Author Topic: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine  (Read 3809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cossack 316

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 288
The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« on: October 01, 2018, 12:54:17 PM »
Courtesy of the EP site

"In the context of the study undertaken by the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the granting of the ecclesiastical status of autocephaly to Ukraine, various opinions have been formulated—even by representatives of official institutions—expressing misgiving about the canonical prerogative of the Church of Constantinople to proceed with such an act. The principal argument proposed in this regard is that Ukraine “constitutes the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Moscow” and that, consequently, such an act on the part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate would comprise an “intervention” into a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Therefore, it has been deemed necessary for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to remind everyone of the historical and canonical truth with regard to the relationship of the Church of Constantinople to the Church of Ukraine as derived from the surviving formal documents, which unfortunately are either disregarded or else deliberately obscured for apparent reasons."

https://www.goarch.org/-/the-ecumenical-throne-and-the-church-of-ukraine

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2018, 01:41:22 PM »
Courtesy of the EP site

"In the context of the study undertaken by the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the granting of the ecclesiastical status of autocephaly to Ukraine, various opinions have been formulated—even by representatives of official institutions—expressing misgiving about the canonical prerogative of the Church of Constantinople to proceed with such an act. The principal argument proposed in this regard is that Ukraine “constitutes the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Moscow” and that, consequently, such an act on the part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate would comprise an “intervention” into a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Therefore, it has been deemed necessary for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to remind everyone of the historical and canonical truth with regard to the relationship of the Church of Constantinople to the Church of Ukraine as derived from the surviving formal documents, which unfortunately are either disregarded or else deliberately obscured for apparent reasons."

https://www.goarch.org/-/the-ecumenical-throne-and-the-church-of-ukraine

Even if these lies were true. There is a statute of limitations for a bishop to regain his territory. And it isn't 300 years. AFAIK it is only 30 and then after that he has no claim whatsoever.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,635
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2018, 01:46:28 PM »
Even if these lies were true. There is a statute of limitations for a bishop to regain his territory. And it isn't 300 years. AFAIK it is only 30 and then after that he has no claim whatsoever.

Source?
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2018, 02:00:36 PM »
Mor I will have to do some digging.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2018, 05:19:42 PM »
Mor,

I believe that this came up when the Antiochian Bishops went from Diocesan to Auxiliaries. So a long time ago. I do not recall what website discussed it. I have been looking for it. I am not certain but it may be a reference to the 17th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council. I also found other canons that i thought were interesting though perhaps unrelated. I include them here so that  I do not have to do extensive research again in the future.

Canons:
As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more. But if during a period of thirty years there has arisen or should arisesome dispute concerning them, those claiming to have been unjustly treated shall be permitted to complain to the Synod of the province. But if anyone has been unjustlytreated by his own Metropolitan, let him complain to the Exarch of the diocese, or let him have his case tried before the throne of Constantinople, according as he maychoose. If, on the other hand, any city has been rebuilt by imperial authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed.

Canon 17 4th Ecumenical Council

It is positively not permitted to ordain a bishop in a village or petty town, for which even one single presbyter is sufficient (for there is no necessity to ordain a bishop there) lest the name and authority of bishop should be made of small account, but the bishops of the province ought, as before said, to ordain bishops in those cities in which there were bishops previously; and if a city should be found with a population so large as to be thought worthy of an episcopal see, let it receive one.

Canon 6 Council of Sardica

You remember that in former times our fathers decreed that if a layman were staying in a city and should not come to divine worship for three [successive] Sundays [that is], for three [full] weeks, he should be repelled from communion. If then this has been decreed in the case of laymen, it is neither needful, nor fitting, nor yet even expedient that a bishop, unless he has some grave necessity or difficult business, should be very long absent from his own church and distress the people committed to him.

Canon 11 Council of Sardica

Bishop Hosius said: Be this also the pleasure of all. If any deacon or presbyter or any of the clergy be excommunicated and take refuge with another bishop who knows him and who is aware that he has been removed from communion by his own bishop, [that other bishop] must not offend against his brother bishop by admitting him to communion. And if any dare to do this, let him know that he must present himself before an assembly of bishops and give account.
All the bishops said: This decision will assure peace at all times and preserve the concord of all.
Canon 13 Council of Sardica

I will continue to see if I can find the exact source of my recollection.


Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,883
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2018, 01:02:43 AM »
Not seeing the 30 years thing.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2018, 02:03:51 AM »
Mor,

I believe that this came up when the Antiochian Bishops went from Diocesan to Auxiliaries. So a long time ago. I do not recall what website discussed it. I have been looking for it. I am not certain but it may be a reference to the 17th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council. I also found other canons that i thought were interesting though perhaps unrelated. I include them here so that  I do not have to do extensive research again in the future.

Canons:
As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more. But if during a period of thirty years there has arisen or should arisesome dispute concerning them, those claiming to have been unjustly treated shall be permitted to complain to the Synod of the province. But if anyone has been unjustlytreated by his own Metropolitan, let him complain to the Exarch of the diocese, or let him have his case tried before the throne of Constantinople, according as he maychoose. If, on the other hand, any city has been rebuilt by imperial authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed.

Canon 17 4th Ecumenical Council

I can't say that I understand this one very well. But it seems like it's saying that thirty years is the deadline to file a complaint (either to your Metropolitan, or about your Metropolitan to the EP), not for a bishop to retain his diocese. It doesn't really say anything about what happens to bishops leaving their diocese.

It is positively not permitted to ordain a bishop in a village or petty town, for which even one single presbyter is sufficient (for there is no necessity to ordain a bishop there) lest the name and authority of bishop should be made of small account, but the bishops of the province ought, as before said, to ordain bishops in those cities in which there were bishops previously; and if a city should be found with a population so large as to be thought worthy of an episcopal see, let it receive one.

Canon 6 Council of Sardica

So your argument is that because of the Mongol raids, Kyiv had become too small to sustain a bishop? That would be why the EP sent a bishop to Halych instead, right. I agree that it's hypocrisy on the EP's part to now pretend that they never authorized (or at least tacitly approved) the move to Moscow, but I'm not sure that you can say just from this that they completely gave up their Ukrainian claims.

You remember that in former times our fathers decreed that if a layman were staying in a city and should not come to divine worship for three [successive] Sundays [that is], for three [full] weeks, he should be repelled from communion. If then this has been decreed in the case of laymen, it is neither needful, nor fitting, nor yet even expedient that a bishop, unless he has some grave necessity or difficult business, should be very long absent from his own church and distress the people committed to him.

Canon 11 Council of Sardica

I don't think this is relevant.

Bishop Hosius said: Be this also the pleasure of all. If any deacon or presbyter or any of the clergy be excommunicated and take refuge with another bishop who knows him and who is aware that he has been removed from communion by his own bishop, [that other bishop] must not offend against his brother bishop by admitting him to communion. And if any dare to do this, let him know that he must present himself before an assembly of bishops and give account.
All the bishops said: This decision will assure peace at all times and preserve the concord of all.
Canon 13 Council of Sardica

I will continue to see if I can find the exact source of my recollection.

Not sure how this one applies, either.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2018, 08:09:23 AM »
Not seeing the 30 years thing.

In my original post I believe i said AFAIK. I could be wrong. It was a long time ago. while this canon may not be the one in question it is interesting that it does mention 30 years. As I told Mor I will continue my search.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2018, 08:21:22 AM »
Mor,

I believe that this came up when the Antiochian Bishops went from Diocesan to Auxiliaries. So a long time ago. I do not recall what website discussed it. I have been looking for it. I am not certain but it may be a reference to the 17th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council. I also found other canons that i thought were interesting though perhaps unrelated. I include them here so that  I do not have to do extensive research again in the future.

Canons:
As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more. But if during a period of thirty years there has arisen or should arisesome dispute concerning them, those claiming to have been unjustly treated shall be permitted to complain to the Synod of the province. But if anyone has been unjustlytreated by his own Metropolitan, let him complain to the Exarch of the diocese, or let him have his case tried before the throne of Constantinople, according as he maychoose. If, on the other hand, any city has been rebuilt by imperial authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed.

