had an initial one, namely the Tomos granted at the council of Lampsakos.
No, three centuries earlier, 919-927.
Alexandria was well within its canonical rights regarding vacated episcopates after 30 years.
Not according to the former Phanar spokeman, the present Met. of Bursa.
Georgia was approved by Constantinople in Constantinople.
Over 15 centuries later.  The Georgians didn't hold their breath, and when Constantinople's approval came, the Catholicos made sure it was acknowledgment, not a grant, of autocephaly.
So what are you going on about?
   
"Ecumenical Patriarch" isn't Greek for "Supreme Pontiff."
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #76 on: November 21, 2012, 10:22:35 PM »

This was not recognized by the mother Church, and so is of no avail as it was a political treaty, not an ecclesiastical recognition.

AFAIR I've read the Constantinople recognized it then. I have the book in Białystok ("Diecezja Białoruska w XVII I XVIII wieku", Mironowicz Antoni) so I'll give some details on the weekend.

Ukrainian wikipedia also confirms that: http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD_%28%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA-%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%29

"У травні 1686 московський уряд з допомогою підкупу добився згоди на визнання цього акту Константинопольським Патріархом Діонісієм."

"At May 1686 Muscovite authorities with bribery obtained approval of this act from Patriarch Dionisius of Constantinople."

But this was rescinded by the Synod as an illegal act.  Dionysius was deposed and Patriarch James restored and in 1687 the entire Holy Synod anathematized "Dionysios the Muslim-minded" (or "Muslimes" i.e. "the Muslim") and declared his action null and void.  This decision was never reversed in Constantinople, and as it was an anti-Synodal decision, it never had legitimacy. 
It was as legitimate as anything else going on in Constantinople at the time, where patriarchs were deposed and rotated on a cyclical basis. EP Dionysios IV was restored in 1693.

Under Canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Act was canonical and warranted.

His restoration in 1693 was not synodical, and thus not canonical, thus leading to his deposition and the return of Kallinikos II in 1694
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #77 on: November 21, 2012, 10:32:48 PM »

^Sorry, that is a bit off point.  The point is that Moscow was given territory over the northern lands (not Kyivan Rus).  Now de facto, we know that under Peter the Great, Constantinople temporarily gave jurisdicion to St. Petersburg over Ukraine.

The final take over by the Church of Moscow of the Church in Rzeczpospolita was agreed on Grzymułtowski's Treaty in 1686 (during the rule of Metropolitan Gedeon Chetvertynsky). Several decades before Peter the Great. And nothing about temporarily thing there.

This was not recognized by the mother Church, and so is of no avail as it was a political treaty, not an ecclesiastical recognition. 

"By signing this treaty, Russia became a member of the anti-Turkish coalition, which comprised Poland, the Holy Roman Empire and Venice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Peace_Treaty_of_1686

Constantinople only recognized, and that temporarily, the ecclesiastical oversight by the ROC after Peter the Great (much like today's "new lands" by the Church of Greece). 

Ukraine belongs to its mother, Constantinople, who wishes to free her.  Moscow is the daughter of Kyiv, not its mother. 
Only in the sense that Heraclea is the Mother of Constantinople, and not even that: the see of Heraclea wasn't translated to Constantinople, like Kiev went to Moscow.

Constantinople's daughter Kiev grew up in Moscow, and her daughter Kiev can't get grandma Constantinople to bypass the line of succession.

As for the wishes to "free her," Grandma Tsarigrad took Moscow's daughters Estonia and Finland, and adopted, not emancipated, them.

And per c. 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, civil treaties have ecclesiastical consequences.
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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #78 on: November 21, 2012, 10:34:15 PM »

This was not recognized by the mother Church, and so is of no avail as it was a political treaty, not an ecclesiastical recognition.

AFAIR I've read the Constantinople recognized it then. I have the book in Białystok ("Diecezja Białoruska w XVII I XVIII wieku", Mironowicz Antoni) so I'll give some details on the weekend.

Ukrainian wikipedia also confirms that: http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD_%28%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA-%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%29

"У травні 1686 московський уряд з допомогою підкупу добився згоди на визнання цього акту Константинопольським Патріархом Діонісієм."