Canon 17 4th Ecumenical Council

I can't say that I understand this one very well. But it seems like it's saying that thirty years is the deadline to file a complaint (either to your Metropolitan, or about your Metropolitan to the EP), not for a bishop to retain his diocese. It doesn't really say anything about what happens to bishops leaving their diocese.

"they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more." Ukraine has been the undisputed possession of the MP for hundreds of years.

It is positively not permitted to ordain a bishop in a village or petty town, for which even one single presbyter is sufficient (for there is no necessity to ordain a bishop there) lest the name and authority of bishop should be made of small account, but the bishops of the province ought, as before said, to ordain bishops in those cities in which there were bishops previously; and if a city should be found with a population so large as to be thought worthy of an episcopal see, let it receive one.

Canon 6 Council of Sardica

So your argument is that because of the Mongol raids, Kyiv had become too small to sustain a bishop? That would be why the EP sent a bishop to Halych instead, right. I agree that it's hypocrisy on the EP's part to now pretend that they never authorized (or at least tacitly approved) the move to Moscow, but I'm not sure that you can say just from this that they completely gave up their Ukrainian claims.

No this is unrelated to this topic. But I feel it may be relevant to the many titular sees or small churches created by the EP. I just wanted an easy way to be able to reference it later. My apoligies if that was confusing.


You remember that in former times our fathers decreed that if a layman were staying in a city and should not come to divine worship for three [successive] Sundays [that is], for three [full] weeks, he should be repelled from communion. If then this has been decreed in the case of laymen, it is neither needful, nor fitting, nor yet even expedient that a bishop, unless he has some grave necessity or difficult business, should be very long absent from his own church and distress the people committed to him.

Canon 11 Council of Sardica

I don't think this is relevant. I kind of think it is. The EP claims now that Ukraine is his canonical territory. Where has he been for all this time? That would make him an unfit parent.

Bishop Hosius said: Be this also the pleasure of all. If any deacon or presbyter or any of the clergy be excommunicated and take refuge with another bishop who knows him and who is aware that he has been removed from communion by his own bishop, [that other bishop] must not offend against his brother bishop by admitting him to communion. And if any dare to do this, let him know that he must present himself before an assembly of bishops and give account.
All the bishops said: This decision will assure peace at all times and preserve the concord of all.
Canon 13 Council of Sardica

I will continue to see if I can find the exact source of my recollection.

Not sure how this one applies, either.


Philaret has been excommunicated. The EP is discussing admitting him to communion yes?
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,883
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2018, 08:45:19 AM »
Not seeing the 30 years thing.

In my original post I believe i said AFAIK. I could be wrong. It was a long time ago. while this canon may not be the one in question it is interesting that it does mention 30 years. As I told Mor I will continue my search.

Thank you.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Arzelle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Seeking
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2018, 09:06:15 AM »
Mor,

I believe that this came up when the Antiochian Bishops went from Diocesan to Auxiliaries. So a long time ago. I do not recall what website discussed it. I have been looking for it. I am not certain but it may be a reference to the 17th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council. I also found other canons that i thought were interesting though perhaps unrelated. I include them here so that  I do not have to do extensive research again in the future.

Canons:
As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more. But if during a period of thirty years there has arisen or should arisesome dispute concerning them, those claiming to have been unjustly treated shall be permitted to complain to the Synod of the province. But if anyone has been unjustlytreated by his own Metropolitan, let him complain to the Exarch of the diocese, or let him have his case tried before the throne of Constantinople, according as he maychoose. If, on the other hand, any city has been rebuilt by imperial authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed.

Canon 17 4th Ecumenical Council

I can't say that I understand this one very well. But it seems like it's saying that thirty years is the deadline to file a complaint (either to your Metropolitan, or about your Metropolitan to the EP), not for a bishop to retain his diocese. It doesn't really say anything about what happens to bishops leaving their diocese.

"they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more." Ukraine has been the undisputed possession of the MP for hundreds of years.

It is positively not permitted to ordain a bishop in a village or petty town, for which even one single presbyter is sufficient (for there is no necessity to ordain a bishop there) lest the name and authority of bishop should be made of small account, but the bishops of the province ought, as before said, to ordain bishops in those cities in which there were bishops previously; and if a city should be found with a population so large as to be thought worthy of an episcopal see, let it receive one.

Canon 6 Council of Sardica

So your argument is that because of the Mongol raids, Kyiv had become too small to sustain a bishop? That would be why the EP sent a bishop to Halych instead, right. I agree that it's hypocrisy on the EP's part to now pretend that they never authorized (or at least tacitly approved) the move to Moscow, but I'm not sure that you can say just from this that they completely gave up their Ukrainian claims.

No this is unrelated to this topic. But I feel it may be relevant to the many titular sees or small churches created by the EP. I just wanted an easy way to be able to reference it later. My apoligies if that was confusing.


You remember that in former times our fathers decreed that if a layman were staying in a city and should not come to divine worship for three [successive] Sundays [that is], for three [full] weeks, he should be repelled from communion. If then this has been decreed in the case of laymen, it is neither needful, nor fitting, nor yet even expedient that a bishop, unless he has some grave necessity or difficult business, should be very long absent from his own church and distress the people committed to him.

Canon 11 Council of Sardica

I don't think this is relevant. I kind of think it is. The EP claims now that Ukraine is his canonical territory. Where has he been for all this time? That would make him an unfit parent.

Bishop Hosius said: Be this also the pleasure of all. If any deacon or presbyter or any of the clergy be excommunicated and take refuge with another bishop who knows him and who is aware that he has been removed from communion by his own bishop, [that other bishop] must not offend against his brother bishop by admitting him to communion. And if any dare to do this, let him know that he must present himself before an assembly of bishops and give account.
All the bishops said: This decision will assure peace at all times and preserve the concord of all.
Canon 13 Council of Sardica

I will continue to see if I can find the exact source of my recollection.

Not sure how this one applies, either.


Philaret has been excommunicated. The EP is discussing admitting him to communion yes?


Is he though? I keep hearing that from anti-EP sources, but I don't recall the EP ever announcing that.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2018, 09:13:16 AM »
It would seem to be a given since the KP is part of the talks. The question is whether he will be admitted as Patriarch. Archbishop Anthony suggests a "neutral" candidate would become the primate and UAOC's primate has said the same. If so, one wonders if the process will survive Patriarch Filaret's ego.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2018, 10:53:19 AM »
Patriarch Filaret said this yesterday:

The Tomos, the decree of the Ecumenical Patriarch granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, will be received by the new head of the UOC. This was stated in the interview with Channel 5 by the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchate Filaret.

He explained that the Head of the One Local Church would be elected at the Unification Council. And this will happen once Constantinople approves the decision on granting autocephaly to Ukraine.

“The head of the Ukrainian Church will be elected at the Unification Council, and the Unification Council will bring together 41 hierarchs of the Kyiv Patriarchate, 12 bishops of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC), 10 bishops of the UOC (Moscow Patriarchate),” said Patriarch Filaret.


So it looks like Pat. Filaret is willing to accept that he might not be the primate. Also interesting is the participation of 10 UOC bishops... are their names known and are they being punished by their church?
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2018, 11:02:28 AM »
A somewhat interesting comment from the news site:

Quote
This "patriarch" promised the tomos in early October. We're stocking up on popcorn and looking forward to it! In general, in Ukraine, the autocephalous Church would have happened long ago if not for Denisenko. Back in 1992, the ROC was almost ready to grant independence at the next Sobor. But Denisenko, as always, outwitted himself, became too smart and confused in his intrigues. And now again the whole problem is back. Bartholomew understands that Denisenko claims to be the patriarch in the new church. But his personality is so odious and unacceptable for everyone that it became the main brake on the tomos.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2018, 01:18:52 PM »
There are now so many Ukrainian related threads I am unsure which one this story belongs in.

http://orthochristian.com/116161.html
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2018, 01:39:50 PM »
Can't say for sure it's legit, but according to this a transcript of the meeting between Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew was released. It says that Metropolitan Hilarion accused Patriarch Bartholomew of accepting bribes from Poroshenko or the schismatics- if he really said that to his face, that seems quite belligerent and rash.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,635
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2018, 01:53:35 PM »
Can't say for sure it's legit, but according to this a transcript of the meeting between Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew was released. It says that Metropolitan Hilarion accused Patriarch Bartholomew of accepting bribes from Poroshenko or the schismatics- if he really said that to his face, that seems quite belligerent and rash.

So is referring to an Orthodox patriarch and metropolitan as “Kremlin agents”.
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline IreneOlinyk

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 775
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2018, 02:21:50 PM »
It would seem to be a given since the KP is part of the talks. The question is whether he will be admitted as Patriarch. Archbishop Anthony suggests a "neutral" candidate would become the primate and UAOC's primate has said the same. If so, one wonders if the process will survive Patriarch Filaret's ego.

Actually, all we know at the moment is that a Church Council (Sobor) will take place after the Tomos is promulgated by the EP and that a Patriarch will be elected.  We do not know who will make up the council or who the candidates are or even the time frame.
 
The UOC-MP priests, Fathers Kovalenko, Ohulchansk, Hororun, Dudchenko, etc and others have spoken on Facebook and other forums about sobornost (counciliarity) and the need for the involvment of the laity in the church in general.  For example, the Statement of the Initiative Group of the Open Orthodox Network Kyiv, August 23, 2018  speaks of an "... overarching conciliar process  ....the true traditions of the Church of Kyiv ....".  This group is make up primarily of  pirets and laity formerly of the UOC-MP.   https://orthodoxyindialogue.com/2018/08/28/statement-on-ukrainian-autocephaly/


Also see the web conference (only available in Ukrainian) with Archpriest Heorhiy KOVALENKO , UOC-MP held on  3 September 2018 to 10 September 2018.  https://risu.org.ua/ua/index/conferencedetails/49

Fr. Kovalenko states "We need to learn the true collegiality. "  Participants ask questions about reviving the role of the laity in church councils etc.  as practised in other Orthodo churches around the world. 
I wish we had more information available about this "Open Orthodox Network".




Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,947
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2018, 02:39:47 PM »
Mor,

I believe that this came up when the Antiochian Bishops went from Diocesan to Auxiliaries. So a long time ago. I do not recall what website discussed it. I have been looking for it. I am not certain but it may be a reference to the 17th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council. I also found other canons that i thought were interesting though perhaps unrelated. I include them here so that  I do not have to do extensive research again in the future.

Canons:
As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more. But if during a period of thirty years there has arisen or should arisesome dispute concerning them, those claiming to have been unjustly treated shall be permitted to complain to the Synod of the province. But if anyone has been unjustlytreated by his own Metropolitan, let him complain to the Exarch of the diocese, or let him have his case tried before the throne of Constantinople, according as he maychoose. If, on the other hand, any city has been rebuilt by imperial authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed.

Canon 17 4th Ecumenical Council

I can't say that I understand this one very well. But it seems like it's saying that thirty years is the deadline to file a complaint (either to your Metropolitan, or about your Metropolitan to the EP), not for a bishop to retain his diocese. It doesn't really say anything about what happens to bishops leaving their diocese.

"they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more." Ukraine has been the undisputed possession of the MP for hundreds of years.

It is positively not permitted to ordain a bishop in a village or petty town, for which even one single presbyter is sufficient (for there is no necessity to ordain a bishop there) lest the name and authority of bishop should be made of small account, but the bishops of the province ought, as before said, to ordain bishops in those cities in which there were bishops previously; and if a city should be found with a population so large as to be thought worthy of an episcopal see, let it receive one.

Canon 6 Council of Sardica

So your argument is that because of the Mongol raids, Kyiv had become too small to sustain a bishop? That would be why the EP sent a bishop to Halych instead, right. I agree that it's hypocrisy on the EP's part to now pretend that they never authorized (or at least tacitly approved) the move to Moscow, but I'm not sure that you can say just from this that they completely gave up their Ukrainian claims.

No this is unrelated to this topic. But I feel it may be relevant to the many titular sees or small churches created by the EP. I just wanted an easy way to be able to reference it later. My apoligies if that was confusing.


You remember that in former times our fathers decreed that if a layman were staying in a city and should not come to divine worship for three [successive] Sundays [that is], for three [full] weeks, he should be repelled from communion. If then this has been decreed in the case of laymen, it is neither needful, nor fitting, nor yet even expedient that a bishop, unless he has some grave necessity or difficult business, should be very long absent from his own church and distress the people committed to him.

Canon 11 Council of Sardica

I don't think this is relevant. I kind of think it is. The EP claims now that Ukraine is his canonical territory. Where has he been for all this time? That would make him an unfit parent.

Bishop Hosius said: Be this also the pleasure of all. If any deacon or presbyter or any of the clergy be excommunicated and take refuge with another bishop who knows him and who is aware that he has been removed from communion by his own bishop, [that other bishop] must not offend against his brother bishop by admitting him to communion. And if any dare to do this, let him know that he must present himself before an assembly of bishops and give account.
All the bishops said: This decision will assure peace at all times and preserve the concord of all.
Canon 13 Council of Sardica

I will continue to see if I can find the exact source of my recollection.

Not sure how this one applies, either.


Philaret has been excommunicated. The EP is discussing admitting him to communion yes?


No.  The EP is discussing granting a Tomos to Ukraine for an independent Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2018, 03:43:28 PM »
Mor,

I believe that this came up when the Antiochian Bishops went from Diocesan to Auxiliaries. So a long time ago. I do not recall what website discussed it. I have been looking for it. I am not certain but it may be a reference to the 17th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council. I also found other canons that i thought were interesting though perhaps unrelated. I include them here so that  I do not have to do extensive research again in the future.

Canons:
As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more. But if during a period of thirty years there has arisen or should arisesome dispute concerning them, those claiming to have been unjustly treated shall be permitted to complain to the Synod of the province. But if anyone has been unjustlytreated by his own Metropolitan, let him complain to the Exarch of the diocese, or let him have his case tried before the throne of Constantinople, according as he maychoose. If, on the other hand, any city has been rebuilt by imperial authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed.

Canon 17 4th Ecumenical Council

I can't say that I understand this one very well. But it seems like it's saying that thirty years is the deadline to file a complaint (either to your Metropolitan, or about your Metropolitan to the EP), not for a bishop to retain his diocese. It doesn't really say anything about what happens to bishops leaving their diocese.

"they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more." Ukraine has been the undisputed possession of the MP for hundreds of years.

It is positively not permitted to ordain a bishop in a village or petty town, for which even one single presbyter is sufficient (for there is no necessity to ordain a bishop there) lest the name and authority of bishop should be made of small account, but the bishops of the province ought, as before said, to ordain bishops in those cities in which there were bishops previously; and if a city should be found with a population so large as to be thought worthy of an episcopal see, let it receive one.

Canon 6 Council of Sardica

So your argument is that because of the Mongol raids, Kyiv had become too small to sustain a bishop? That would be why the EP sent a bishop to Halych instead, right. I agree that it's hypocrisy on the EP's part to now pretend that they never authorized (or at least tacitly approved) the move to Moscow, but I'm not sure that you can say just from this that they completely gave up their Ukrainian claims.

No this is unrelated to this topic. But I feel it may be relevant to the many titular sees or small churches created by the EP. I just wanted an easy way to be able to reference it later. My apoligies if that was confusing.


You remember that in former times our fathers decreed that if a layman were staying in a city and should not come to divine worship for three [successive] Sundays [that is], for three [full] weeks, he should be repelled from communion. If then this has been decreed in the case of laymen, it is neither needful, nor fitting, nor yet even expedient that a bishop, unless he has some grave necessity or difficult business, should be very long absent from his own church and distress the people committed to him.

Canon 11 Council of Sardica

I don't think this is relevant. I kind of think it is. The EP claims now that Ukraine is his canonical territory. Where has he been for all this time? That would make him an unfit parent.

Bishop Hosius said: Be this also the pleasure of all. If any deacon or presbyter or any of the clergy be excommunicated and take refuge with another bishop who knows him and who is aware that he has been removed from communion by his own bishop, [that other bishop] must not offend against his brother bishop by admitting him to communion. And if any dare to do this, let him know that he must present himself before an assembly of bishops and give account.
All the bishops said: This decision will assure peace at all times and preserve the concord of all.
Canon 13 Council of Sardica

I will continue to see if I can find the exact source of my recollection.

Not sure how this one applies, either.