"At May 1686 Muscovite authorities with bribery obtained approval of this act from Patriarch Dionisius of Constantinople."

But this was rescinded by the Synod as an illegal act.  Dionysius was deposed and Patriarch James restored and in 1687 the entire Holy Synod anathematized "Dionysios the Muslim-minded" (or "Muslimes" i.e. "the Muslim") and declared his action null and void.  This decision was never reversed in Constantinople, and as it was an anti-Synodal decision, it never had legitimacy. 
It was as legitimate as anything else going on in Constantinople at the time, where patriarchs were deposed and rotated on a cyclical basis. EP Dionysios IV was restored in 1693.

Under Canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Act was canonical and warranted.

His restoration in 1693 was not synodical, and thus not canonical, thus leading to his deposition and the return of Kallinikos II in 1694
It was as canonical as anything else going on in Constantinople at the time, including the return of EP Kallinikos II.
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #79 on: November 21, 2012, 10:37:31 PM »

The point is that Moscow had one

No, it did not. It did receive a Tomos for its elevation to Patriarchate-the same package deal as how Kiev and the rest of Ukraine were translated back to Constantinople.
but as to your latter points, Constantinople has far more than that.  It has the thorough Acts of the 4th-7th Councils.
 
Moscow as that as precedent: the PoM is doing no more than the EP did when he had to regard the Pope of Old Rome as ‘his head and the first one.’

Bulgaria restored its Patriarchate without one

That is what I said, Father.
but only because it had an initial one, namely the Tomos granted at the council of Lampsakos.
No, three centuries earlier, 919-927.
Alexandria was well within its canonical rights regarding vacated episcopates after 30 years.
Not according to the former Phanar spokeman, the present Met. of Bursa.
Georgia was approved by Constantinople in Constantinople.
Over 15 centuries later.  The Georgians didn't hold their breath, and when Constantinople's approval came, the Catholicos made sure it was acknowledgment, not a grant, of autocephaly.
So what are you going on about?
   
"Ecumenical Patriarch" isn't Greek for "Supreme Pontiff."


Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.  East Georgia's Autocephaly was recognized by Constantinople in its resident synod of 466 in the same year it was declared by Antioch.  West Georgia (Abkhazia)'s Autocephaly was granted by Constantinople in 863.  The two katholicates existed side by side until the reunification of the kingdom in 1010, and then were split thereafter upon its dissolution, and eventually reintegrated into Moscow.    
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #80 on: November 21, 2012, 10:47:11 PM »

^Sorry, that is a bit off point.  The point is that Moscow was given territory over the northern lands (not Kyivan Rus).  Now de facto, we know that under Peter the Great, Constantinople temporarily gave jurisdicion to St. Petersburg over Ukraine.

The final take over by the Church of Moscow of the Church in Rzeczpospolita was agreed on Grzymułtowski's Treaty in 1686 (during the rule of Metropolitan Gedeon Chetvertynsky). Several decades before Peter the Great. And nothing about temporarily thing there.

This was not recognized by the mother Church, and so is of no avail as it was a political treaty, not an ecclesiastical recognition. 

"By signing this treaty, Russia became a member of the anti-Turkish coalition, which comprised Poland, the Holy Roman Empire and Venice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Peace_Treaty_of_1686

Constantinople only recognized, and that temporarily, the ecclesiastical oversight by the ROC after Peter the Great (much like today's "new lands" by the Church of Greece). 

Ukraine belongs to its mother, Constantinople, who wishes to free her.  Moscow is the daughter of Kyiv, not its mother. 
Only in the sense that Heraclea is the Mother of Constantinople, and not even that: the see of Heraclea wasn't translated to Constantinople, like Kiev went to Moscow.

Constantinople's daughter Kiev grew up in Moscow, and her daughter Kiev can't get grandma Constantinople to bypass the line of succession.

As for the wishes to "free her," Grandma Tsarigrad took Moscow's daughters Estonia and Finland, and adopted, not emancipated, them.

And per c. 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, civil treaties have ecclesiastical consequences.

How can a daughter grow up to be another person than the daughter?  That is absurd. 

The mother Church of Constantinople did what Finland and Estonia asked her to do. 