Philaret has been excommunicated. The EP is discussing admitting him to communion yes?


No.  The EP is discussing granting a Tomos to Ukraine for an independent Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

So their head will remain excommunicated?
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,947
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2018, 03:47:13 PM »

Has somebody leaked the information to you?  How do you know who the "head" will be?
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,878
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2018, 03:47:59 PM »
The EP is discussing granting a Tomos to Ukraine for an independent Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Which sounds like either Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Moscow patriarchate, a non-existing church body or a political entity. Any of these options doesn't make much sense.
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2018, 03:49:01 PM »
The EP is discussing granting a Tomos to Ukraine for an independent Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Which sounds like either Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Moscow patriarchate, a non-existing church body or a political entity. Any of these options doesn't make much sense.

Well, yes, it would basically mean making a new jurisdiction.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,878
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2018, 03:51:41 PM »
The EP is discussing granting a Tomos to Ukraine for an independent Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Which sounds like either Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Moscow patriarchate, a non-existing church body or a political entity. Any of these options doesn't make much sense.

Well, yes, it would basically mean making a new jurisdiction.

Which are not created by issuing a document. They are created by spreading the gospel.
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2018, 04:01:46 PM »
The gospel has already spread to Ukraine... the problem is the church is divided there. "No, the church is not divided there- there is only one canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine".... Yes, yes, yes, but simply repeating this will not change the fact that millions of Christians are outside that body, to a large extent due to social and political forces beyond their control. Simply writing them off as schismatic and standing on one's canonical pedestal, until, some day, they all come on their knees to beg forgiveness, is not a solution to the problem. It's a fantasy. As far as I can tell, that's basically the MP's stance. Which means the EP's intervention is probably the only way out of the impasse.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2018, 04:06:19 PM »
The EP is discussing granting a Tomos to Ukraine for an independent Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Which sounds like either Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Moscow patriarchate, a non-existing church body or a political entity. Any of these options doesn't make much sense.

Well, yes, it would basically mean making a new jurisdiction.

Which are not created by issuing a document. They are created by spreading the gospel.

What about when it's a jurisdiction of people who have already received the Gospel?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2018, 04:29:05 PM »
The gospel has already spread to Ukraine... the problem is the church is divided there. "No, the church is not divided there- there is only one canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine".... Yes, yes, yes, but simply repeating this will not change the fact that millions of Christians are outside that body, to a large extent due to social and political forces beyond their control. Simply writing them off as schismatic and standing on one's canonical pedestal, until, some day, they all come on their knees to beg forgiveness, is not a solution to the problem. It's a fantasy. As far as I can tell, that's basically the MP's stance. Which means the EP's intervention is probably the only way out of the impasse.

I am not sure how that will end the impasse as the EP is a long way away and it is unlikely that the churches that are contiguous to Ukraine would recognize this new church, its clerics, or its mysteries.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2018, 04:34:58 PM »
I believe it could have been done differently. As it is, the EP and the MP are collaborating to make this unification as painful and rancorous as possible.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,878
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2018, 04:41:14 PM »
The gospel has already spread to Ukraine... the problem is the church is divided there. "No, the church is not divided there- there is only one canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine".... Yes, yes, yes, but simply repeating this will not change the fact that millions of Christians are outside that body, to a large extent due to social and political forces beyond their control. Simply writing them off as schismatic and standing on one's canonical pedestal, until, some day, they all come on their knees to beg forgiveness, is not a solution to the problem. It's a fantasy. As far as I can tell, that's basically the MP's stance. Which means the EP's intervention is probably the only way out of the impasse.

MP's policy might be triumfalistic and naiive but the EP's alternative doesn't seem to make much sense either. I wouldn't really like to get into any kind of church politics but AFAIK EP has done nothing with regards to Ukraine during last few centuries or so and then abrubtly claiming that Ukraine has actually been all along part of EP's jurisdiction. Makes just about as much sense as Yoda's grammar.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 04:42:59 PM by Alpo »
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2018, 04:57:20 PM »
The EP's historical justification is weak, though the history is murky enough that if you squint it might make a certain degree of sense. (As for their recent claims about primacy, they are at best a very misguided flight of rhetoric.) The question is whether a strict adherence to canons and territorial allotments is going to lead to a resolution of the problem in Ukraine. As when it was later found that St Andrew the Apostle founded the see of Byzantium, sometimes a little historical... creativity is needed.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 04:57:50 PM by Iconodule »
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2018, 06:07:33 PM »
On a side note, the Assembly of Bishops is meeting. And from the pictures I have seen, there are only about 20 bishops in attendance.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2018, 06:25:35 PM »
On a side note, the Assembly of Bishops is meeting. And from the pictures I have seen, there are only about 20 bishops in attendance.

Perhaps that is a normal amount?
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,883
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2018, 06:28:20 PM »
On a side note, the Assembly of Bishops is meeting. And from the pictures I have seen, there are only about 20 bishops in attendance.

Perhaps that is a normal amount?

No.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2018, 06:40:24 PM »
A lot of bishops were missing and not just MP.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,469
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #34 on: October 02, 2018, 07:05:09 PM »
The EP's historical justification is weak, though the history is murky enough that if you squint it might make a certain degree of sense. (As for their recent claims about primacy, they are at best a very misguided flight of rhetoric.) The question is whether a strict adherence to canons and territorial allotments is going to lead to a resolution of the problem in Ukraine. As when it was later found that St Andrew the Apostle founded the see of Byzantium, sometimes a little historical... creativity is needed.
We could also claim Paul but, we let the Roman Catholics have it. Im sure it was a favor of some sort.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 07:06:28 PM by Tzimis »

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #35 on: October 02, 2018, 07:50:16 PM »
The EP's historical justification is weak, though the history is murky enough that if you squint it might make a certain degree of sense. (As for their recent claims about primacy, they are at best a very misguided flight of rhetoric.) The question is whether a strict adherence to canons and territorial allotments is going to lead to a resolution of the problem in Ukraine. As when it was later found that St Andrew the Apostle founded the see of Byzantium, sometimes a little historical... creativity is needed.
We could also claim Paul but, we let the Roman Catholics have it. Im sure it was a favor of some sort.

I have no recollection of St Paul being in Byzantium.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,754
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #36 on: October 02, 2018, 08:06:20 PM »
Can't say for sure it's legit, but according to this a transcript of the meeting between Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew was released. It says that Metropolitan Hilarion accused Patriarch Bartholomew of accepting bribes from Poroshenko or the schismatics- if he really said that to his face, that seems quite belligerent and rash.

So is referring to an Orthodox patriarch and metropolitan as “Kremlin agents”.
Just to clarify, the Kremlin agents comment was made by a political analyst on his facebook page. He was not present at the meeting. He was just commenting. If you go the above link, specify the Ukrainian language version, click on the link to his facebook page and copy what is written and google translate it into English, it will be quite clear this comment was not made at the meeting.
On the other hand, both Patriarch Kirill and the "schismatic" Patriarch Filaret were likely agents of the KGB (agents Mikhailov and
Antonov, respectively). In the case of Patriarch Kirill there is both substantial documentary evidence and statements from other hierarchs. I have yet to see any denials.
This is a recent compilation of the documentary evidence:https://www.academia.edu/37152767/The_Mikhailov_Files_Patriarch_Kirill_and_the_KGB
If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #37 on: October 02, 2018, 08:32:04 PM »
Can't say for sure it's legit, but according to this a transcript of the meeting between Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew was released. It says that Metropolitan Hilarion accused Patriarch Bartholomew of accepting bribes from Poroshenko or the schismatics- if he really said that to his face, that seems quite belligerent and rash.

So is referring to an Orthodox patriarch and metropolitan as “Kremlin agents”.
Just to clarify, the Kremlin agents comment was made by a political analyst on his facebook page. He was not present at the meeting. He was just commenting. If you go the above link, specify the Ukrainian language version, click on the link to his facebook page and copy what is written and google translate it into English, it will be quite clear this comment was not made at the meeting.
On the other hand, both Patriarch Kirill and the "schismatic" Patriarch Filaret were likely agents of the KGB (agents Mikhailov and
Antonov, respectively). In the case of Patriarch Kirill there is both substantial documentary evidence and statements from other hierarchs. I have yet to see any denials.
This is a recent compilation of the documentary evidence:https://www.academia.edu/37152767/The_Mikhailov_Files_Patriarch_Kirill_and_the_KGB

I think it is more likely that you are a paid CIA troll. I cannot find any info about the author. Looks like he doesn't exist.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,607
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #38 on: October 02, 2018, 10:41:40 PM »
Do you think the CIA cares about tiny little sites like this?

 ???
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist/works Warning: stories have mature content.

"Some people only feel good when they are praising the Lord." - Coptic bishop

Show me the meaning of the word

Leave me alone, I was only singing

"You know, I don't know any writer who doesn't hate writing, so I guess what I'm saying is, I hate my life." - Lawrence O'Donnell

"I like fake violence and real peace." - John Fugelsang

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,347
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #39 on: October 02, 2018, 11:03:19 PM »
The EP's historical justification is weak, though the history is murky enough that if you squint it might make a certain degree of sense. (As for their recent claims about primacy, they are at best a very misguided flight of rhetoric.) The question is whether a strict adherence to canons and territorial allotments is going to lead to a resolution of the problem in Ukraine. As when it was later found that St Andrew the Apostle founded the see of Byzantium, sometimes a little historical... creativity is needed.
We could also claim Paul but, we let the Roman Catholics have it. Im sure it was a favor of some sort.

I have no recollection of St Paul being in Byzantium.

The dude is trolling. How many times does this have to happen before people realize it?

Can't say for sure it's legit, but according to this a transcript of the meeting between Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew was released. It says that Metropolitan Hilarion accused Patriarch Bartholomew of accepting bribes from Poroshenko or the schismatics- if he really said that to his face, that seems quite belligerent and rash.

So is referring to an Orthodox patriarch and metropolitan as “Kremlin agents”.
Just to clarify, the Kremlin agents comment was made by a political analyst on his facebook page. He was not present at the meeting. He was just commenting. If you go the above link, specify the Ukrainian language version, click on the link to his facebook page and copy what is written and google translate it into English, it will be quite clear this comment was not made at the meeting.
On the other hand, both Patriarch Kirill and the "schismatic" Patriarch Filaret were likely agents of the KGB (agents Mikhailov and
Antonov, respectively). In the case of Patriarch Kirill there is both substantial documentary evidence and statements from other hierarchs. I have yet to see any denials.
This is a recent compilation of the documentary evidence:https://www.academia.edu/37152767/The_Mikhailov_Files_Patriarch_Kirill_and_the_KGB

I think it is more likely that you are a paid CIA troll. I cannot find any info about the author. Looks like he doesn't exist.

He does exist. One of his books, which is a peer reviewed academic work, is titled Religion in the Soviet Union: An Archival Reader.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 11:05:28 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #40 on: October 02, 2018, 11:15:51 PM »
The EP's historical justification is weak, though the history is murky enough that if you squint it might make a certain degree of sense. (As for their recent claims about primacy, they are at best a very misguided flight of rhetoric.) The question is whether a strict adherence to canons and territorial allotments is going to lead to a resolution of the problem in Ukraine. As when it was later found that St Andrew the Apostle founded the see of Byzantium, sometimes a little historical... creativity is needed.
We could also claim Paul but, we let the Roman Catholics have it. Im sure it was a favor of some sort.

I have no recollection of St Paul being in Byzantium.

The dude is trolling. How many times does this have to happen before people realize it?

However many times it can happen before Poe's Law stops being a thing.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2018, 08:07:23 AM »
The EP's historical justification is weak, though the history is murky enough that if you squint it might make a certain degree of sense. (As for their recent claims about primacy, they are at best a very misguided flight of rhetoric.) The question is whether a strict adherence to canons and territorial allotments is going to lead to a resolution of the problem in Ukraine. As when it was later found that St Andrew the Apostle founded the see of Byzantium, sometimes a little historical... creativity is needed.
We could also claim Paul but, we let the Roman Catholics have it. Im sure it was a favor of some sort.

I have no recollection of St Paul being in Byzantium.

The dude is trolling. How many times does this have to happen before people realize it?

Can't say for sure it's legit, but according to this a transcript of the meeting between Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew was released. It says that Metropolitan Hilarion accused Patriarch Bartholomew of accepting bribes from Poroshenko or the schismatics- if he really said that to his face, that seems quite belligerent and rash.

So is referring to an Orthodox patriarch and metropolitan as “Kremlin agents”.
Just to clarify, the Kremlin agents comment was made by a political analyst on his facebook page. He was not present at the meeting. He was just commenting. If you go the above link, specify the Ukrainian language version, click on the link to his facebook page and copy what is written and google translate it into English, it will be quite clear this comment was not made at the meeting.
On the other hand, both Patriarch Kirill and the "schismatic" Patriarch Filaret were likely agents of the KGB (agents Mikhailov and
Antonov, respectively). In the case of Patriarch Kirill there is both substantial documentary evidence and statements from other hierarchs. I have yet to see any denials.
This is a recent compilation of the documentary evidence:https://www.academia.edu/37152767/The_Mikhailov_Files_Patriarch_Kirill_and_the_KGB

I think it is more likely that you are a paid CIA troll. I cannot find any info about the author. Looks like he doesn't exist.

He does exist. One of his books, which is a peer reviewed academic work, is titled Religion in the Soviet Union: An Archival Reader.

Any info regarding him would be appreciated. Anyone can write a book but without a CV/Bio it is hard to know.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,347
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2018, 10:49:17 AM »
The EP's historical justification is weak, though the history is murky enough that if you squint it might make a certain degree of sense. (As for their recent claims about primacy, they are at best a very misguided flight of rhetoric.) The question is whether a strict adherence to canons and territorial allotments is going to lead to a resolution of the problem in Ukraine. As when it was later found that St Andrew the Apostle founded the see of Byzantium, sometimes a little historical... creativity is needed.
We could also claim Paul but, we let the Roman Catholics have it. Im sure it was a favor of some sort.

I have no recollection of St Paul being in Byzantium.

The dude is trolling. How many times does this have to happen before people realize it?

Can't say for sure it's legit, but according to this a transcript of the meeting between Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew was released. It says that Metropolitan Hilarion accused Patriarch Bartholomew of accepting bribes from Poroshenko or the schismatics- if he really said that to his face, that seems quite belligerent and rash.

So is referring to an Orthodox patriarch and metropolitan as “Kremlin agents”.
Just to clarify, the Kremlin agents comment was made by a political analyst on his facebook page. He was not present at the meeting. He was just commenting. If you go the above link, specify the Ukrainian language version, click on the link to his facebook page and copy what is written and google translate it into English, it will be quite clear this comment was not made at the meeting.
On the other hand, both Patriarch Kirill and the "schismatic" Patriarch Filaret were likely agents of the KGB (agents Mikhailov and
Antonov, respectively). In the case of Patriarch Kirill there is both substantial documentary evidence and statements from other hierarchs. I have yet to see any denials.
This is a recent compilation of the documentary evidence:https://www.academia.edu/37152767/The_Mikhailov_Files_Patriarch_Kirill_and_the_KGB

I think it is more likely that you are a paid CIA troll. I cannot find any info about the author. Looks like he doesn't exist.

He does exist. One of his books, which is a peer reviewed academic work, is titled Religion in the Soviet Union: An Archival Reader.

Any info regarding him would be appreciated. Anyone can write a book but without a CV/Bio it is hard to know.

Well, I don't think you can say he doesn't exist. However, here is some more info I managed to find. He is apparently an Oslo-based religious rights activist: https://www.ncronline.org/news/world/persecution-jehovahs-witnesses-russia-intensifies-and-targets-children
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2018, 11:12:25 AM »
The EP's historical justification is weak, though the history is murky enough that if you squint it might make a certain degree of sense. (As for their recent claims about primacy, they are at best a very misguided flight of rhetoric.) The question is whether a strict adherence to canons and territorial allotments is going to lead to a resolution of the problem in Ukraine. As when it was later found that St Andrew the Apostle founded the see of Byzantium, sometimes a little historical... creativity is needed.
We could also claim Paul but, we let the Roman Catholics have it. Im sure it was a favor of some sort.

I have no recollection of St Paul being in Byzantium.