As for Canon 17, it gives the final word to Constantinople.  St. Photius had to clarify the canon to state that a change had to be confirmed synodically.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #81 on: November 21, 2012, 10:48:21 PM »

^and, BTW, whether you, Isa, recognize the actions of Constantinople regarding Poland or not, the one thing you must recognize is that the only purpose for which it reclaimed jurisdiction was to free her. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #82 on: November 21, 2012, 11:08:22 PM »

The point is that Moscow had one

No, it did not. It did receive a Tomos for its elevation to Patriarchate-the same package deal as how Kiev and the rest of Ukraine were translated back to Constantinople.
but as to your latter points, Constantinople has far more than that.  It has the thorough Acts of the 4th-7th Councils.
 
Moscow as that as precedent: the PoM is doing no more than the EP did when he had to regard the Pope of Old Rome as ‘his head and the first one.’

Bulgaria restored its Patriarchate without one

That is what I said, Father.
but only because it had an initial one, namely the Tomos granted at the council of Lampsakos.
No, three centuries earlier, 919-927.
Alexandria was well within its canonical rights regarding vacated episcopates after 30 years.
Not according to the former Phanar spokeman, the present Met. of Bursa.
Georgia was approved by Constantinople in Constantinople.
Over 15 centuries later.  The Georgians didn't hold their breath, and when Constantinople's approval came, the Catholicos made sure it was acknowledgment, not a grant, of autocephaly.
So what are you going on about?
   
"Ecumenical Patriarch" isn't Greek for "Supreme Pontiff."


Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.  East Georgia's Autocephaly was recognized by Constantinople in its resident synod of 466 in the same year it was declared by Antioch.
Do you have some documentation of that?  As Catholiocs Ilia seems to not have known that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d8CyHw8Fbs&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THQYmpWNIwM

I would be interested in what documentation you have, Father, on this as well:
West Georgia (Abkhazia)'s Autocephaly was granted by Constantinople in 863.  The two katholicates existed side by side until the reunification of the kingdom in 1010, and then were split thereafter upon its dissolution, and eventually reintegrated into Moscow.    
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #83 on: November 21, 2012, 11:29:37 PM »

The point is that Moscow had one

No, it did not. It did receive a Tomos for its elevation to Patriarchate-the same package deal as how Kiev and the rest of Ukraine were translated back to Constantinople.
but as to your latter points, Constantinople has far more than that.  It has the thorough Acts of the 4th-7th Councils.
 
Moscow as that as precedent: the PoM is doing no more than the EP did when he had to regard the Pope of Old Rome as ‘his head and the first one.’

Bulgaria restored its Patriarchate without one

That is what I said, Father.
but only because it had an initial one, namely the Tomos granted at the council of Lampsakos.
No, three centuries earlier, 919-927.
Alexandria was well within its canonical rights regarding vacated episcopates after 30 years.
Not according to the former Phanar spokeman, the present Met. of Bursa.
Georgia was approved by Constantinople in Constantinople.
Over 15 centuries later.  The Georgians didn't hold their breath, and when Constantinople's approval came, the Catholicos made sure it was acknowledgment, not a grant, of autocephaly.
So what are you going on about?
   
"Ecumenical Patriarch" isn't Greek for "Supreme Pontiff."


Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.  East Georgia's Autocephaly was recognized by Constantinople in its resident synod of 466 in the same year it was declared by Antioch.
Do you have some documentation of that?  As Catholiocs Ilia seems to not have known that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d8CyHw8Fbs&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THQYmpWNIwM

I would be interested in what documentation you have, Father, on this as well:
West Georgia (Abkhazia)'s Autocephaly was granted by Constantinople in 863.  The two katholicates existed side by side until the reunification of the kingdom in 1010, and then were split thereafter upon its dissolution, and eventually reintegrated into Moscow.    