The dude is trolling. How many times does this have to happen before people realize it?

Can't say for sure it's legit, but according to this a transcript of the meeting between Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew was released. It says that Metropolitan Hilarion accused Patriarch Bartholomew of accepting bribes from Poroshenko or the schismatics- if he really said that to his face, that seems quite belligerent and rash.

So is referring to an Orthodox patriarch and metropolitan as “Kremlin agents”.
Just to clarify, the Kremlin agents comment was made by a political analyst on his facebook page. He was not present at the meeting. He was just commenting. If you go the above link, specify the Ukrainian language version, click on the link to his facebook page and copy what is written and google translate it into English, it will be quite clear this comment was not made at the meeting.
On the other hand, both Patriarch Kirill and the "schismatic" Patriarch Filaret were likely agents of the KGB (agents Mikhailov and
Antonov, respectively). In the case of Patriarch Kirill there is both substantial documentary evidence and statements from other hierarchs. I have yet to see any denials.
This is a recent compilation of the documentary evidence:https://www.academia.edu/37152767/The_Mikhailov_Files_Patriarch_Kirill_and_the_KGB

I think it is more likely that you are a paid CIA troll. I cannot find any info about the author. Looks like he doesn't exist.

He does exist. One of his books, which is a peer reviewed academic work, is titled Religion in the Soviet Union: An Archival Reader.

Any info regarding him would be appreciated. Anyone can write a book but without a CV/Bio it is hard to know.

Well, I don't think you can say he doesn't exist. However, here is some more info I managed to find. He is apparently an Oslo-based religious rights activist: https://www.ncronline.org/news/world/persecution-jehovahs-witnesses-russia-intensifies-and-targets-children

Other than these various articles he appears to have zero online footprint. What University did he go to? What are his credentials? I have never seen nothing when I look for someone online.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,754
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2018, 11:41:33 AM »
Can't say for sure it's legit, but according to this a transcript of the meeting between Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew was released. It says that Metropolitan Hilarion accused Patriarch Bartholomew of accepting bribes from Poroshenko or the schismatics- if he really said that to his face, that seems quite belligerent and rash.

So is referring to an Orthodox patriarch and metropolitan as “Kremlin agents”.
Just to clarify, the Kremlin agents comment was made by a political analyst on his facebook page. He was not present at the meeting. He was just commenting. If you go the above link, specify the Ukrainian language version, click on the link to his facebook page and copy what is written and google translate it into English, it will be quite clear this comment was not made at the meeting.
On the other hand, both Patriarch Kirill and the "schismatic" Patriarch Filaret were likely agents of the KGB (agents Mikhailov and
Antonov, respectively). In the case of Patriarch Kirill there is both substantial documentary evidence and statements from other hierarchs. I have yet to see any denials.
This is a recent compilation of the documentary evidence:https://www.academia.edu/37152767/The_Mikhailov_Files_Patriarch_Kirill_and_the_KGB

I think it is more likely that you are a paid CIA troll. I cannot find any info about the author. Looks like he doesn't exist.
There is plenty of information about this (not my being a troll - I do not rate that highly, skill-wise):


Here is a 1992 report prepared for the House Appropriations Committee:  http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/pcw_era/index.htm#Contents

Vladimir Moss post about it:http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/867/east-european-orthodoxy-kgb/

Konstantin Preobrazhensky wrote a book about it and more  (former KGB officer - certainly aided by the CIA when he came to the US):

https://sobor2006.livejournal.com/313944.html
Interview: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9qf7x (the Gerard group also has connections to the CIA)
If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2018, 12:42:57 PM »
Can't say for sure it's legit, but according to this a transcript of the meeting between Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew was released. It says that Metropolitan Hilarion accused Patriarch Bartholomew of accepting bribes from Poroshenko or the schismatics- if he really said that to his face, that seems quite belligerent and rash.

So is referring to an Orthodox patriarch and metropolitan as “Kremlin agents”.
Just to clarify, the Kremlin agents comment was made by a political analyst on his facebook page. He was not present at the meeting. He was just commenting. If you go the above link, specify the Ukrainian language version, click on the link to his facebook page and copy what is written and google translate it into English, it will be quite clear this comment was not made at the meeting.
On the other hand, both Patriarch Kirill and the "schismatic" Patriarch Filaret were likely agents of the KGB (agents Mikhailov and
Antonov, respectively). In the case of Patriarch Kirill there is both substantial documentary evidence and statements from other hierarchs. I have yet to see any denials.
This is a recent compilation of the documentary evidence:https://www.academia.edu/37152767/The_Mikhailov_Files_Patriarch_Kirill_and_the_KGB

I think it is more likely that you are a paid CIA troll. I cannot find any info about the author. Looks like he doesn't exist.
There is plenty of information about this (not my being a troll - I do not rate that highly, skill-wise):


Here is a 1992 report prepared for the House Appropriations Committee:  http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/pcw_era/index.htm#Contents

Vladimir Moss post about it:http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/867/east-european-orthodoxy-kgb/

Konstantin Preobrazhensky wrote a book about it and more  (former KGB officer - certainly aided by the CIA when he came to the US):

https://sobor2006.livejournal.com/313944.html
Interview: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9qf7x (the Gerard group also has connections to the CIA)

And if true the point of you bringing it up is?
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,754
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #46 on: October 03, 2018, 01:00:05 PM »
My response to Mor's post.  Trying to set the record straight. That's it.
If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #47 on: October 03, 2018, 01:03:49 PM »
My response to Mor's post.  Trying to set the record straight. That's it.

Fair enough.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #48 on: October 03, 2018, 01:06:25 PM »
If Patriarch Kirill is a Kremlin agent due to his involvement with the KGB, then so is Patriarch Filaret on the same basis. So we would have two "Kremlin agents" battling each other.

Unfortunately pretty much any hierarch had to do this in the Soviet/ Communist countries. It does not necessarily reflect on the sincerity or true motivations of a bishop. I remember a few years ago a report came out of Bulgaria showing that almost every bishop on the Bulgarian synod had been an intelligence operative.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,754
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #49 on: October 03, 2018, 01:41:24 PM »
If Patriarch Kirill is a Kremlin agent due to his involvement with the KGB, then so is Patriarch Filaret on the same basis. So we would have two "Kremlin agents" battling each other.

Unfortunately pretty much any hierarch had to do this in the Soviet/ Communist countries. It does not necessarily reflect on the sincerity or true motivations of a bishop. I remember a few years ago a report came out of Bulgaria showing that almost every bishop on the Bulgarian synod had been an intelligence operative.
I mentioned Patriarch Filaret in a previous post. And you are right that it is probably every hierarch - I just did not find any substantiation for this common conclusion.  I have no complaints about it under the circumstances.

I also think then Metropolitan Kirill buying a bunch of cigarettes and wine duty free and selling it for a profit (but below Russian market costs) was a good thing. They are both good for dealing with stress and I think many suicides were prevented because of it.
If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline Kleofas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Faith: Unsure
  • Jurisdiction: Łódź i Poznań
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #50 on: October 03, 2018, 05:12:13 PM »
I don’t wish to call anybody a heretic. But I am concerned, in reading many of these Ukrainian-related discussions, that many persons are falling into a kind of Donatism.

I see comments, not so much here but elsewhere, implying that collaboration with the Soviet/socialist state somehow makes a clergyman less valid. Sure these clergymen sinned, but what matters is what these clergy teach regarding the Orthodox Faith and how they direct their flocks.

A priest who has not collaborated with the security services/state, but publicly undermines (teachings/writings) the eternal Orthodox Faith (take whatever pick of issue you want), is far worse than the former collaborationist who promotes teachings in line with the eternal Orthodox Faith.

Do we not believe in the forgiveness of sins? Claiming that Patriarch Kirill’s present behaviour, because of his previous KGB ties, is completely dependent on the Kremlin, resembles the old Donatism. The same for arguments regarding the Ecumenical Patriarch and his alleged ties to the CIA. Now, I disagree with Patriarch Bartholomew because of what many would consider as harmful innovations (such as the recent permission for priests to remarry), as well as his seeming power grab that, in my view, increasingly resembles Rome (Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate?). But that is independent of the EP's past/present connections (I could care less). Patriarch Kirill has not allowed such innovations, as far as I can tell, and seems to preach solid Orthodox teachings. That alone should make meaningless KGB-Kremlin accusations.

As such, I am more sympathetic to Moscow, because Moscow currently promotes teachings more in line with Orthodoxy. Now, that doesn’t mean that Moscow cannot start deviating from the faith. However, at this time, I see Moscow as offering a more solid teaching of Orthodoxy than the EP. I could be wrong.

Sorry about this rant. I just feel that in all of this mess, the perspective of how Orthodox Christian faith (both teachings and life) is quite lost to political motivation.     

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #51 on: October 03, 2018, 05:19:59 PM »
I don’t wish to call anybody a heretic. But I am concerned, in reading many of these Ukrainian-related discussions, that many persons are falling into a kind of Donatism.

I see comments, not so much here but elsewhere, implying that collaboration with the Soviet/socialist state somehow makes a clergyman less valid. Sure these clergymen sinned, but what matters is what these clergy teach regarding the Orthodox Faith and how they direct their flocks.

A priest who has not collaborated with the security services/state, but publicly undermines (teachings/writings) the eternal Orthodox Faith (take whatever pick of issue you want), is far worse than the former collaborationist who promotes teachings in line with the eternal Orthodox Faith.

Do we not believe in the forgiveness of sins? Claiming that Patriarch Kirill’s present behaviour, because of his previous KGB ties, is completely dependent on the Kremlin, resembles the old Donatism. The same for arguments regarding the Ecumenical Patriarch and his alleged ties to the CIA. Now, I disagree with Patriarch Bartholomew because of what many would consider as harmful innovations (such as the recent permission for priests to remarry), as well as his seeming power grab that, in my view, increasingly resembles Rome (Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate?). But that is independent of the EP's past/present connections (I could care less). Patriarch Kirill has not allowed such innovations, as far as I can tell, and seems to preach solid Orthodox teachings. That alone should make meaningless KGB-Kremlin accusations.

As such, I am more sympathetic to Moscow, because Moscow currently promotes teachings more in line with Orthodoxy. Now, that doesn’t mean that Moscow cannot start deviating from the faith. However, at this time, I see Moscow as offering a more solid teaching of Orthodoxy than the EP. I could be wrong.

Sorry about this rant. I just feel that in all of this mess, the perspective of how Orthodox Christian faith (both teachings and life) is quite lost to political motivation.     

Well said.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,347
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2018, 07:05:20 PM »
I don't even necessarily consider state collaboration a sin, although I do find it personally distasteful. That says more about my own personal politics though, of which I'll say no more. It's also worth noting that the Soviet intelligence apparatus was extraordinarily massive. So having someone with some modicum of management skills and diplomacy as both patriarch and former intelligence agent from 30+ years ago is not entirely surprising.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 07:05:59 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,727
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2018, 08:00:42 PM »
The EP's historical justification is weak, though the history is murky enough that if you squint it might make a certain degree of sense. (As for their recent claims about primacy, they are at best a very misguided flight of rhetoric.) The question is whether a strict adherence to canons and territorial allotments is going to lead to a resolution of the problem in Ukraine. As when it was later found that St Andrew the Apostle founded the see of Byzantium, sometimes a little historical... creativity is needed.
We could also claim Paul but, we let the Roman Catholics have it. Im sure it was a favor of some sort.

I have no recollection of St Paul being in Byzantium.

The dude is trolling. How many times does this have to happen before people realize it?

However many times it can happen before Poe's Law stops being a thing.
Poe's law?
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

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2018, 08:13:00 PM »
The EP's historical justification is weak, though the history is murky enough that if you squint it might make a certain degree of sense. (As for their recent claims about primacy, they are at best a very misguided flight of rhetoric.) The question is whether a strict adherence to canons and territorial allotments is going to lead to a resolution of the problem in Ukraine. As when it was later found that St Andrew the Apostle founded the see of Byzantium, sometimes a little historical... creativity is needed.
We could also claim Paul but, we let the Roman Catholics have it. Im sure it was a favor of some sort.

I have no recollection of St Paul being in Byzantium.

The dude is trolling. How many times does this have to happen before people realize it?

However many times it can happen before Poe's Law stops being a thing.
Poe's law?

To quote wikipedia:

Quote
without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the parodied views.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 08:14:48 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline JTLoganville

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: A poor wayfarin' stranger
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2018, 08:16:30 PM »
I don't even necessarily consider state collaboration a sin, although I do find it personally distasteful. That says more about my own personal politics though, of which I'll say no more. It's also worth noting that the Soviet intelligence apparatus was extraordinarily massive. So having someone with some modicum of management skills and diplomacy as both patriarch and former intelligence agent from 30+ years ago is not entirely surprising.

Quite parallel to the situation in at least one North American Lutheran Seminary whose faculty included several men who had come of age in Germany in the 1930's and 40's.  The institution was sometimes accused of being "a haven for ex-Nazis"; the historical reality is that just about every young German of that era had been part of the National Socialist Party.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #56 on: October 03, 2018, 08:24:12 PM »
I don't even necessarily consider state collaboration a sin, although I do find it personally distasteful. That says more about my own personal politics though, of which I'll say no more. It's also worth noting that the Soviet intelligence apparatus was extraordinarily massive. So having someone with some modicum of management skills and diplomacy as both patriarch and former intelligence agent from 30+ years ago is not entirely surprising.

Quite parallel to the situation in at least one North American Lutheran Seminary whose faculty included several men who had come of age in Germany in the 1930's and 40's.  The institution was sometimes accused of being "a haven for ex-Nazis"; the historical reality is that just about every young German of that era had been part of the National Socialist Party.

Including Pope Benedict XVI.

It's hard to balance the obligation to resist evil with the practicalities of life in a hard situation and the importance of not judging people whose shoes we can't possibly imagine ourselves in adequately. So, while I can't apply a blanket "it's not a sin," I also can't necessarily condemn an individual who did- depending on particulars, of course.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 08:24:49 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,599
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #57 on: October 04, 2018, 01:15:12 AM »
Religious Freedom in Ukraine
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/09/286188.htm

Should this be filed under "official denial just confirms rumors"?
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #58 on: October 04, 2018, 07:29:07 AM »
This is theoretical.

The MP should beat the EP to it and grant autocephaly to the canonical church and grant the patriarchal dignity onto Metropolitan Onuphry. What could the ep or the schismatics do then? They would have no argument for what they are doing.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 07:36:20 AM by ICXCNIKA »
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Arzelle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Seeking
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #59 on: October 04, 2018, 07:53:35 AM »
This is theoretical.

The MP should beat the EP to it and grant autocephaly to the canonical church and grant the patriarchal dignity onto Metropolitan Onuphry. What could the ep or the schismatics do then? They would have no argument for what they are doing.

The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #60 on: October 04, 2018, 07:57:53 AM »
This is theoretical.

The MP should beat the EP to it and grant autocephaly to the canonical church and grant the patriarchal dignity onto Metropolitan Onuphry. What could the ep or the schismatics do then? They would have no argument for what they are doing.

The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.

I doubt it. What they want is a "Ukrainian" Church, unfortunately, they define Ukrainian as anti-Russian. Needless to say,that while laity can return with no issue clergy cannot. They must be vetted and accepted. I do not forsee any schismatic bishops being accepted as ruling bishops. Probably ok as priests if they do not have any baggage.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,599
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #61 on: October 04, 2018, 11:08:18 AM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #62 on: October 04, 2018, 11:56:56 AM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,754
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #63 on: October 04, 2018, 12:00:21 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.
I was assuming that this is what would happen in the other Ukraine thread due to its simplicity and inevitable outcomes.
If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #64 on: October 04, 2018, 12:13:26 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.
I was assuming that this is what would happen in the other Ukraine thread due to its simplicity and inevitable outcomes.