I have plenty of documentation.  Here for example, from the Patriarchate of Georgia website:

"From early 20’s of IV century the Georgian Church was under jurisdiction of Antiochus Autocephaly Cathedral. Upon King Vakhtang Gorgasali’s petition and intercessions by Byzantine Emperor and Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Antioch granted autocephaly to Kartli Church and Bishop of Mtskheta was granted the rank of Catholicos in 60-70’s of V century. Church of Western Georgia (Abkhazia) was still under Patriarchate of Constantinople. In IX century there was appointed Catholicos there. In early XI century during the reuniting process of Georgian Kingdom, Catholicos of Mtskheta (Kartli) was granted a rank of Patriarch. Since then the supreme position of the Georgian Church had been titled Catholicos Patriarch of Mtskheta and All Georgia. Catholicos of Western Georgia (Abkhazia or Pitsunda) always respected and recognized priority of Patriarch of Mtskheta."

http://patriarchate.ge/_en/?action=istoria


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #84 on: November 21, 2012, 11:30:05 PM »

^and, BTW, whether you, Isa, recognize the actions of Constantinople regarding Poland or not, the one thing you must recognize is that the only purpose for which it reclaimed jurisdiction was to free her. 
Oh?  The Phanar is free to free the New Lands any time.

I'm afraid not, Father.  St. John Maximovich diagnosed the behavior of the Phanar quite correctly.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/decline.aspx

Its antics in the New World, its campaign to keep Antioch in its subjugation, its oppression of the Albanians and the Bulgarians, its interference in Czechoslovakia and Romania, its conspiring with the Phanariots in Jerusalem against its Patriarchate...liberation was the last thing on the ethnarchs' mind.
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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,810



« Reply #85 on: November 21, 2012, 11:33:18 PM »



I have plenty of documentation.  Here for example, from the Patriarchate of Georgia website:

"From early 20’s of IV century the Georgian Church was under jurisdiction of Antiochus Autocephaly Cathedral. Upon King Vakhtang Gorgasali’s petition and intercessions by Byzantine Emperor and Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Antioch granted autocephaly to Kartli Church and Bishop of Mtskheta was granted the rank of Catholicos in 60-70’s of V century. Church of Western Georgia (Abkhazia) was still under Patriarchate of Constantinople. In IX century there was appointed Catholicos there. In early XI century during the reuniting process of Georgian Kingdom, Catholicos of Mtskheta (Kartli) was granted a rank of Patriarch. Since then the supreme position of the Georgian Church had been titled Catholicos Patriarch of Mtskheta and All Georgia. Catholicos of Western Georgia (Abkhazia or Pitsunda) always respected and recognized priority of Patriarch of Mtskheta."

http://patriarchate.ge/_en/?action=istoria
You do realize, Father, that the facts have been spun here, in favor of Georgia's claims over Abkhazia, no?
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #86 on: November 21, 2012, 11:54:07 PM »

I think we can agree that mostly Constantinople gave or supported the autocephaly of the Churches that Russia claimed and Russia did that for Constantinople. Such a tradition.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,376


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #87 on: November 30, 2012, 07:27:45 PM »

Reply from Patriarch Bartholomew to Patriarch Alexis
July 11, 1995, Prot. No. 937
Your Beatitude and Most Holy ALEXIY, Patriarch of Moscow and all
Russia, our Modesty's most beloved and dear brotherin Christ God and
concelebrant, embracing Your venerable Beatitude fraternally in the
Lord, we greet You exuberantly.
We received Your Beloved and distinguished Beatitude's
lengthy letter dated May 18, 1995, Protocol No. 1308, and read it with
due care during a session of our Holy and Sacred Synod. The tone of
this letter and its contents, which do not in the le.ast correspond to the
presumed kindred and by definition good relations between our two
sister Churches, naturally stirred in all of us here - and certainly in all
ofthe other Orthodox who received it - not only astonishment, but also
very deep bitterness and even grave disappointment.


to read the rest of this article please go here:  http://www.bruoc.ca/images/easternchurchesjournal-v2-n3%20protocol%20937.pdf  - Serb1389
Was there a point in there somewhere (btw source?)?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #88 on: November 30, 2012, 08:52:22 PM »

I think we can agree that mostly Constantinople gave or supported the autocephaly of the Churches that Russia claimed and Russia did that for Constantinople. Such a tradition.

Without our traditions our lives would be as shakey as a fiddler on the roof.  "And among ourselves, we get along perfectly well..." (5.06)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

« Last Edit: November 30, 2012, 08:54:23 PM by Father H » Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   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 0.214 seconds with 71 queries.