Unfortunately, it is neither simple nor are the outcomes inevitable. Once again the clumsiness of the EP has painted everyone in a corner.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Kleofas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Faith: Unsure
  • Jurisdiction: Łódź i Poznań
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #65 on: October 04, 2018, 01:16:37 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

Offline Orthodox_Slav

  • A sinful servant of God.
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,347
  • 1539: Seal of Ivan IV
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #66 on: October 04, 2018, 01:29:42 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

i am sorry but i have to disagree i do not think there should be a unified Slavic orthodox church as some have their own little traditions that others may not like and also what would be the liturgical language for such a church!
"Two Romes fell, a third stands, and there will not be a fourth one."-Philotheus of Pskov

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And upon those in the tombs
Bestowing life!- Paschal troparion

Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,947
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #67 on: October 04, 2018, 01:32:54 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

We, Orthodox, are already unified.  We are all members of the same Orthodox Church, with separate administrative bodies...which allow us our own distinct flavors, traditions and nuances.  However, even though we bicker.... we are all Orthodox.... and therefore, one.
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,635
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #68 on: October 04, 2018, 01:44:50 PM »
i am sorry but i have to disagree i do not think there should be a unified Slavic orthodox church as some have their own little traditions that others may not like and also what would be the liturgical language for such a church!

As if minor variations not liked by people to whom they don’t ordinarily apply should be enough to justify a dozen administrative divisions.
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline cossack 316

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 288
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #69 on: October 04, 2018, 02:21:04 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

i am sorry but i have to disagree i do not think there should be a unified Slavic orthodox church as some have their own little traditions that others may not like and also what would be the liturgical language for such a church!

Let me understand, you want no more Serbian Patriarchate, Bulgarian Patriarchate, Polish Autocephaluas, Czech/Slovak Orthodox or Russian Patriarchate, just one united Slavic Orthodox Church? why? Please tell me why there should be no Bulgarian or Serbian Orthodox Patriarchates?

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,878
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #70 on: October 04, 2018, 02:40:03 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

I like this idea. Something similar should IMO be done in Scandinavia and/or Western Europe.
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,791
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #71 on: October 04, 2018, 02:43:52 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

i am sorry but i have to disagree i do not think there should be a unified Slavic orthodox church as some have their own little traditions that others may not like and also what would be the liturgical language for such a church!

This time I agree with Orthodox_Slav  :o


We, Orthodox, are already unified.  We are all members of the same Orthodox Church, with separate administrative bodies...which allow us our own distinct flavors, traditions and nuances.  However, even though we bicker.... we are all Orthodox.... and therefore, one.
+1
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #72 on: October 04, 2018, 03:55:08 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

i am sorry but i have to disagree i do not think there should be a unified Slavic orthodox church as some have their own little traditions that others may not like and also what would be the liturgical language for such a church!

This time I agree with Orthodox_Slav  :o

I seem to find myself somewhere in between you and and Mor on this one. I think the present realities are far better than some hypothetical pan-slavic church would be, but how does one balance that with the need to avoid the chaos that would result from "separate political entity=separate church entity=195 Patriarchates and counting?"
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #73 on: October 04, 2018, 03:56:41 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

i am sorry but i have to disagree i do not think there should be a unified Slavic orthodox church as some have their own little traditions that others may not like and also what would be the liturgical language for such a church!

Let me understand, you want no more Serbian Patriarchate, Bulgarian Patriarchate, Polish Autocephaluas, Czech/Slovak Orthodox or Russian Patriarchate, just one united Slavic Orthodox Church? why? Please tell me why there should be no Bulgarian or Serbian Orthodox Patriarchates?

You've got it backwards, he favors the current situation of many national churches.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Kleofas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Faith: Unsure
  • Jurisdiction: Łódź i Poznań
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #74 on: October 04, 2018, 04:19:07 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

i am sorry but i have to disagree i do not think there should be a unified Slavic orthodox church as some have their own little traditions that others may not like and also what would be the liturgical language for such a church!

This time I agree with Orthodox_Slav  :o

I seem to find myself somewhere in between you and and Mor on this one. I think the present realities are far better than some hypothetical pan-slavic church would be, but how does one balance that with the need to avoid the chaos that would result from "separate political entity=separate church entity=195 Patriarchates and counting?"

That’s really what got me thinking about that. It also seems that autonomy has been forgotten. It’s as is it’s only autocephaly or annexation/absorption.

Look, I’m not going to insist upon a unified autocephalous Slavic Church. I don’t have anything against the Bulgarian and Serbian Patriarchates. I’m just worried that this trend of granting autocephaly for each nation is starting to resemble the philetist heresy.

And just to clarify, I benefit from Poland’s autocephaly, so I’m not some Russian looking to increase the territory of Великая Русь. I just fear further divisions, because, let’s not kid ourselves, autocephaly has been used for very political, sometimes separatist reasons. Not always, but there is a history.

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,791
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #75 on: October 04, 2018, 04:28:01 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

i am sorry but i have to disagree i do not think there should be a unified Slavic orthodox church as some have their own little traditions that others may not like and also what would be the liturgical language for such a church!

This time I agree with Orthodox_Slav  :o

I seem to find myself somewhere in between you and and Mor on this one. I think the present realities are far better than some hypothetical pan-slavic church would be, but how does one balance that with the need to avoid the chaos that would result from "separate political entity=separate church entity=195 Patriarchates and counting?"

Autocephaly doesn't mean rank of patriarchate. It's given for historical and/or number aspects.
 And actaully, in the beginning, it seems, every Church, even small Church, was a local Church, so it would be considered nowadays as autocephalous or autonomous.
Local Churches give opportunity for the Church and its bishops to be closer to its/their people (better knowledge of the persons, their languages, culture etc.) and it makes easier the administration.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #76 on: October 04, 2018, 04:41:03 PM »
The schmismatics probably will join the canonical church if it isn't under Moscow. That's the whole issue, from what I can tell.
If that's what it takes, if I were the EP, I'd grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.  Then again, I ain't, thank God.

To what end? One schism will lead to another larger one. Borders and national consciousness change over time. Does every country or new political subdivision need its own autocephalous church? Does each ethnic group? I don't know the right answer. I am not sure anyone in the hierarchy knows either. If the old ways don't work then they all need to get together in council and hammer it out.
You have a good point. While Polish autocephaly makes it easier for me (I don’t have to justify „becoming Russian” to my Catholic Polish compatriots), I wish that there was a unified Slavic Orthodox Church. I’m not a crazed Slavic nationalist, but I feel that the Slavs were divided enough by religion (Catholic vs Orthodox). While this division exists for a very long time (look at the Polish-Russian conflict), I feel that Orthodoxy should at least unify those Slavs under its omophorion in the face of competing Catholicism. Cementing these divisions by making more autocephalies only negates the great work of Sts Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs.

i am sorry but i have to disagree i do not think there should be a unified Slavic orthodox church as some have their own little traditions that others may not like and also what would be the liturgical language for such a church!

This time I agree with Orthodox_Slav  :o

I seem to find myself somewhere in between you and and Mor on this one. I think the present realities are far better than some hypothetical pan-slavic church would be, but how does one balance that with the need to avoid the chaos that would result from "separate political entity=separate church entity=195 Patriarchates and counting?"

Autocephaly doesn't mean rank of patriarchate. It's given for historical and/or number aspects.
 And actaully, in the beginning, it seems, every Church, even small Church, was a local Church, so it would be considered nowadays as autocephalous or autonomous.
Local Churches give opportunity for the Church and its bishops to be closer to its/their people (better knowledge of the persons, their languages, culture etc.) and it makes easier the administration.

While an autocephalous church doesn't have to be headed by a patriarch its archbishop/metropolitan is equal to every other primate. I don't see why a local autonomous church can't meet the needs just as much as a local autocephalous one can. Someone had mentioned having regional patriarchates with more autonomous churches. That makes sense to me. (was not my original stance/understanding) If a large church like russia has 10 autonomous churches. Then you have 10 Metropolitans commemorating 1 patriarch who in turn commemorates the primates of the other autocephalous churches.   
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,791
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #77 on: October 04, 2018, 04:56:26 PM »
^^ it depends on the territory of the country and number of the people. In some areas autonomous metropolitans indeed, may be a solution, but in majroity of cases not. I'd be rather for returning catholicos function (so, between patriarch and metropolitan, heading an autonomous Church) in such case.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,445
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Re: The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine
« Reply #78 on: October 05, 2018, 09:50:56 PM »
Someone posted this paper on FB. It was an interesting read re:autocephaly

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18mDWSiFk-eB0WSOh5JnvqIbk72pdnszQ/view
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde