Yours Truly has been a vociferous critic of Syosset at times. Nevertheless, whenever the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) does something right, then it should be pointed out.
And yesterday, they did something right.
His Beatitude, Metropolitan Tikhon Mollard, Archbishop of Washington, D.C. and Metropolitan of All-America and Canada, released a letter regarding the tragic situation unfolding in Ukraine. You can read it for yourself here http://byztex.blogspot.com/2018/09/oca-primate-calls-for-pan-orthodox.html if you already haven’t.
This letter has come on the heels of the cashiering of two archpriests who were instrumental in the illegal coup against the previous Metropolitan, Jonah Paffhausen. Whether there is a correlation or not is unknown at this point. It’s also unknown what were the thoughts of Fr Leonid Kishkovsky in regards to this matter. It was an open secret that Kishkovsky (who heads the External Affairs desk at Syosset) was an inveterate Russophobe and devotee of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Regardless, it does evince to me that the OCA is now being governed by its bishops rather than by it functionaries. This to my mind, is salutary.
That’s all inside baseball however. What is important is the fact that the Holy Synod of the OCA did the right thing. Indeed, as canonical hierarchs, they could do no other. Regardless of the geopolitical situation in Ukraine, what they (and we) are seeing is the birthing of an Orthodox papacy right before our very eyes. There simply is no other way to view Patriarch Bartholomew’s unilateral incursion into a canonical territory.
Now, we are under no illusion that the the opinion of the OCA is going to be conclusive. When combined with the weight of criticism coming from the other local Churches however, it cannot be discounted. Nor can its voice be ignored as far as inter-Orthodox cooperation in America is concerned.
As the actual –if illicit–grant of autocephaly has not yet been granted, we can still be hopeful that cooler heads will prevail in Istanbul. Hopeful but not certain.
Regardless, kudos to His Beatitude and the Eminences and Graces of the Holy Synod. You did the right thing.
“That’s all inside baseball however. What is important is the fact that the Holy Synod of the OCA did the right thing….”
I have a much more “meh” reaction to it. “Talk is cheap” is a cliche for a reason. Calling for a synaxis/council is the easy part, but who has the charism/spiritual authority to do this? If the EP had it (despite having the letter of the canonical law) we would not be in this situation for the first place. Who has the organization experience, gumption and $resources$ to pull off a real council? Certainly not the OCA.
I think of it as more of a positional statement, declaring the OCA’s neutrality, meant to facilitate and support the current (and uncanonical) status quo in North America…A kind of “can’t we all just get along” sentimentality…
I interpreted it the same way as you…..
It does not seem to me to be a positional statement of status quo and “cant we all just get along”. Yes there have been previously statements that are ambiguous and leaves one wondering. However there are for me 2 significant things in the letter. 1) the reference and support for Metropolitan Onufry and the clergy and faithfull of the CANONICAL Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Second the call for the synaxis when it is known that the Patriarchs of the autocephalus Orthodox Churches have been communicating to the EP not to grant the request of the Ukrainian leader to the schismatics. For us who are far removed from the situation (this is NOT to say that we are not greatly affected by it) but not fully knowing all the things going on nor the why and hearts of men; instead of pronouncing judgments, we can and should pray for God’s mercy and help. And as one wonderful and very traditional Greek Orthodox archmandrite said. He encouraged all to pray the Akathist to the Theotokos, begging her help in bringing about a righteous resolution and protection of all the faithfull.
I agree, George, that it’s good the OCA (finally) made some sort of statement about the Ukrainian mess. However, I also have a “meh” reaction to it. I fear it’s too little, too late.
The statement seems to me to be a classic tow-the-middle-line and trying-to-not-offend-anybody kind of thing. I simply don’t think that straddling the fence will be possible for long.
Metropolitan Tikhon writes that “In the meantime, we call on our clergy, monastics, and faithful to offer their support and fervent prayers for His Beatitude, Metropolitan Onufry, and all the bishops, clergy, monastics, and faithful of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”
Well you can bet that the EP and the Church in Istanbul is not offering “support and fervent prayers for His Beatitude, Metropolitan Onufry, and all the bishops, clergy, monastics, and faithful of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”
That’s why I’m fairly cynical about this middle-of-the-road approach. The EP is on the verge of causing real schism and division in the Church by playing the hand of the US State Department and the Turkish government. He’s being played big time, even if he doesn’t realize it. Or maybe the EP does realize he’s being played and is cool with it (more frightening).
Fr Andrew Phillips on his OrthodoxEngland site posted some revealing numbers not long ago, in terms of Orthodox populations of the different autocephalous churches:
“Russian Orthodox Church: 164,000,000 adherents. Also known as the Patriarchate of Moscow, this accounts for 75% of Orthodox. It cares for Orthodox living in the canonical Russian Orthodox territories, spread over one fifth of the planet (the former Soviet Union except for Georgia, plus China and Japan) and peopled by 62 nationalities. These territories include the Russian Federation, the Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Transcarpathia (the main part of Carpatho-Russia), Kazakhstan, Central Asia and the Baltic Republics, such as Latvia (250,000). The Russian Church also includes the self-governing, multinational Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (400,000 worldwide, mainly in the Americas and Australia as well as parts of Western Europe.), the Japanese Orthodox Church and the Chinese Orthodox Church.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople: 3,500,000”
The EP and the Church in Istanbul is about 2% of the size of the Church in Russia. Merely in terms of numbers, it’s a stark reality that the EP is not much of anything. It’s only in this grandiose, megalomaniacal, neo-Papism that the EP becomes more than it is. The US government is counting on the EP’s neo-Papism to mean more than simple inert gas, but the rest of the Orthodox world knows that it means nothing.
Having no substance, the EP’s neo-Papism won’t mean anything long-term. When Ukraine crashes and the US bails (forget the US military: Americans won’t be willing to send their sons and daughters to die in Ukraine to support Poroshenko or “Patriarch Filaret”), the EP will be left alone with “Patriarch Filaret” or whomever the Ukrainian ecclesiastical nationalist of the day is, hung out to dry. So tragic.
I’m on the e-mail list at the St John the Baptist Cathedral in D.C., and just yesterday Fr Victor sent out a message that there are death threats being voiced against Metropolitan Onuphry. May God protect him! Not to mention that the canonical Ukrainian Church may soon be deemed “illegal” by the Poroshenko government and the Kiev Caves Lavra potentially seized by the schismatics.
The Ukrainian church issue is not merely a potential internal church schism. It has the potential to get violent and bad, really fast. I pray that it does not. If it does, however, then the EP and the Church in Istanbul, in addition to being formally self-declared outside of the Church by that point, will have real blood on their hands.
The more tragic aspect is that the Ukrainian schismatics would fizzle out if not for the US government backing and the false legitimacy that the EP is giving them. It’s the same way that the Bolsheviks would have fizzled out 100 years ago, if not for the financial backing that New York and London financiers gave them to take down Tsarist Russia.
It’s much easier for me to understand the US gov’t’s incompetence in the Orthodox Church world since they are guided predominantly by atheistic post-Protestant secularists who don’t believe that holiness exists, let alone that it is possible, or that God exists. I’d bet that most, if not all, of the policy wonks in the US State Dept view Orthodox Christianity as archaic and irrelevant.
It’s much harder for me to grasp what the EP is doing, unless one awakens to the fact that he and the Church in Istanbul are probably not really Orthodox anymore. As someone who was baptized in a GOA parish in Bethesda, Maryland, in the 1970s, the EP’s apostasy is a very, very, very tough reality to come to grips with. But I think I’m there.
To be spiritually safe, I don’t think any serious Orthodox Christian should have anything to do with the EP and the Church in Istanbul anymore, other than prayers that they repent (in the true spirit of metanoia) and come to their senses. It’s probably most difficult for the faithful clergy and laity of the GOA and other EP jurisdictions who might be part of a Christ-filled parish but also who are not afraid to see the devastating reality of what the EP is doing.
Blessed Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross today! By the power of the Cross, may the Church in C’ple somehow be resurrected in the future.
Gregg Gerasimon MD
San Antonio, Texas
An example of the nonseriousness of EP-led churches: the GOA can’t find all the baptismal and marriage certificates for the last several decades.
If I recall correctly, wasn’t it reported a while back in The National Herald, that records at the archdiocese were lost due to a flood. Also, a company had been secured by the archdiocese to digitize the records, but hadn’t been paid?
I know of members of the OCA who received no baptismal certificate following baptism of their children or marriage certificate after their weddings.
Greg Gerasimon,
Patriarch Kirill has become something of a Pope. Now with Constantinople out of the way, His Holiness Kirill is the predominant Orthodox global leader. He is commemorated as a primate without equal through exarchates such as the ROCOR all over the world. Sure, there are other patriarchates and autocephalous churches, but none can compare. The Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem all seem inconsequential in comparison.
With the blessing of Putin and the Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian military has become the saviour of Syria and Patriarch of Antioch. The other autocephalous churches all hope for Russian military protection if needed also.
Is this not a tendency towards “Orthodox” globalism and papism?
I also say “meh” to the statement. The OCA needs to take a stand against the tyranny of Bartholomew.
It’s somewhat of a “meh” statement I grant you but it’s a far cry from what the globalist bootlickers and EP acolytes would have preferred.
This is true. I must say, I am pleased with this part of the statement:
In the meantime, we call on our clergy, monastics, and faithful to offer their support and fervent prayers for His Beatitude, Metropolitan Onufry, and all the bishops, clergy, monastics, and faithful of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
If Moscow starts preaching papism then third Rome can be thrown out just like the previous two. Being first on the diptychs doesnt make one a pope, it becomes a heresy when you blatantly violate canons. This is why ecumenism is a heresy something all the churches are currently guilty of except maybe of Georgia and Bulgaria. If an Orthodox Church requires protecting from their own government and Russian troops are willing to help I support this, but this wont happen. Russia is not the United Ststes with fiat money to set up bases all over the planet and transport troops and munitions like it’s nothing all over the world.
@Joseph Lipper
Facts on the ground, my friend; facts on the ground. The Ecumenical Patriarch gathered all of his privileges and prerogatives for one reason..he was Patriarch of the capital of the Empire. Since 1453, what has this meant?
He has presided over an ever-shrinking enslaved population which gradually threw off the Ottoman Yoke and declared themselves as independent a while the Patriarchate dithered and delayed.
Compare the facts on the ground today with the ones in the latter 300’s. Moscow has presided over the largest resurrection of Orthodox churches in history. They have built some 18,000 churches in the last 18 years. And…the EP? Busy for 98 years trying trying to interfere in the “barbarian lands,” setting up dioceses where other bishops already resided, covering up their nefarious acts by piously quoting the canons in a way which supports his privileges coming from…the Byzantine Empire! Which we all know hasn’t existed for over 500 years.
As far as acting in a manner which mimics Papism, I don’t think the calling of a Pan-Othodox Council to discuss the outrageous situation in the Ukraine counts.
Shilling for a megalomaniacal Patriarch who is abusing his privileges with the unprecedented act of offering “autocephaly” to a gang of thieves and robbers while a canonical Church exists on the ground, is an act unworthy of any serious Orthodox Christian.
Anonymous Orthodox,
It is the belief of some that the Byzantine Emperor is still in fact present and waiting to awake from a 764 year slumber. Like the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus who “slept” for almost two hundred years, this Emperor-Saint will awake once again to rule from the City of Constantine. His name is St. John III Doukas Vatatzes:
https://scottnevinssuicide.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/the-marble-king-john-theologoumena-of-geronda-ephraim/
Still have a way to go until 2217.
Johan Sebastian,
Where do you get the number 2217?
If St. John Vatatzes feel asleep in year 1254, then by my calculation he has been asleep for 764 years.
Joseph Lipper
Who are the “Seven Sleepers of Ephesus” – who slept for almost two hundred years?
I’m not familiar with this
Thanks
Billy Jack Sunday,
The Seven Holy Youth of Ephesus, AKA the “Seven Sleepers”, are Maximilian, Iamblicus, Martinian, John, Dionysius, Exacustodianus (Constantine) and Antoninus. They are commemorated in the Church on August 4th.
https://oca.org/saints/lives/2014/08/04/102195-7-holy-youths-seven-sleepers-of-ephesus
Joseph Lipper
Thanks for the info
JL,
If Pat. Kirill aspires to be and eastern pope, he is hiding it magnificently behind deference to Pat. Theodoros of Alexandria who leads services when he visits Russia. The MP does not even believe it has the right to call a council of patriarchs to deal with the CP/Ukraine situation but merely calls for such a council to be organized by some local church higher up the diptychs.
Not exactly the attitude of an eastern pope.
Misha,
His Divine Beatitude, the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, All Egypt and All Africa, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Prelate of Prelates, the Thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Ecumene, is basically on the payroll of the Moscow Patriarchate. I don’t mean he’s receiving any money from Moscow, but let’s face it, he probably gets treated much, much better in Moscow than anywhere else in the world.
The honor and respect he gets in Moscow is probably much better than what he gets at home in Africa. Why would it not be surprising that he would side with Moscow?
Well put. Very well out.
Gregg said: “I don’t think any serious Orthodox Christian should have anything to do with the EP and the Church in Istanbul anymore, other than prayers that they repent (in the true spirit of metanoia) and come to their senses.”
You might be too extreme for me. Just what does your extreme statement mean in practical terms? Most of us do not visit Constantinople anyway or make a direct donation to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. We participate in local parishes. What do you say we should do as individuals and as parish members?
Your’s is a neo-con mentality right out of the US State Departments handbook.
Russia seems to be taking the back door with some success.
Putin went into Syria for the naval base and stayed for the Church. In ridding Syria of terrorists, Christians feel safe returning to their homes. He enabled Assad to stay in place and offered to rebuild their Churches so the Christians have something to come home to. I imagine no one is more grateful than Patriarch John. He’s come out in support of Russia several times.
He is establishing Russian dioceses in Turkey. This pleases Erdogan because he thinks it will encourage Russian tourism. Erdogan doesn’t like the EP and it wouldn’t surprise me if he kicked him out now that he is persona non grata with the better part of the Church.
He called a meeting of the bishops last November. As you may recall, all the bishops were there, even the ones who can’t breathe the same air, except the EP. They may have been talking about the eventuality of Ukraine and looking at ways to proactively ensure other problematic areas are addressed. The GOA was imploding. I’m guessing Archbishop Demetrios was asked NOT to retire so he could serve as a firewall for us and perhaps the eparchies.
Archbishop Demetrios may turn out a hero; the guy who stood his ground so we could regroup and unify. As a matter of fact, His Eminence Metropolitan Joseph is bestowing the Golden Order of St. Raphael of Brooklyn to him/on him, as we speak. (I’m not sure what it is but Metropolitan Joseph is recognizing him.)
If you look at Archbishop Demetrios’ calendar, you will see that he called a meeting with the Executive Committee of the Assembly of Canonical Bishops when it was clear the EP was going to grant autocephaly in Ukraine and subsequent meetings, as well. Read this and tell me he was not issuing a call to arms with respect to their “sacred duty as Hierarchs to organize and function according to the canonical norms and tradition of the Chruch” last October.
Perhaps now is the time to fix the anomaly in the states and maybe Russia will facilitate this. Honestly, I don’t care who we’re under as long as we’re united.
http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/news/2017/address-assembly
John S, the Ephrem monasteries continue to be under the EP and to my understanding most of the monasteries on Athos continue to commemerate the EP. I know for a fact that the monks at Simona Petra commemorate Bart.
I believe this will change if the Tomos is issued.
” It was an open secret that Kishkovsky (who heads the External Affairs desk at Syosset) was an inveterate Russophobe and devotee of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” THAT IS UNTRUE AND A CALUMNY. I’ve known Father Leonid since 1965. He is not an ANYTHING “-phobe!” Also, the late, ever-memorable Archbishop Dmitri shared with me a respect for Father Leonid’s intelligence and balance. Further, Father Leonid knows the Russian Church better than any commentator on this site. As for His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon. this latest archpastoral message is TYPICAL of his excellent messages and letters. all well thought-out and balanced—a far cry from the off=the-cuff utterances of his immediate predecessor! Father Leonid’s mother and stepfather were both teachers at Claremont: his mother Sophia in language: his stepfather Vladimir in history. One of Father Leonid’s daughters is, I believe, a correspondent in Moscow and you may be sure rthat neither Patriarch Kirill nor Metropolitan would responfd with any more than an amused chuckle at the idea that Fr Leonid is russophobic! George, one may be a RussoMANE and still despise Putin’s style of government!
I am one who would “naturally” choose balance over extremity, good breading and aristocracy over the self made and democracy, stability over experimentation or reform. Reading this perspective of Bishop Tikhon however reminds me of that mid twentieth century ossification of the dominant intellectual culture within the OCA in particular and much of Orthodoxy in general here in North America. Fr. Leonid, who would defend this all too conformable status quo to his dying breath (WCC, etc.) and Met. Tikhon, who could not even bring himself to admit that what Fr. Robert was really talking about was a compromise with homsexualism – to youth no less! – something that a Met. Jonah would have gladly admitted “off the cuff” or in any other way. Meanwhile, the parishes shrink or die, most of the children are so secularized as to be indistinguishable from their secular cohorts, etc. etc…
This is going to be taken the wrong way but it needs to be said: these 1960’s Orthodox aristocrats time has come and gone, but they linger around like guests who have overstayed their welcome for what, at least 3 decades now…
This is a “no win” situation for the OCA, forced by the instantaneous exchange of information demanded by the internet; or as Mr. Lipper immediately set the tone, “Finally the OCA has issued a statement.” Just a few years past, a “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE” press statement would have (justifiably) been met with a “Who?” from the Religious News Service, and in a matter of 6-8 obligatory, “Pardon me, but who cares?” lines, now sanitized of the boilerplate, “Met. [whomever], spiritual leader of the 1 million member Orthodox Church in America” (how in the world did they pull that off and for so long!)
Personally, I cannot, for the life of me, understand the criticism of Met. Tikhon’s statement. It was the statement of a canonical Orthodox Church, whose autocephaly is universally unacknowledged, and who is universally disrespected and ignored (even by the “grantor” of their autocephaly). And for heaven’s sake, Mr. Michalopulos, if you intend to endorse someone, man up and stand by your endorsement: “It’s somewhat of a “meh” statement I grant you but it’s a far cry from what the globalist bootlickers and EP acolytes would have preferred.” WAT? Remind me not to presume you have my back in a bar fight.
In my estimation, Met. Tikhon’s statement was measured and realistic, given the lack of respect and honour afforded to, come October, the 150-year celebration of the OCA’s Holy Trinity Cathedral in San Francisco, the original home of St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and Apostle to America. I would have added a personal message to the EP, “What goes around comes around,” which is why they don’t have me writing these statements…
RE: ‘I would have added a personal message to the EP, “What goes around comes around,” which is why they don’t have me writing these statements…’
That makes two of us, Dr. S.
Metropolitan Tikhon’s response was encouraging. It was balanced and showed the OCA was neither kowtowing to Moscow in a rejoining condemnation of the Phanar, nor did it express approval of the Phanar’s actions either. It was the response of an autocephalous church.
After almost two weeks since Patriarch Kirill has ceased to commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew in prayers, and what strikes me as something of a shockwave in the Church, my initial response to the Archpastoral Letter was “finally”. Yet even the “delay” in response is commensurate of the prerogative of an autocephalous church to respond to such matters if, when, and how they want to.
It appears that the Phanar has issued it’s “solution” to the situation in Ukraine and is moving forward with granting autocephaly: https://www.goarch.org/-/regarding-the-granting-of-autocephaly-to-the-church-of-ukraine
Wow! The heresiarch Bartholomew did not visited the other Churches to hear their advice on the Ukrainian situation. He visited them to tell them what he was going to do….whether they liked it or not!
“……. in order to inform them and explain its decision.”
He is truly out of his mind!
I give credit where credit is due to the contributor who posted under the name, “GOA Priest,” because he called this situation perfectly. Since Chalcedon, the Bishop of Constantinople has had the right – and arguably the responsibility – to intervene, when invited, into disputes between clergy in the specific interest of reconciliation: “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt. 15:24) The GOA Priest said they will demonstrate by history and statute that their actions are “legal” and sanctioned by the Tradition of the Church, and they most certainly have. Is this to say this action is wise, prudent, and in the best interest of the Church? Absolutely not. But it does demonstrate that there is no “heresy” involved in the conduct of the Ecumenical Patriarch – except by the ridiculous reasoning of the unprecedented, foolish contrivance of “papalism,” which is an embarrassment to anyone with even a rudimentary appreciation for the Ecumenical Councils (and I strongly recommend pursuing Fr. Georges Florovsky’s thoughts and commentary on why the Church has not produced an Ecumenical Council since the 8th Century).
While I personally believe that these references to the Ecumenical Patriarch as both a “heretic” and a “schismatic” when – without addressing the wisdom and efficacy of his actions (arrogance and stupidity do not constitute grounds for referring to him as a heretic or schismatic) – he was and is acting within the statute and pursuant to the Holy Scripture, I have no intention of “haggling” with street dogs who have fashioned an industry of apocalyptic “premonitions” around him. My favorite, “Pop the corn and sit back and watch.” Awesome.
Finally, let it be known that I listen to NPR in the car – where the longest interval rarely exceeds 20 minutes – and I watch approximately 30-40 minutes of the news (usually divided between Fox & CNN, in deference to my brother’s insistence I seek “all sides” of the issues). That’s the extent of my media exposure. I mention this to say that the “real world” doesn’t seem to know we are on the brink of world war and apocalyptic catastrophe – not even President Trump or the others so frequently mentioned on this site. Shouldn’t someone alert them?
Michael, you said: “Since Chalcedon, the Bishop of Constantinople has had the right – and arguably the responsibility – to intervene, when invited, into disputes between clergy in the specific interest of reconciliation.”
The Orthodox Church HAS no clergy in a schismatic group. Schismatic means OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. What’s the Phanar going to do next? Intervene between the Orthodox Church and the RC “to inform and explain its decision” using the same flawed logic?
The only one who can extend such an invitation is Patriarch Kirill; the canonical Patriarch in Ukraine. He didn’t. The invitation actually came at the behest of Poroshenko!!!! If that is not the most backward thing I’ve ever heard of, I don’t know what is.
* * *
You also said, “. . . the “real world” doesn’t seem to know we are on the brink of world war and apocalyptic catastrophe – not even President Trump or the others so frequently mentioned on this site. ”
It’s a pretty safe bet that if *I* know we’re on the brink of war, President Trump and the rest of the world know it, too. When the U.S. Air Force asks for a 25% boost in combat squadrons (the largest expansion since the cold war), Air Force JTACs, fighters & drones head to Ukraine to train with allies on Russia’s western flank AND Russia holds their own war games (ALSO unprecedented in scale since the cold war), it’s pretty clear things are heating up. This has been going on for weeks.
Just today, I read the following:
Trump signs Pentagon’s budget for 2019 providing for $250 mln in security assistance to Ukraine
https://www.unian.info/politics/10279734-trump-signs-pentagon-s-budget-for-2019-providing-for-250-mln-in-security-assistance-to-ukraine.html
Ukraine is Building a Mosquito Navy to Fend Off Russia, With US Help
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2018/09/ukraine-building-mosquito-navy-fend-russia-us-help/151606/
US to transfer ships to Ukraine amid Russia tensions
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/us-transfer-coast-guard-ships-ukraine/index.html
U.S., Ukrainian Officials Discuss Efforts To Counter Russia’s ‘Malign Influence’
https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-ukrainian-officials-discuss-efforts-to-counter-russia-s-malign-influence-/29510270.html
Ukraine, U.S., Germany, France ready to submit joint resolution on peacekeepers to UN, – Poroshenko
https://112.international/politics/ukraine-us-germany-france-ready-to-submit-joint-resolution-on-peacekeepers-to-un-poroshenko-32683.html
More Lethal Weaponry Possible For Ukraine, U.S. Envoy Tells RFE/RL
https://www.rferl.org/a/more-lethal-weaponry-possible-for-ukraine-u-s-envoy-says/29489463.html
Let me be very clear here, Gail: I am not defending the actions of Ecumenical Patriarch; in fact, I find them deplorable. Nevertheless, it seems to me there is little appreciation for the cavalier manner in which the terms “heretic” and “schismatic” are bantered about with so little regard for the consequences of such declarations. Secondly, I object to the fabrication of “heresy-to-fit-the -narrative,” in this case the toothless, mindless contrivance of “papalism,” which attempts to be a “broad spectrum” aggregate; so broad, in fact, that there isn’t much “papal” at all, just every known heresy of the RC west. Are we not satisfied that the Church, in the form of the Ecumenical Councils, covered the bases in regard to heresy? But, hey, we can’t simply say “homosexuality” either, but instead (as a gay friend of mine observed) say “homosexualism,” in effect resorting to faggotry to describe faggotry. Who knew?
And not to be rude, Gail, but it is quite obvious that you did not invest the time necessary to download and read The Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine – in English or Greek – before you decided to critique me. In my opinion, it is a marvelous piece of scholarship – exactly as the GOA Priest predicted.
Bear in mind, I have made no comment as to the arrogance and stupidity of the of the EP – who in my estimation is doing nothing more than blindly protecting six blocks of run-down buildings in a run-down suburb of Istanbul, Turkey and peddling it as the Constantinople, New Rome.
Dr S, the reason I haven’t read that monograph (or recommend anybody else to do so) is because the title itself is preposterous. There is no “ecumenical throne”.
This is faulty on two levels: 1) the eod ecumenical has to do with the city of Constantinople when it was the seat of a legal empire and 2) we really don’t have thrones.
On that last note alone, bishops who use that word need to none up on how Jesus rebuked his cousin who wanted thrones for her two sons.
There is an “ecumenical throne” in the Patriarchal Church of St. George:
“The patriarchal throne is traditionally attributed to St. John Chrysostom (398-404), but an inscription on the gable eaves dates it to 1577. Four meters tall and fashioned in the form of a vine, it is made of walnut and inlaid with ivory, mother of pearl, and colored wood. Its 17th-century icon of Christ Pantokrator was commissioned by Patriarch Paisios I.”
https://www.patriarchate.org/saintgeorge
Gail,
You forgot Dr. Ford has ties to the C.I.A.
She heads up the undergraduate C.I.A. internship at Stanford.
Her brother Ralph III, worked for the law firm that created Fushion GPS, the company that wrote “The Russian Dossier”
That same law firm, Baker/Hostetler is located in the same building where the CIA operates three businesses: Red Coats, Admiral Securties services, and Datawatch. They are operated by Ralph II, Dr. Ford and and Ralph III father. Their Grandfather was Nicholas Deak, former CIA employee.
Dino,
I have never mentioned Ford or the CIA. You’ve gone after me for things that have absolutely nothing to do with me and accused George of “protecting me” by ignoring your posts. Why?
Gail,
Dear sister, please understand the content of my post has nothing to to do with anything you said about Ford or the CIA, but to your alarm bells with your subject matter.(Ukraine) My point was not to go after you or shoot the messenger, but a friendly jab, with some like minded tin foil alarms, and in the case of our spiritual leaders, conspiracies, and heresy du jour. My humor was misunderstood. I am sorry.
In all seriousness. Ukraine will never be the reason, WE, America, goes to war with THEM, Russia. BUT! We, the world, dodged a huge bullet when Ukraine gave up their nuclear missiles. If Ukraine had them, well then my rabbit ears would rise, and maybe some mushrooms clouds as well.
Nuclear weapons have become the world’s new gold; wealth, respect, and universal worldly power. Nothing gives a country more leverage, as does nuclear weaponry. Who has it, who is allowed to get it, and God forbid who goes to war for it, will decide major world wars to come. I have always believed the apocalypse will follow a nuclear war.
Everything else is just business, as usual. The big boys making big toys so that the little boys can kill one another. Russia, America, China etc. keep the war profit machine on, so long as we keep buying their spin. The major religions just keep the pots on simmer, and as any cook knows, anything that simmers too long will boil over. What a shame, The World’s True Church is falling for these snake oil sales people, we call political leaders. I take no pleasure in, nor have desires in discussions of Orthodox brothers killing one another, especially because Bishop A, can’t get along with Bishop B, who has offended Bishop C.
Meanwhile us minions can only pray. Honestly at times I’m not sure what to pray for anymore, other than my corrupt soul, family, church and friends. In the meantime. I just keep on my mundane hamster wheel, paying the bills, making the rounds, and making sure the boss is happy. Between us, somedays I neglect/forget to pray!
Not to waste another post. The last part of my last sentence of me accusing George of censoring, should have been: which is NOT the case with most in Orthodox laity.
Most Americans are not following this horrific situation. Most Americans are not even familiar with the heretical schismatic Bartholomew.
It is a tinderbox…..and when he issues the tomos……it’s going to explode.
“The Orthodox Church HAS no clergy in a schismatic group. Schismatic means OUTSIDE THE CHURCH…using the same flawed logic?”
Gail, sorry to single you out but your words are a good statement of a problem with the way many are thinking about Church and “schism”, the Holy Canons, etc. The analogy of the family is useful thought exercise. When a family member goes wayward, perhaps due to a serious moral flaw, or perhaps through an act of utter disloyalty (say, through adultery), do we say he or she is “OUTSIDE THE FAMILY”? Perhaps it sometimes comes to that, but is this the first, second, or even third course of action? Even when this family is cut off (perhaps through divorce) is this person really just another neighbor or stranger like any other? Are those in the Ukraine who are otherwise Orthodox every way, truly in some state of utter outer darkness and Hell where there is no Church and perhaps no God either?!?
The Holy Canons, just like the rest of Traditional Christianity, are not restatements of an indelible “logic” (legal or otherwise), nor are they a mere restatement of the Law. This is what St. Paul’s letter to the Romans is all about – the insufficiency of the Law/logic/dialectical reasoning to bring salvation. Christ came to us as a person, with all the messy illogical and non-black-and-white that real Personhood (both human and God) means.
Even if you think of canonical Christianity (i.e. the Orthodox Church) as a kind of dead letter, legal entity (and not as a living and breathing theoanthropic organism), you still have the problem of the Judge. You see, even on its own level, the Law (of all types – ancient Mosaic law, Church canon law, modern secular law, etc.) requires interpretation when applied to a specific situation, which means an interpreter and recognized and agreed upon authority.
Remember, this conflict between the EP and Moscow is in part (but only in part) a disagreement around interpretation and judgement of (canon) law. Don’t get too caught up in the rhetoric, the “talking points” of each side as it tries to make a persuasive case for its particular preferred interpretation. Think of it like you would a modern secular court case: neither side is telling you the whole truth, only the part of the truth that boasts their case, their argument – each side wants to win.
This conflict or schism will not be solved by one side triumphing with “logic” or the letter of the law, because like all things in Christianity the law is not enough and is neither at the root of the issue nor the way the issue will be solved. Life is not a legal problem.
Here is a Saint talking about the relationship of the letter and logic of the law with the actual deeper truth of Christianity:
“I will sacrifice myself in order to save the Canons of the Church, but in the case of saving one person, I will sacrifice all the Canons.” St. Justin Popovich
Hi Christopher and everybody,
Thought I would stick in a reply here. I agree with your post except for your statement, “neither side is telling you the whole truth, only the part of the truth that boasts their case, their argument – each side wants to win.” I’m pretty sure we don’t know whether this is true or not, since we are not there and we don’t really know what the “sides” thinking, nor do we know from here what their motives are “over there.”
In another thought, what should the EP have done?
Christopher, if I may. I don’t dispute your charity. As St Augustine said: “In essential things, unity; in dubious things, diversity; in all things charity.” That’s my starting point.
The way to “reach out” to a wayward family member however, especially if one is an exogenous person, is to first go to those who are still in the family. Better yet, try to convince those in the family to reach out. But under no circumstances is a stranger to interpose himself as the arbiter of the familial dispute.
Using your analogy of divorce, one (or both) of the disputants goes to a disinterested third party (i.e. the state, the judge) to resolve the dispute. The state cannot interject itself into a relational dispute without the consent of both of the respondents. Especially if the original respondent was the malefactor.
In this case, the schismatic sect, which is headed by a defrocked bishop and which initiated the schism and who nobody recognizes as legitimate –including the EP–has no rights whatsoever in this dispute. Period. Even the EP knows this, that this type of involvement in a local Church is beyond his competency. That’s why the EP had to manufacture out of whole cloth a rationale for his involvement. Basically a fantasy found in some long-misplaced letter that Kiev was “still” part of his archdiocese.
This is pure balderdash. Using this logic, I could interject myself in a domestic squabble involving one of my cousins. Why? Because he/she reached out to me and I hosted the wedding reception at my house. Or I introduced them to each other. I’m sorry, but the EP’s rationale is so threadbare, so transparent, that it’s embarrassing. Nobody believes it. And that’s why the EP’s naked aggression against the MP has scandalized every other local Church.
It’s not merely papism (although that’s bad enough) but what it portends down the road not only ecclesiastically but the political consequences for the respective nation-states that are Orthodox. In other words, will NATO be used as a military arm to create a transnational empire in which the respective autocephalous Churches will be quashed. As well as their cultures and political independence.
Mark my words: the Ukrainians will come to regret their subjugation to the globalist program. Even John Paul II saw the seeds of decadence being sown by the EU/NATO in the 90s. He wasn’t whistling “Dixie” when he talked about the “culture of death” which he saw sprouting in the West once the Soviet Empire had collapsed. Especially in his beloved Poland.
George,
Obviously analogy’s have their limits and can be reworked in the service of whatever. That said the position that defines the two main non canonical groups as “schismatic”, and thus without standing, and thus the EP has no “rights” (a very problematic term by the way – Enlightenment philosophy anachronistically applied to the canonical Church) , is simply an interpretation. Even as one who recognizes the EP’s role has been largely negative, certainly for the last 100 years, I can also recognize that historically what the EP is doing is yet another creative (or haphazard if you will) application of his canonical duties as defined (which assumes an Empire), applied to the “new” reality since the collapse of the Empire and the rise of nation states. Have the canons ever actually been strictly followed around autocephaly? Histories answer is an unambiguous no. Has the Emperor (or the equivalent thereof in a nation state) been involved? Always.
What is “legitimate” according to a legalistic interpretation is not irrelevant, but is not the sum total of how these people who are Orthodox in EVERY important way are going to be re-united “canonically” to the rest of the visible Church. I quoted St. Justin Popovich intentionally, because everyone recognizes he is a “hardliner” about the boundaries of the Church and canonical order (no one ever accused him of being an “ecumenist”) but he also recognizes all the canonical and legal order in the whole of the cosmos does not add up to the worth of a single individual and his salvation, to say nothing of the millions of Orthodox Ukrainians who are currently out of communion with the rest of the Body of Christ.
To apply a strict legal interpretation to this or any other situation is simply non-Christian (Sabbath made for man and all that). The memorial of the holodomor is this week, and should serve as a reminder (real politic if nothing else) to all outside observers (that is you, I, and everyone else who posts here) that the Ukrainians are not going to be browbeaten by a legalism from the MP or anyone else. They have real skin in this “game”, and nation states and Orthodox national churches is the normative “ontology” of the Church and has been for a 1000 years. Short of the Russians yet again imposing themselves unto the Ukrainians through the point of the sword (this too is normative), this “schism” will continue and here is a hard truth (I don’t like it) but the EP is the only entity doing anything sacrificial about it. The MP’s position is not a solution – it is a legal/canonical idealism. Legal idealisms are just that, and are simply not up to the task of real spiritual and communal life and this is a core dogmatic revelation of our Faith.
Like or not folks, this Christian Faith is a “big tent” Faith. Much is too be scarified for each other and our Unity in the Faith, including our demands and desires for an air-tight legal and canonical “order” within and without the Church. Heck, as St. Justin reveals to us this particular desire is a very low order thing – ALL the canons are to be chucked out the airlock as soon as they make contact with a single real human being, because neither God nor human beings can be reduced to a legal logic and construction.
I would put in a word of caution to all who are worked up and/or anxious about this: this too easy reduction and condemnation of these millions of Orthodox souls in the Ukraine with a mere word, “schismatics”, spit out in an unearned and righteous condemnation, is dangerous and frankly irrelevant in the labor of agape which is commanded of us by our Lord Himself.
I would encourage everyone to take a few deep breadths and let this process (such as it is) work itself out over the next few years, possibly even decades. Sit back, relax, and don’t take the rhetoric of either the MP or the EP too seriously. At least recognize it for what it is – a campaign of persuasion, a struggle in the context of the world through which we are to be strangers…
Everyone likes to harp about how, as you say, Russians impose “themselves unto Ukrainians through the point of the sword” but everyone seems to forget that Western forces–the Poles, the Habsburgs–have done the very same throughout history on account of their Russophobia and hatred toward the Orthodox Church!
Ukraine is an abused and confused place. May their next leader be someone fashioned from the same mould as Bohdan Khmelnitsky.
Hi Christopher,
Obviously this is a very emotionally charged issue. Those with close ties to the EP probably find it unbearable to think that he could possibly lead his jurisdictions into schism. Nationalist Ukrainians may find it unbearable to be jurisdictionally under the Patr of Moscow. (However, a good case has been made and cited previously that if it were not for “Filaret” and his actions in Ukraine since the 1990s, Ukraine would probably have a canonical autocephalous church by now.)
God commands the leaders of His Church to maintain order and structure. What I cannot understand is how so many seem to conveniently ignore the fact that “Filaret” is a deposed/defrocked clergyman. He was deposed and removed from the ranks of the clergy more than 20 years ago. He is as much a clergyman as I am.
On what grounds should Orthodox faithful “ignore” the fact that he was deposed and removed from the ranks of the clergy? If the EP expects the Orthodox world to take “Filaret” and his group’s impending “autocephaly” seriously, then it is incumbent upon them to convince us why he was unjustifiably deposed. Was it done unjustly?
As of now, Mikhail Denysenko (“Filaret”) is a layman like many of us. His situation is analogous to me dressing myself in clerical garb and creating an “Orthodox Church of Austin and all Texas.” If I get a reasonable following, can I then petition the EP for autocephaly? Of course, this sounds ridiculous, but how would this situation be any different than what “Filaret” is doing?
The burden of proof lies on the EP to explain why everyone should ignore “Filaret’s” deposed/defrocked status. What makes him suddenly a Church hierarch again?
What I see primarily is political opportunism that allows the EP to avoid being investigated for illegally stealing $10 million in donations from the St Nicholas Shrine fund in exchange for issuing “autocephaly” to a Ukrainian group, which the State Dept ultimately thinks will advance its cause for Ukraine to enter NATO. America desperately wants Ukraine out of Russia’s sphere of influence, and the EP is simply being America’s marionette in the State Department’s global board game.
Can anyone explain why we should ignore the fact that “Filaret” was deposed/defrocked and is no longer an Orthodox clergyman? Why should anyone support the EP/GOA, in light of the stolen $10 million in St Nicholas donations and in light of the fact that they refuse to explain how “Filaret” magically became an ordained clergyman again?
Gregg (sorry, not George), I wonder: Has anyone provided evidence that the EP stole $10 million? And if Israel made the propaganda film so that we for sure will realize how evil Filaret is, and if Filaret is not a real hierarch, it seems possible that there is strategy – rather than insanity – in the EP’s thinking? Is he **really ** in the pocket of the State Department? If he is a thinking man, given how complicated and dangerous things are, I’ll bet he’s holding his cards close to his chest.
“…As of now, Mikhail Denysenko (“Filaret”) is a layman like many of us. His situation is analogous to me dressing myself in clerical garb and creating an “Orthodox Church of Austin and all Texas.” If I get a reasonable following, can I then petition the EP for autocephaly?”
Well, not exactly analogous. Whether Denysenko was “justly” or “unjustly” laicized is one question, but the fact that his flock recognize him carries much weight in the way these situations have played out in the past. St. Augustine in his argumentation against the Donatists took up this theologically around sacrament, “sign and thing”, and “military mark”, even using the example of what happens when someone dresses up as a captain in the army – is he a real army captain? No. What happens when this same person is then commissioned as a real army officer, and even wears his dress uniform that he used to wear when he was play acting, as it were. Is the outer sign of his uniform somehow invalid because of the circumstances of its use in the past? Nope, he is a real army officer and his uniform is a real and valid “sign” according to St. Augustine and our Church – it was the Donatists who tied the sacraments to the moral state of the man who performs them who were declared heretical.
Look, if your going to logically define Densyko as being without standing, grace, ordination, etc. in a legal and logical dialectic (which, by definition and design is air tight, 1+1=2 is always what it is), your right and there can be only a solution that looks very much like the MP’s. However you should then follow your reasoning to its logical conclusions, namely that these millions of Ukrainians are not Orthodox at all, and all those baptisms/ordinations/ etc. that ROCOR did all those years when they were in the wilderness are empty and worthless, and since I myself was baptized by a Roman Catholic priest as an infant then I am not really Orthodox either.
Careful how and where you limit Grace and Truth…
And continuing the point you make – which is an excellent point – for a site that lives and dies by conspiracy theories, I am astonished that no one seems to mention that there is a parallel story as to why Met. Filaret was deposed.
Ukrainians are not Russians. They do not share the same history, they do not speak the same language, they do not share the same traditions. As Mr. Lipper pointed out, the documents set forth by the Ecumenical Patriarch clearly describe the fact that, historically, they preferred the Byzantines over the Russians, and against their will, preference, and choice, were pulled into the jurisdiction of the Russians, with whom they were – and obviously are – in continuous conflict. This all came to a breaking point in the person of Met. Filaret, a Ukrainian bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, who demanded an autocephalous church, separate and distinct from the Russian Orthodox Church, and justifiably, if there was any body of Orthodox Christians in the world more prepared and mature to function as an autocephalous church, it is the Ukraine. The Russians refused, and the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch supported their petition, undoubtedly made it more likely the the Russians would reject it. In the end , when Met. Filaret refused to cede his position to a Russian replacement, he was deposed. There is a strong case that the charges of immorality – very professionally depicted in youtube videos such as head this thread – are the work of the well-oiled “information” machine of the Russian government, at the disposal of the ROC. An “unlikely” scenario I have described? No more unlikely than the crap about NATO forces being enlisted to enforce whatever…
As someone who has functioned as a structural family therapist in the tradition of Savador Manuchi, MD, this leads me to dispute your bold-text contention, Mr. Michalopulos, that “But under no circumstances is a stranger to interpose himself as the arbiter of the familial dispute.” There are times when such an intervention are a gift from God Himself. It seems to me that the ROC made a decision to turn their backs on millions of Orthodox Christians in the Ukraine, becoming what the Lord describes as an “hireling, not a shepherd” (Jn. 10:12) who no longer see the sheep as their own, yet, “sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees: and the wolf catches them, and scatters the sheep.” Someone must think like the Lord – assume the role of the arbiter – and address these “other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (Jn. 10:16). I pray that the Ecumenical Patriarch is led by heart and by the Lord.
Dr S, you are incorrect. Ukrainians and Russians as well as Byelorussians are all descended from a Slavic grouping of tribes known as “Rusyn”. Their languages likewise are part of the Balto-Slavic branch of Slavic. Which also includes Polish.
As to their “preferences”, that history is more complicated than what you write.
More to follow.
Mr. Michalopulos,
[If this is a duplicate or similar post, kindly delete the first. I nodded at the nurse’s station & I honestly don’t know I hit “Post” or not!]
Seriously, do you imagine I have never heard of “Rusyn” or the derivative Slavic languages? Some friendly advice if you intend to post some textbook “writ” about how Russians, Ukrainians, Carpatho-Russians, Byelorussians, blah, blah, blah are all the same outfit, cut from the same cloth, whatever and I am incorrect regarding the great distinction: Don’t do it. Or prepare to be eaten alive – and it already may be too late. What do you imagine this entire conflict is about if I am incorrect? Unpaid parking tickets?
In the inimitable way only he could teach Church History (as if he were there), Fr. John Meyendorff related the story of how the word came back to Moscow that Isadore. Met. of Kiev (who actually was a Greek, born in Thessaloniki) had signed the “reconciliation” agreement at the Council of Florence. Fr. John (reading from both the Russian & the Greek texts) described “complete silence in the city of Moscow for five full days, until the dramatic announcement that Constantinople had fallen and relinquished the Orthodox Faith. Prophetically, with fear and great reverence, the Russians realized that they had been further betrayed by the Metropolitan of Kiev, and the responsibility and duty to protect the Church had fallen to Russia, the Third and last Rome, for a fourth there could not be.” Apparently, Isadore and his crew turned around and headed back to Rome, where he was made a Cardinal of the RC church. The Russians refer to him as “Isadore the Apostate” and always note him as the “Met. of Kiev, a Ukrainian.” Left “abandoned,” as a number of people have mentioned, they have been historically ravaged by the Uniate wolves. They begged forever before they were given their own Metropolitan. They deplore the association with the Russians, because they are not Russians, and this situation is the fault of nothing more the arrogance and ill will of the ROC. Had it not been for the intervention of the Ecumenical Patriarch – whose “methods” are foolish and he acts in the manner of “cowboy” – this situation which affects millions in “schism” would undoubtedly continue forever.
George,
Not only are Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians all Slavs, but we are all Eastern Slavs with closely related languages. Until very recently, all Ukrainians spoke Russian. Only a percentage of Ukrainians actually spoke Ukrainian, the further west, the more prevalent. With all the nationalism afoot, the Ukrainian language has received a boost; however, most any adult or even teen Ukrainian understands Russian quite well.
In Belarus, Russian is the dominant language with Belorussian reserved for older street names, etc.
The point is that this is all one big tribe that’s character was forged in Kievan Rus’, before the above subgroups were distinguished. Eastern Slavic tribes, which had different names back then in the first millenium, appealed to Rurik the Norseman to come down and organize their warring groups. He did and founded the Russian state at Kiev. “Rus'” probably comes from a foreign word for “rowers” in reference to the viking ships.
In any case, many generations later, the Mongols decimated Kiev and the Rus’ moved north and east, finally concentrating their center of power at Moscow after periods in other locations like Vladimir. Slavs returned to the Ukraine eventually but they were not the same entity as left it earlier.
The real thing that divides Ukrainians which is seldom mentioned is the Unia. It gave them a nationalistic fetish for Westernism and hostility toward Russia, at least in those parts of the country affected by the Unia and schism. Ukraine is really a mental construction rather than ethnic designation anyway. In the east, there are Russians. In the West are Greek Catholics, Carpathorus, Romanians, Hungarians, Poles, etc. Ukrainian and Polish are now more mutually intelligible than Ukrainian and Russian due to all the cross pollination in Western and Central Ukraine.
One can get figures on the number of speakers whose first language is Ukrainian or Russian (ca. 65-30% respectively). What is not so widely circulated is the number of speakers who understand each respective language. For Russian, that is near 100%. You can see this from the predominance of Russian, at least until very, very recently, in business, tv and many schools:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language_in_Ukraine#Surveys_on_the_status_of_the_Russian_language
The tragic problem is the geopolitics of the situation. Russia considers the Ukraine not only historically part of the Russian Empire but as part of its near abroad. Because it has been invaded by Western powers so many times, and due to the presence of NATO and the EU on its doorstep, Russia insists on a near abroad composed of neutral buffer states, unintegrated with NATO. Otherwise, they are flirting with strategic disaster of serious, dispositive armaments are placed on the territory of border states.
It’s much like the Cuban missile crisis. No state wants to wake up one day and receive another states’ ambassador who says, “It’s over. We can destroy you now before you can even launch.”
I really wanted to stay out of this topic, but George has an over simplified view of the origins of the Rus’ peoples. Slavicists themselves have differing views. One view is that there was one large tribe called Slovenes. They divided up into a Northeastern group and a Southwestern group. The Northeastern group mixed with Finnish peoples and became today’s Great Russians. The Hungarian migration divided the Southwestern group into today’s Slovaks and Slovenes. Then, the Serbs are said to have originated in Eastern Germany. To this day, there are Serbs(or Sorbs) in Eastern Germany, who have not one, but two Slavic languages. It is clear the early Slavs did a lot of migrating. There is some linguistic evidence linking the Czechs and Ukrainians.
I am no expert, but all this is not to push any racism or fanatical chauvinism, Russian, Ukrainian, or otherwise. I see nothing wrong with the concept of an Autocephalous Ukrainian Church. I DO NOT support Filaret nor the Ukrainian Uniate church, which meddles in Orthodox affairs. I also question the timing of Constantinople’s apparent willingness to grant Autocephaly to Ukraine now.
One could argue whether or not Ukraine, or at least Orthodox Central and Eastern Ukraine, could or should return to Russia. If we are to restore all states to their one time borders, one could give Slovakia back to Hungary, as well as Transylvania. I can’t imagine many Slovaks or Romanians on board with this. One could say that Scotland should unite with Ireland; since at least the Highland Scots originated there and brought the Gaelic language with them. One will never change the map of Europe to satisfy everyone.
“Ukrainians” are Russians who were brainwashed by Poles
End of story.
Ukrainians have the gall to insist that Rusyns are Ukrainians too. The day that Ukrainians accept that they are indeed Russians will be the day that I concede that Rusyns are Ukrainian.
Christopher,
I think that your military analogy is not quite accurate in the way you described. A more accurate military analogy to “Patriarch Filaret” would be the case of a military officer who was court-martialed and reduced in rank. After the court martial, if he wears the uniform of his previous rank before the court-martial, is he still of that rank? What if some still call him by that prior rank? Such a man would be play acting. He is no longer of his prior rank after a court-martial and reduction in rank.
Such is the case with “Filaret.” He is play-acting, regardless of how much some nationalists are using him to advance their cause.
Remember also that Orthodox theology differs from Roman Catholic theology in terms of the indelible nature of the priesthood. The Roman Catholic catechism states that ordination confers an “indelible spiritual character” on the man who receives it, and a Roman Catholic priest can never “undo” his ordination. “Once a priest, always a priest” is commonly heard in Roman Catholic circles.
As far as I know, we Orthodox do not believe the same thing. Just as baptized faithful can reject our baptism, ordained clergy can reject their ordination and no longer be clergy, or they can behave in manner unfitting of clergy and be deposed/removed from the ranks of the clergy. Free will plays a tremendous role. Even God cannot go against a man’s free will (sorry Calvinists, we are not marionettes).
So I’d argue that “Filaret” is not only play acting when he dresses up as a bishop (regardless of how many may prop him up as such), but since he was deposed and formally removed from the ranks of the clergy, he is no longer considered a priest/bishop by the Church.
Of course, deposed priests can shop around to other jurisdictions (usually non-canonical jurisdictions) to find someone who might take them in as clergy (and sadly, this has happened). But such an action is clearly wrong.
Recall also that before the American government got involved in enticing the EP to change its mind on Denysenko and his group, even the EP referred to him as “Mr. Denysenko” when “Filaret” when to Istanbul a few years ago to argue his case for “autocephaly.”
As others have said, many of us will simply have to agree to disagree on this matter, and we will all see how this plays out. My intuition is that, in the end, without repentance/metanoia, “Filaret” and his group and the EP/Istanbul will further self-declare themselves to be outside of the boundaries of the Church.
Mr. Gerasimon ,
It’s not my analogy, it is St. Augustine’s (On Christian Doctrine if memory serves) and part of the anti-Donatist Tradition, which is to say it’s not “dogma” per se but it is not “opinion” either.
The consistency of a legalism or a logic is not evidence of its truth. I would encourage you to take your thinking on Met. Filaret to its full logical and Donatist conclusions. How many times did St. Peter deny Christ? How many Christians did St. Paul kill?
Ochrafuxy became THE Magog when Ivan absorbed the Tatar nobility in 1552 because he felt his boyars had killed his wife and parents. This is why he established the tradition of chef boyar deeds(Chef Boyardee) like Putin’s grandfather cooking 270,000 Greeks in 1937 Siberia for Stalin to eat. And the Greeks became Turkified when they absorbed all the turcospores in 1922. The moist and mouldy Magog of Russia needs to be aired out by separating it into separate states around Novgorod, Moscow, Kiev, Kateringrad and Vladivostok, as well as returning Lvov to Poland and Petersburg to Sweden, before it can join Europe.
Christopher and Michael Stankovich, thank you for your reasoned replies to Gregg Gerasimon concerning the “defrocking” of Patriarch
Philaret. Here’s a quote from Mr. Stankovich in the ensuing thread:
Here’s a quote from Christopher’s post:
Certainly the law is not enough, and life is not a legal issue, but there is a reason that the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils continuously refer to the Canons as the “Sacred Canons,” or the “Divine Canons,” and St Paul orders, “Let all things be done decently and in order,” (1 Cor. 14:40) “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Cor. 14:33)
Now, as I understand it “papalism/papism,” as defined by Scott, is primarily pursuant to what we find in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 9, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” Paragraph 4, “Christ’s Faithful – Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life,” §882
Apparently, we are to believe & fear that the Ecumenical Patriarch, in assuming this “papal” heresy, intends to exert an identical posture over world Orthodoxy.
On the other hand, Christopher, it seems to me, attempts to translate the two applicable Canons from the Council of Chalcedon into more palatable terms:
Mr. Michalopulos, then, devotes an entire post to dismissing the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch as “lawless,” relying on spurious and/or obscure documents of dubious origin to justify his “papalistic” actions, but far worse (and who didn’t see this coming), “NATO be used as a military arm to create a transnational empire in which the respective autocephalous Churches will be quashed.” Again are summoned the war drums and (pardon me for the pre-empt, Mr. Mortiss) the distinct whine of the little motorcycles, but more to the point, Mr. Michalopulos clarifies that he never read the canonical basis for the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch (which do not make them any less arrogant or stupid) because he objects to the title. I would note that in my reading of “Let the documents speak,” the argument of the Ecumenical Patriarch is so specific, so focused and precise to the issue of the Ukraine that it cannot be interpreted in a “papaliistic,” global manner. But you would not know this without reading the document, title notwithstanding.
I believe the last two words by Christopher and Dino are significant here. Somewhere along the line, I believe it was Michael (and please correct me me if I am wrong) reacted to a comment that said we all must cut ourselves off from the Ecumenical Patriarch – which is in fact what the Church orders in regard into those who have fallen into heresy. The gist of his comment was that, to this point, this seemed an extreme recommendation. But more importantly, at this point, you are recommending that some walk away for the the single most directive, consistent, and affecting influence in their lives spiritually, morally, but also culturally. Christopher’s perspective is that the callous foolishness of dismissing millions of otherwise faithful Orthodox Christians, collateral to the egotistical “battle” between Patriarchs, as “schismatics is “dangerous and frankly irrelevant in the labor of agape which is commanded of us by our Lord Himself.” And while St. Chrysostom may have indicated that “ignorance” was not exoneration for those following perpetrators of schism, he hardly could have imagined the breadth and depth of the sheer numbers of Orthodox Christians in a country as large as the Ukraine. I would interpret Dino’s point to be an amalgam of American Orthodox Christians who are completely indifferent, secularized, or simple. The fact that we are losing generations of young people suggests the reality is weighed to the former, and let us pray to be more like the latter.
I would only add one thing, and that is if one intends to apply the judgement “heretic” – and it is a judgement – one ought to be absolutely certain, before God and men, that the judgement is correct. The accounts of the the Ecumenical Councils is fraught with the stories of the struggles of the Fathers in reaching such judgments; their heartfelt and tearful final pleas to the subject of their judgment is heartbreaking. Yet, I am struck how cavalierly and and casually the term is bantered about here. I have asked myself, how in heaven’s name can a declaration that indicates a man and all his flock beneath him are outside the saving walls of the salvation of our God – in effect into the outer darkness (cf. Matt. 22:13) – be mocked with the Pharisaic contrivance, heresiarch? And lest anyone begin the litany of how I arrogantly impose my opinion, I direct your attention to our Father John Climacus, whose warning against judging anyone, “even if you see it with your own eyes, for the devil can deceive us,” writes about one of his greatest sources of shame, judging another brother. It began many years earlier, when the monk seemed to laugh too much and to loudly, and over the years, it compounded itself one act after another, that led St. John develop an opinion and dislike. Reluctantly, he went to visit the monk on his deathbed, where he was surrounded by his loving attendants and disciples, and the Lord opened St. John’s eyes as to the holiness of this monk. St. John fell to the floor and begged his forgiveness. “Always bear in mind, ‘Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment,’ (Jn. 7:24) and ‘ Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.’ (Matt. 7:1-2)”
George, I would like to propose you not post any comments that refer to an individual by a name s/he has chosen not to use. For example, referring to a poster as “Scott” when he does not wish to use that name. It is a violation of his privacy and these names are often condescending or blatantly disrespectful, as was the case when people called a poster “Mikey” and “Stinko” or something to that effect. In addition, new people on this site are not able to connect the dots if they can’t tie back the comments to the right poster.
He said to me directly that he did oppose me referring to him by his birth name. Likewise, he is a lawyer and generally very direct. I haven’t much appreciated some of his comments directed at me, but nevertheless I have always respected the fact that I never have to guess at his meaning or intention. This leads me to conclude that he will inform me directly when he finds me violating his privacy or condescending and/or blatantly disrespectful. Please read this again. Scott is a lawyer, capable and competent of defending himself without your pretentious intervention. Now why am I thinking this is the sort of post you and Mr. Michalopulos will bury?
Stankovich is correct. I think he made a typo above though because I told him directly that I do not oppose him referring to me by my birth name. It suits me just as well as “Misha”.
I will admit, it might cause some confusion. But that’s never concerned me. Whatever George accepts is fine with me.
Simplified, the canons don’t apply to heretics. As for the Phanar’s position vis a vis the Roman Catholic “church”, let’s think about why there is no Greek Orthodox bishop located in Rome.
George, I had a set of Menaia printed in Greece by the Apostoliki Diakonia that dated to almost 69 years ago. There is no mention of a “Saint” Augustine. Fast forward to a contemporary edition, by the same publisher and, lo and behold, there he is, to be commemorated on, as I recall, either June 16 or 17. What happened in 60 years to effect this change? Ecumenism would be my guess.
The service was only composed in the last century, as far as I am aware. For all his problematic speculation, Saint Augustine is still held as a Father by the Church, as confirmed by the fifth or sixth ecumenical synod (I forget which), and in the anaphora of the Liturgy of Saint James.
Alithea, St Photios calls St Augustine a St in his writings. He specifically states Augustine’s support for the philioque but states that he is a saint for other reasons. Photios also mentions St Ambrose and St Jerome’s adherence to the philioque. Photios or your Menaia?
You are aware that St. Augustine was praised by Ecumenical Council, no?
Christopher, thank you for being so kind. You’re not singling me out and you’re not taking issue with me (personally) and I really appreciate that.
I would agree The Holy Canons are not based on “logic.” They are based on the collective wisdom of the bishops (plural) through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Anytime you see a hierarch operating apart from his brother bishops, there is reason to be concerned.
No problem George, if you want to censor me towards Gail’s alarmist positions, your game, your rules. My point was off topic, but not off point. Might be silly gossip, might be the truth right George?
In this world, truth, gossip, and lies are all the same. It all depends upon who owns, and runs the “bull horn”. Who’s got the better lawyer, politician,billionaire, etc. in their pocket. My hell the GOA can’t even built a church in New York! Yea, it makes us all feel important to believe the imperial crowns might have some impact on the seculars out there, but is it reality? Is it 2018 or 1918?
BTW, Orthodoxy has no power over any government, it is the other way around. I too enjoy board games, Risk, Monopoly, etc. , but this is silly. The western world does not care, nor know anything about Orthodoxy, nor cares where New Rome, or who our EP is, or what he does. In the big picture, no role at all, just poster boys, walking talking icons of the worst order. All the bearded imperial crown heads are puppets and pawns, and thought of as a joke, around the secular world.
The Pope? Just a tool by the secular world to bring more to the secular side by the pomp, and ridiculous nature of it all, with the exception of the wholesale rapists they employ, which brings more to agnostics and athethists. The papacy is a joke.
If the world goes to war, it will not be because of Orthodox leaders. We are the hidden joke and/or unknown to those outside our religion, and as an organization we are becoming a joke to our own, who really care to know anything outside of Sunday liturgy, which is the case with most in Orthodox laity.
Dino, I haven’t censored you regarding Gail’s comments.
Hey, Dino, don’t shoot the messenger! Google “Ukraine Orthodox” and then click on News (vs. All). Count the number of articles mentioning war since September 1.
Dino, KNOWING the Sunday Liturgy is a LOT!
Your Grace,
You are 100 percent correct.
https://heavyangloorthodox.blogspot.com/2018/09/reading-metropolitan-tikhons-pastoral.html
The EP’s document on Ukraine should at least be scrutinized for it’s references to Unia and non-traditional marriage.
It’s a very important point that it was the Ecumenical Patriarch who acted to restore the Church in Ukraine back to Orthodoxy from Unia in 1620, as the Ukrainian Church “had been utterly Latinized and converted with its bishops to Unia.”
Further, the ecclesiastical marriage between the Church in Ukraine and the Moscow Patriarchate was not a traditional one of mutual free consent, but rather it was more akin to a marriage by kidnapping:
“When in 1654 Ukraine was politically united with Russia, the
matter of the ecclesiastical integration of this region with the
Patriarchate of Moscow also began to be raised. Nevertheless,
the metropolitans, bishops, clergy, nobility and all the people of Ukraine
intensely rejected this integration.”
The document continues with:
“Metropolitan Sylvester of Kyiv, along with his successors
Dionysios, Joseph and Anthony, despite pressure, did not accept
ordination from the Patriarch of Moscow. Only their successor Gideon
was convinced in 1685 to accept ordination by Patriarch Joachim of
Moscow, but even then a large Council that convened in Kyiv declared
the election invalid and the ordination illicit because it occurred without
the knowledge of the Ecumenical Patriarch. This action of the Patriarch
of Moscow constituted a grave canonical offence.”
In 1685, the Patriarch of Moscow essentially kidnapped the Ukrainian Church into an ecclesiastical marriage without the consent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
JL,
A more accurate account of the history of the Church in Ukraine and Russia:
orthochristian.com/115776.html
There was no kidnapping, only resistance to Uniatism, then as now.
Historically you may be right, Mr. Lipper. However, I do question the motives of the present EP. Bartholomew considers the Pope as being part of the Church(at least, the Pope is recieved at the Phanar as one would recieve an Orthodox Hierarch), yet the Greek Old Calendarists are outside of it. How do you account for that? If Bartholomew wants unity, shouldn’t he seek it in his own backyard? At least the Church of Russia has been willing to dialogue with the Old Believers and has actually brought some back into the Church.
Estonian Slovak,
I don’t presume to understand the EP’s pastoral decisions. However, I believe he may have his good reasons for how kindly he treats the Pope. Historically, the Roman Church had great resentment for the “New Rome” of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch, and this resentment eventually resulted in differences in Ecclesiology between East and West.
The main issue, in my opinion, for the schism between the Roman Catholics and Orthodoxy is Rome’s outright rejection of Orthodox Ecclesiology. The Roman Catholic addition and confirmation of the heretical “filioque” to the Nicene Creed, as well as the other “papal dogmas”, is really just the bad fruit of Rome’s resentment and then eventual rejection of Orthodox Ecclesiology. If Rome would repent of it’s false “Ecclesiology”, then in my opinion everything else would follow, and the schism between East and West would be healed.
I believe the Ecumenical Patriarch welcomes the Pope with open arms, because the EP basically just wants Rome to embrace Orthodox Ecclesiology. Of course, the Roman Pope is too blinded by the fact that he represents an organization much larger and more powerful than all the Orthodox churches combined. The Pope is blinded by his worldly power and looks down condescendingly on Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Patriarch. That is the temptation of the devil.
ES,
I am convinced that God sees it differently; however, in his infinite mercy, He extends His Grace to those in uncondemned heresy, at least for some significant time (significant in Orthodox time, longer than our present sense of McTime).
Thus I have little doubt that the Greek Old Calendarists continue to convey grace in their mysteries. I also think that until there is some local church or gathering of primates which condemns Constantinople for its obvious and repeated heresies, its mysteries will retain grace.
Yet if one is concerned about ones soul, the faith that leads to theosis, then one should avoid Constantinople. I cannot say the same for the Greek Old Calendarists.
But Orthodoxy is full of paradoxes.
Michael, I am not the one bantering about heresy.
Many times you appear to be critical just for the sake of being critical. Is this one of those times, Michael? Because there is NOTHING I’ve said that suggests I haven’t read the Ecumenical Throne and the Church of Ukraine.
For those who would like to read it, one can find it here: https://www.goarch.org/documents/32058/4830467/The+Ecumenical+Throne+and+the+Church+of+Ukraine+%28ENGLISH%29.pdf/8c509846-38e4-4610-a54e-30121eec77ef
Whether it be, his statements regarding supremacy….his actions regarding extreme ecumenism….or his failed and heretical robber council….I have been convinced for many years that Bartholomew is a heretic.
I never proclaimed it out loud until his uncanonical and hypocritical actions in Ukraine.
Now, all of Holy Orthodoxy watches as this heretic thrusts himself into schism.
Saint John Chrysostom pray for us!
Saint Mark of Ephesus pray for us!
Mikail, in what jurisdiction do you worship? As I mentioned on another post, the Ephrem monasteries and the Athonite monks are in communion with EP and have not declared the EP to be a heretic. Apparently, you believe you believe your wisdom and spiritual discernment are beyond question. Sounds like spiritual delusion to me.
johnkal,
I am in ROCOR. I believe that after the heresiarch Bartholomew forces himself into schism, the Ephrem monasteries and Mount Athos will come out against him. It would be wonderful to see the Ephrem monasteries come under the omophorion of ROCOR. Don’t be surprised when Bartholomew attempts to remove the abbots and monks on Mt Athos…..he’s done it before when commemoration was ceased.
Finally, be very careful who you accuse of being in prelest, my friend.
Here is a good article for you to read.
http://orthochristian.com/116154.html
The EP has been acting with papal-like superiority. He conducted a robber council that promoted the branch theory amongst other heresies. And now a schism is about to occur which will most undoubtedly lead to bloodshed and persecution of the canonical Church in Ukraine. You can say I am in prelest….that’s okay. Others can accuse me of hypocrisy….I can take it.
But the truth will reveal itself to all.
Mikail, I have been hearing the same story from people of your ilk for years. They claim the EP was going to unite the Orthodox Church with the RC church and that they belong to the only true Church. Lets talk again in a few months and see what has transpired.
My ilk?!?
Yeah, we’ll talk later……much later.
Mikail, ROCOR continues to be in communion with churches under the EP. Apparently, you are not really a member of ROCOR.
jk,
Like the ROC, ROCOR has ceased concelebration with hierarchs of the CP. I am confident that in the event the ROC excommunicates the Phanar, all ecclesiastical contact will cease between the ROCOR and Constantinople.
http://spzh.news/en/news/56190-sinod
I agree, Misha.
I am curious as to how you are able to muster such vigor in your judgement of the Ecumenical Patriarch, yet I have seen not a comment from you regarding the fact that the Patriarch of Moscow communes an “emperor” who is responsible for one of the largest and most prolific abortion delivery systems in the world – and by sheer number – probably in history; who in a press conference before the world press just this December clearly indicated his position is that, “Ultimately, the choice to have an abortion is the woman’s, and that will not change,” which is no different that Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been referred to as “pure evil” on this site for promoting the identical opinion.
Further, Patriarch Kyriil has made exactly two public speeches calling for an end to abortion in Russia and the offering of reasonable social alternatives to abortion as the primary form of contraception since he assumed the Patriarchal throne in 2009. Two public speeches. Nevertheless, in his own backyard – the city of Moscow and what is referred to as the “Moscow District” singularly has more surgical abortions per year than any other district in the country.
I make no guess as to delusion, but it certainly seems to me you are selective in your wrath and indignation. I call that hypocrisy.
How do we resolve these extremely difficult and convoluted issues regarding autocephaly (for the Ukraine – as well as for those New World countries that are dominated by various ethnic ghetto eparchies)?
“I know . . . Reindeer Games!!”
– His Beatitude, Metropolitan Rudolph, Archbishop of Washington, D.C. and Metropolitan of All-America and Canada
Billy Jack Sunday,
Did you see the pictures from this past week’s SCOBA meeting? Notably missing from this are the ROCOR bishops and the Moscow Patriarchate bishop. The OCA bishops had the largest representation of anyone.
I’m not sure how “red” his nose is, but there’s Metropolitan Tikhon at the front, right beside Archbishop Demetrios:
https://oca.org/news/headline-news/metropolitan-tikhon-holy-synod-members-attend-ninth-annual-assembly-of-bish
Maybe this is a precursor to more Orthodox unity in America.
Joseph Lipper
Point being that the OCA, through its primate, didn’t speak up in defense of the canonical Ukranian Church, but rather calls upon all for a council to settle the matter
A council the OCA would most likely not be invited to
So this is a double safe statement
Because either way, the OCA isn’t stating their position on this issue
The mere fact that they are out in front on the Episcopal Assembly is moot
It’s a bad sign that no ROC/ROCOR is present. Didn’t the Antiochian Church already drop out?
I wouldn’t have imagined it before, but I think that the Tomos will be issued, and the world will divide
However, in the West, America, the GOA and the OCA could unite afterwards. The OCA would chuck there autocephaly status for some type of autonomous association with the EP and maybe eventually be totally rolled over
Meanwhile, every other Orthodox Church not in favor of the Tomos will be looked upon with increasing suspicion and displeasure
In America
So, sucks for us . . .
Michael Stankovich. There is an autonomous Church of the Ukraine, whose first- hierarch is the widely respected Metropolitan Onuphry. I believe his fellow hierarchs in that autonomous Church, like its membership. are all Ukrainians. Mr Michalopoulos should have pointed out that the Latin Church refers to Eastern Slavs generally as “Rusyns” or “”Ruthenians.” I don’t believe any anthropologists or other scholars use the term “Rusyn” at all. Further, isn’t the word a kind of party designation favored by current Uniates and their descendants as some kind of help in keeping separate from the Orthodox originally. but now mostly as an ethnic banner? I don’t believe Bishop Bohdan Shpilka of blessed memory who once ordained the converts Dmitri Royster and Hilary Madison, also of blessed memory, and most Ukrainian Orthodox, would accept that loaded label of “Rusyn” at all!
Please excuse me for posting this here as I wasn’t sure where to post. Below please find an article from Tuesday on the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops website.
Ninth Annual Assembly Convenes in Cleveland
Tuesday, October 02, 2018
http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/news/2018/ninth-annual-assembly-convenes-in-cleveland
Let’s put one meme to rest: The notion that Pat. Bartholomew is not a heretic. Here is a very detailed indictment quoting many of his heretical statements and attitudes both before and after rising to the “Throne of St. Andrew”, there is a summary before the Greek text:
https://orthodoxethos.com/post/formal-accusation-of-heterodox-teaching-by-patriarch-bartholomew-submitted-to-the-hierarchy-of-the-church-of-greece
It is impossible to refute this much evidence. Moreover, the position of the Phanar at the Crete Council was, on its face, heretical. Using the term “church” to refer to other confessions is ill advised in any context. We believe in “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”. One, and one only.
However, using the term “church” to describe those outside of it in the context of a putative “great and holy synod” is the very definition of heresy. It is a direct contradiction of the Creed. This is commonplace usage among the Phanar’s “theologians” which was to be strong-armed into the acceptance of the Church at Crete. This would have signaled its self-destruction and led to the obvious conclusion that the Greek Old Calendarists were the only surviving entity fit to call itself “the Church” and against which the gates of hell had not prevailed.
Thank God that was averted.
No, Patriarch Bartholomew is beyond any reasonable doubt a heretic. His own words and that of his spokesmen don’t lie about the convictions of the CP.
I would suggest you wait for the English version before you declare, “It is impossible to refute this much evidence.” Wading through this tedious, petty list of “transgression” immediately brought to mind the Psalm, “If You, O Lord, should remember iniquities, who could stand?” (Ps. 129:3) The most memorable accusation:
So many of the accusations – e.g. in 1965 (and again in 1971 and in 1977), following in the footsteps of Patriarch Athenagoras, he again discussed with a RC delegation the issue of a common date of Easter shared in the East and the West; in the late 1960’s and again in 1977 he spoke of “ending the 12-centuries of isolation of the Orthodox Church… promote Christian unity, to non-Christian religions, to humanity as a whole. This means a new attitude toward Islam, toward Buddhism, toward contemporary culture, towards aspirations for brotherhood free of racial discrimination …” So what, exactly, has been realistically accomplished in 58-years post fact in the case of the former, and for the sake of simplicity, 41-years post fact in the case of the former? Nothing. And emphasis is truly deserved here, nothing. When you measure these accusations – categorized and supported by the Sacred Canons – against the practice of the real world, the heresy of ecumenism is wholesale foolishness with the notable exception of the internet. In the real world, the Plague is not corruption of the Truth we hold and defend against the influence of the heterodox. The Plague is indifference – comme ci comme ça, whatever… – epitomized by the large group of young, hipster Greek parents gathered in the courtyard of St. Spyridon Church on Park Ave. in San Diego, Starbucks cups in hand, who had brought their children to a Great and Holy Friday “retreat” that ran concurrent to the Royal Hours. As I walked through this, I realized that it never entered their minds to come into the church for the Hours as they waited for their children. These monastics ask, “Does Ὁ Παναγιώτατος despise these controversies in the Holy Fathers and in the laws of the Canons?”
That the generations of the young fall away from us faster than the stars in heaven is shockingly disappointing. While some celebrate and gloat in their calendar, their prelest, and their traditionalism, the sheep scatter and are savaged by the wolves. It is the rare moment to hear
“…In the real world, the Plague is not corruption of the Truth we hold and defend against the influence of the heterodox. The Plague is indifference – comme ci comme ça, whatever… – epitomized by the large group of young, hipster Greek parents gathered in the courtyard of St. Spyridon Church on Park Ave. in San Diego, Starbucks cups in hand, who had brought their children to a Great and Holy Friday “retreat” that ran concurrent to the Royal Hours. As I walked through this, I realized that it never entered their minds to come into the church for the Hours as they waited for their children…”
Well stated. This secularization of the great majority of those standing next to you in church IS the issue of the day. It’s what makes men like Rod Dreher veritable prophets, because they admit it and face it directly (even if you don’t agree with their prescriptions).
That said, the EP’s synodal apparatus and Orthodox academic “theologians” in general, at least in those in the west, are themselves far too easily duped by and influenced by secularism and its sources:
“In a secularized academic context riveted by the political ideologies of “race, class, and gender”…The questions of “experience” and reason in theology – its sources, first principles and procedure – and the acceptable cultural “correlation” require a more rigorous and dogmatic-philosophical treatment. Orthodox theologians must deal not only with Western theology, but also with the sources of Western secularism with greater depth and care than has yet been shown…” (Fr. Mathew Baker, +2015, from his excellent “Neopatristic Synthesis and Ecumenism: Towards the “Reintegration”).
I will defer to the long list of monastics signing it as to its conclusive nature. Some simply do not believe heresy matters. Yet heresy precludes theosis and hampers spiritual progress. It also leads to all manner of sin as we can see in the Roman Confession.
Misha, What do you expect Patriarch Bartholomew to do? What would you advise him to do? I go to the web site of the Ecumenical Patriarch to get first hand information, and I find this:
“His All-Holiness delivered the Keynote Address to over 100 Hierarchs of the Throne, touching upon contemporary issues and challenges that the Ecumenical Patriarchate currently faces, while also emphasizing that, “at times, we confront trials and temptations precisely because some people falsely believe that they can love the Orthodox Church, but not the Ecumenical Patriarchate, forgetting that this incarnates the authentic ecclesiastical ethos of Orthodoxy.”
After decades of service to the Church, Patriarch Bartholomew is labeled “heretic,” “heresiarch,” “Papalist,” and worse; but what do you, in your wisdom and knowledge, think he should DO?
Are you SURE you know what the Moscow Patriarchate is thinking? Do you know what is best for Ukraine? I’m asking.
Patriarch Bartholomew says very clearly before his audience of 100 Patriarchs:
“During his Keynote Address, the Patriarch underscored, amongst other things, that “at times, we confront trials and temptations precisely because some people falsely believe that they can love the Orthodox Church, but not the Ecumenical Patriarchate, forgetting that it incarnates the authentic ecclesiastical ethos of Orthodoxy.”
I have been chided for providing long quotes, but since I have nothing to offer of my own, I can only offer what I know to be true, and I know he also said this:
“During the first millennium, our blessed forefathers confronted the temptation of heresy. The great temptation of the second millennium, which was also bequeathed to the millennium we have now entered, is the status of jurisdictions. The source of this problem is ethnophyletism, the propensity to expansionism and the disregard of the boundaries defined by the Patriarchal and Synodal Tomes. The Ecumenical Patriarchate bears the responsibility of setting matters in ecclesiastical and canonical order because it alone has the canonical privilege as well as the prayer and blessing of the Church and the Ecumenical Councils to carry out this supreme and exceptional duty as a nurturing Mother and birth-giver of Churches. If the Ecumenical Patriarchate denies its responsibility and removes itself from the inter-Orthodox scene, then the local Churches will proceed “as sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9.36), expending their energy in ecclesiastical initiatives that conflate the humility of faith and the arrogance of power.
All the grandeur of our Patriarchate is exhausted in the service to the mystery of the Church. Its uniqueness does not lie in the possession of some superhuman secular power, but in the humble and selfless desire to subject the temptation of power to grace, while transforming the insecurity and fear of possessing and dominating to freedom and grace. It is here that we experience the final glory of the spirit identified with the ultimate humility, the power “fulfilled in weakness.” (2 Cor. 12.9).”
So, now we are to believe that Patriarch Bartholomew (78 years old, 27 years the Ecumenical Patriarch, a lifetime of service to the Church) is lying? Deluded? Corrupt? Power hungry? A criminal?
Michael Stankovich makes some very good observations. Misha, how does a “long list of monastics signing it” make it “conclusive”? Mr. Stankovich’s points are strong and stand on their own merit.
Not at all.
When the Planar joined the RCC at Florence, was Orthodoxy synonymous with loving in it then? I think not. The identification of Constantinople with Orthodoxy itself is papist. Sad you can’t see that obvious fact. Orthodoxy existed long before Byzantium became Constantinople and will endure after the CP finally becomes officially Uniate.
As to Stankovich, I havnt taken him seriously for a very long time.
What should Bart do?
Nix his plans for the Ukraine, cease being an agent of the American deep state, and retire to Athos to have a chance at saving his own soul.
Misha, by discrediting Mr. Stankovich, you refuse to address the points he makes. By discrediting the Patriarchs of Constantinople for the past 500+ years or so, you imply that God doesn’t know what God is doing. Now that you have told us what “Bart” should do, you could tell us what would happen then, after he has retired, and you have your way. Alternatively, you could, if you wanted to, tell us what would happen if autocephaly is granted, or if it is not granted. What will you do with the millions of UOC-KP Christians if autocephaly is not granted? Fold them into Russia?
Misha, we need to finally lay to rest the ridiculous ‘meme’ that the Ecumenical Patriarchate will become Uniate. That’s not going to happen.
The only “Unia” that is emerging right now is a political alliance between the Pope of Rome and the Moscow Patriarchate.
“So, now we are to believe that Patriarch Bartholomew (78 years old, 27 years the Ecumenical Patriarch, a lifetime of service to the Church) is lying? Deluded? Corrupt? Power hungry? A criminal? “
Yes……and you can add heretic and (soon to be) schismatic.
Mikail,
You are the antithesis of any of the Fathers who mourned and grieved anyone who fell into a state of schism or heresy. You would somehow imagine Blessed Mark of Ephesus openly mocked or scorned those who attempted to form a false union? You perhaps have read St. Chrysostom’s letters to Theodore who had fallen? Do you recall him disparaging this monk for the “pride” or the “stupidity” that led to his fall? Do you sense in either of these saints of the church a personal dislike for those who had fallen, or that they were personally offended by a man’s fall? You are familiar with the reasoning behind of St. Chrysostom in writing, “Why We Should Not Publish the Errors of the Brethren?”
Your absolute delight in referring to the Ecumenical Patriarch as a “heretic” and “schismatic” is neither righteous, commendable, or worthy of recognition as “defending” the Orthodox Faith. You are, however, sitting at a Pharisee’s banquet table, your face shiny with the fatness of judgment, taunting anyone who questions your actions: “Bring it; I can take it.” This is not spoken from a position of strength, but of weakness; one secure in their reasoning fears no one, and this leads to my final point.
St. Peter directs us:”Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1Pet. 3:15). You said you are in ROCOR, and I asked how it is that you are able to deliver post after post of condemnation of the Ecumenical Patriarch, yet ROCOR repented of its schism from the ROC – which to this day is a contentious and disputed issue among a segment of the older clergy and faithful – and again placed themselves under the omophor of those to whom they had referred to in the same language you used to refer to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Further, I asked you how you are able to morally condone the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church communing, as an Orthodox Christian, President Putin who openly supports a woman’s right to legalized abortion, and who is responsible for providing the legal means – on million times per year – to do so? And you certainly are not alone on this site. This, in my estimation, is the epitome of hypocrisy. It is my thought that your judgment will return to haunt you, and I fully believe you will not be alone.
“I can only offer what I know to be true”
And yet you only offer us the lies of others.
The Orthodox loved Orthodoxy long before Constantinople came into existence, they still loved her when heretical Constantinople persecuted them for doing so, they clung to their love of her when Uniate Constantinople kissed the Vatican slipper, and we will still love her if-God forbid-Ultramarist Constantinople falls into heresy through its self delusions.
We have the Good Shepherd. We don’t need the wolf in Byzantine clothing.
Beryl,
I have no intention of commenting on the Ukrainian matter at hand or of accusing the EP of heresy as technically defined. Some of us, however, have indeed read the full text from the original source, excerpts of which you quoted above. Included in that text are these words.
I will not argue the first sentence above. However, the second and third sentences border on outright blasphemy and more than explain the suspicions of many on this site.
Moreover…
In light of the above statement with which few would disagree as being an obligation of his canonical role, perhaps his All-Holiness would care to explain why he has chosen to exercise this duty in the Ukraine while having steadfastly refused this same duty in the dispute between Antioch and Jerusalem for over five years now – a dispute, I might add, with far less complications and worldly political implications than that of the Ukraine.
As I cannot read the hearts of other men, I cannot speak to his motivation. I will only say that if someone ‘on the other side’, as it were, of one’s own opinion (of whom one was already suspicious for other reasons) had used this language equating the dignity his office with the glory of our Lord Himself and lauded his “supreme and exceptional duty as a nurturing Mother and birth-giver of Churches” while having a demonstrated history of shirking this duty, it could do little but confirm their suspicions.
Brian, I couldn’t have said it better.
First, let me reiterate that nothing I have said here was intended to support the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch, which I deplore. Nothing. My intention was to attempt to bring some contrast to what strikes me as equally hypocritical, and equally shameful actions on both sides of this impasse. But what is fundamental is the lack of concern for those individuals, Orthodox Christians – who turn out to be in the millions – who are caught in what Christopher described so well as (and I paraphrase) victimized by the law; and the law says you are “schismatics,” void of Grace and outside the Church. Read St. Chrysostom literally, and he writes that ignorance of the circumstance and issues, in the end, is no excuse for remaining with the perpetrators of schism and subjects you the same condemnation. How many have called – in fact demanded – abandoning those in heresy for the sake of their own salvation, proving, in the end, that the law is not enough to save anyone.
I am quite astonished, Brian, that you find the hyperbole of the Ecumenical Patriarch bordering “outright blasphemy,” yet you apparently can stomach the notion that Russian is, in fact, the “Third Rome,” an apocalyptic consecration as “Holy Russia,” and in its “renewal of faith,” bound to lead and direct the future of world Orthodoxy. The facts, as delivered by their own Dept. of External Affairs, are that corruption within the church continues to be rampant; they chose to focus on “property” (e.g. restoring and building churches) over returning the lost faithful to participation in the life of the church, and knowingly leaving the false impression of a correlation between new churches and a need for more churches; and being an intimate party to legal surgical abortion as the primary form of contraception in numbers that are staggering. This is not offensive nor blasphemous to you, Brian? Or perhaps you would rather not comment?
If you intend to assume a moral high-ground, assuage your suspicion with fairness and balance (where have I heard that before?). There is neither innocence nor blamelessness here, only the customary love for the absolute worst aspects of our fallen humanity, served up in an atmosphere I would liken to the continuous anxiety of Mathew Broderick’s War Games, and certainly not the Akathist to the Icon of the Theotokos, Joy of All Who Sorrow, begging for her intercession.
Michael, you are ascribing words to me that I have never spoken or even hinted at. This was my first and only comment on this subject, and even it was not on the subject itself, but rather to explain to Beryl the reasons why the suspicions exist. Would you not agree that his was a strange use of hyperbole when the subject at hand was humility?
When brother Hierarchs cannot come together out of love for each other and especially for those in their care – or for those ‘schismatics’ for whom they claim to care, or for those local Churches whose actions have deeply offended one another, something has gone terribly wrong with their view of what it means to be a ‘Mother Church,’ be it the EP or Moscow (of which many are also suspicious).
It seems to me that there are indeed those who have perpetrated schism. It also seems to me that they are relatively few in comparison to the millions who are the victims of the schism – those who just want to go to their local parish, worship their Lord, and work out their own salvation. Most, although probably not all, are likely little different than those of us Americans who find ourselves under various foreign jurisdictions and wonder why this is so. Everyone knows it isn’t correct canonically, but few worry much about it in terms of their salvation. Heck, our host and many who comment here belong to a jurisdiction whose autocephaly most of the Orthodox world doesn’t even recognize. Does that make them ‘schismatics?’ Only, perhaps, to most legalistic among us (who themselves live in places with ‘uncanonical’ parallel jurisdictions). I cannot understand how any American Orthodox Christian could possibly judge an average Ukrainian parishioner as ‘schismatic,’ ‘uncanonical,’ or wholly removed from Grace, although I certainly think love demands that a way be found to bring them fully back into the fold.
The only direct comment I will now choose to make on this subject is that, regardless of whose jurisdiction the Ukraine rightfully is, I cannot see how granting autocephaly to a group both sides view as schismatic could possibly serve to bring peace among the Orthodox people of that land or the rest of the world. And I agree, we should pray rather than condemn.
O God, save Thy people (from ourselves!) and bless Thine inheritance.
Brian,
To be clear, I ascribed nothing to you. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental principle here: silence is ascent.
Secondly, both the OCA and ROCOR repented of their schism and were again reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church. The paradox of this situation is that both parties, until their repentance for schism, made the claim that they were the Russian Orthodox Church, pursuant to the direct instruction of the Patriarch of Moscow, in an extraordinary situation of the church under siege by the Revolution. Both refused to submit to the demands of Pat. Sergius, but nevertheless claimed a “filial” relationship with the church in Russia until such a time as they were again free. They believed that morally, this was their only choice and was not schism; the ROC declared them schismatic, but stopped short of deposing the bishops. And what developed? A parallel schismatic church alongside the canonical church (and in the US, two schismatic churches – Metropolia & ROCOR – alongside the ROC ). I have not seen a single person on this forum make the ridiculous claim that “there were no bishops or priests in ROCOR or the OCA because they were in schism,” or level the amount of vitriol or the claim that the sin of schism perpetrated by ROCOR or the OCA cannot be “washed away even by the blood of martyrdom,” as is being leveled at the Ecumenical Patriarch. “That’s unfair. This is a different situation.” No, it is not different. What is immoral is always immoral, and a decision to separate yourself from what is immoral is always a righteous decision. Personally, I cannot imagine how anyone cannot see the possibility of such a mirrored development in the Ukraine.
Michael, you know I respect you, but these two sentences contradict each other, especially in light of this..
Apparently, the key word is apparently.
Not even you, an ‘apparently’ skilled keyboarder and commentator on numerous blog sites have time to correct every comment made here. I, on the other hand, a tedious hunter-and-pecker, comment infrequently as time allows and generally only when I feel able to contribute something other than just another meaningless opinion (meaningless in the sense of it having any real impact on what is being discussed). I do have other things to do, after all.
1) As to Russia’s renewal of faith, I do not live there. I simply do not know. I know what my priest-friends and other friends (fluent in Russian, but not Russian themselves) who frequently visit there (not in a tour group) tell me. Their impressions of renewal are positive, but I also recognize that their visits may not reflect the culture as a whole. They do tell me that the churches are full. As for the re-storing and building of churches, the government is rebuilding them presumably because the government destroyed them. What this may mean for the returning the lost faithful to participation in the life of the church remains to be seen, but no one I know who has been there over the years sees this as a bad thing. They find it refreshing to be in a place where government and media are not hostile to the Faith. None of these folks are blind to the fact that Putin is a shrewd and likely self-serving politician, by the way.
2) Abortion is evil always and anywhere. Period. I note that Abortion on demand is legal (though somewhat restricted) in the “great Orthodox countries” of Greece (whose Church is also largely government funded, and the rates are rising), Serbia (reportedly the highest rate in Europe), and the Ukraine. In 2011 the Russia government enacted laws restricting abortion that bring her more in line with these other countries. These are highly unpleasant facts, and they excuse no one, but they are facts nonetheless.
There is simply is no arguing with such moral relativism. Despite the fact that, with a million abortions per year, legal “restrictions” are merely words on paper. You know it and I know it, and when has this ever discharged a moral man from confronting immorality, “unpleasant facts” not withstanding? Never. I’ve not read a single comment here ever claiming that the world despises Greece or Serbia or Ukraine because they see the “spiritual renewal” that is occurring and are intimidated by its righteousness. Or likewise suggesting that these you mention have been ordained to receive the mantle of “moral authority” to lead the Orthodox Church into the future. And a most obvious question: why does the Patriarch of the largest body of Orthodox Christians on this earth – riding the coattails of arguably one of the three most powerful men on this earth – stand silently as the “emperor” of this generation openly informs the world that he will continue to support and fund this human atrocity, even as he comes to the Chalice? Finally, after all is said and done, who can imagine our God will bless and direct this?
Perhaps I was not clear enough, Michael.
…they excuse no one
Not the MP, not the EP, and certainly not I. I don’t know why we are arguing.
Brothers, you both waste your time. The lines are drawn, and the teams are picked. It is not who is right, or wrong, but who “wins”, gets the “title” and has the “power”. The friends of Russia, and lovers of Third Rome to come, have been praying for this day of schism with “Constantinople”. One poster proclaimed, “Mark this day!” and better Greek and Slav not in communion with one another. With glee, not sadness.
Imagine that! What of the brother Russian, and Greek monks on Mount Athos? Deportations? Some would burn the entire village to get the national title. Imagine Putin’s pride when he proclaims mother Russia! Third Rome! I say be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
I think of a guarded big bully, with forbearance, who has gotten the prideful dim wit to throw the first punch, and thus say, “AH HA! You see! There is the one who started all this, I had every right to mow him down, and take what is rightfully mine!” Or, and like Pilate, who can wash his hands clean of the bloodshed to come. Is it no wonder our Lord had to suffer such great agony. One thing Christ can always count on is that we will always let him down. From the top to bottom.
Again
So, what or who do they love? Men who should know better. Men of Apostolic succession! Sad days we live in! Lord Have Mercy!
Dino
It’s not that complicated
Who cares about the Russians?
Love em, hate em
Personally, I’m no fan of theirs
But this is a no brainer
Like it or not, they oversee the canonical Church there
That’s the way the ball bounces, G
Any intrusion is exactly that
An instrusion
There is no excuse for it
We are about to watch the destruction of a canonical Church in real time
And so many on this blog, even this blog, are either
Cheering it on
Or saying
Either way is cool. Let’s just be brothers
No, brothers stand up for their little brother who is about to get his a$$ kicked
Standing up for the MP canonical Ukranian Church is the right choice
No matter if we personally like the MP or not
Canonical is canonical
Billy,
Like it or not, healing the schism that already exists is complicated – complicated IMHO by a history that has less far less to do with the Church than it does with the horrors of WWII, the Cold War, current worldly politics, and nationalistic fervor.
I certainly agree that the non-schismatic canonical jurisdiction in the Ukraine should be respected first and foremost, but healing this schism is not simple, and we shouldn’t pretend that it is. “Canonical” means nothing without peace.
Let us pray fervently that it is not complicated even further than it already is.
Brian
We dont need to have the whole discussion of when and when not to follow the canons
This indeed is a no brainer
I’m not saying that healing the existing schism is easy
I’m saying that this particular “solution” is inherently wrong
If there is an answer, this is NOT it!
Especially with all the implications that are attached to it
Come on man
You’re telling me you are all for the antics of Filaret, the State Department and “The Mother Church?”
You think the 3 of those actually CARE specifically for the Ukrainians and aren’t only out for their own gain?
This stinks of antichrist
Billy,
Brian is correst. It is very complicated. So much so that even a big fat loudmouth like me, who has a opinion about everything does not want to touch this one. Not that our EP is a saint, but I simply do not trust the government of Russia. The evil one has been living there for a long time, and I do not believe he has left. It is just how I feel in my soul and bones.
Billy,
I think we agree on this, not that it matters a whit what we think.
What is needed more than anything is prayer, forgiveness, and love of enemies whomever they happen to be – the true and only real power readily available to all Christians who will to exercise it. You know, all that Jesus stuff that no one pays any attention to.
“Love righteousness, you rulers of the earth, think of the Lord with uprightness, and seek him with sincerity of heart;
because he is found by those who do not put him to the test,
and manifests himself to those who do not distrust him.
For perverse thoughts separate men from God,
and when his power is tested, it convicts the foolish;
because wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul,
nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin.
For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from deceit,
and will rise and depart from foolish thoughts,
and will be ashamed at the approach of unrighteousness.”
Dino
I’m sorry, but you and Brian are wrong
You can’t heal a local schism by causing a global one
Let alone validating the local one
It’s not right and it’s only going to make everything much much worse for everyone
Billy,
See comments above (my most recent to you and earlier to Michael). We are in agreement. This is a horrible idea that can only serve to compound and probably expand an already painful schism. God only knows what mess it would create there – and even here in the USA.
Having said this, I wonder (because I do not know) what attempts have been made by the MP or EP or anyone else to heal the existing schism. If anyone knows, I hope they share it. And to be clear, no snark is intended. I’d really like to know. Has anyone done anything to reach out to ‘the lost sheep,’ or are all sides pointing fingers and stubbornly waiting for the other to concede?
I was no fan of Met. Phillip, but when that Archdiocese was suffering schism, he picked up the phone and called his arch-rival, Metropolitan Michael of Toledo, initiating a discussion of how to heal the division. This one is more complicated, I admit, but is anyone doing anything to bring healing to this schism?
Billy,
What has happened, has happened. There will be no going back, only forward with reactions to every action forward. Again Brian is correct, all that is left is prayer. I will make one more comment and I am done, to the many who love Russia, and her church please forgive me, but…
At this point we are in schism. The Russian Orthodox Church, and it’s supporters are more than ready and willing to take over what has traditionally been the EP’s role,(now, because Russia has the numbers) and for some reject and label the EP and our churches heretical. This is the complicated part, at least for me.
Maybe the Russian’s are right, about this issue with Ukraine. Maybe, but if I may.
Russians have been on the wrong side of history for a very long time. They not only gave the world a system of government that has killed over 100 million persons. They as a nation, in addition to killing millions of their own, enslaving millions, jailing millions, starving millions, and keeping their entire common folk, in a state of constant fear and dread for nearly a hundred years. Oh yea, they also burned down nearly all their churches, and killed ,most in clergy.
Russia’s claim to fame was Communism and the leadership of Stalin, and his victory over the invading Nazis. Stalin’s stupidity sacrificed millions of his own people, which was in part because he simply did not care for human life. Yet! Stalin is still regarded a war hero, regardless of the horrors he committed to his own people, before, during, and after that period. Imagine, before and the first part of WW2, Stalin was Hitler’s partner. We are very lucky, Hitler was also stupid, and invaded Russia. Game changer if he didn’t.
It is not far off, that in addition to the horrors Russia gave to the world with the serial murders Communism gave us, they also are responsible for not only starting WW2, with their alliance with Hitler, but in reality they kick started Hitler to victories in the beginning of WW2. Victories Germany might not have won without the help of Russia. Russian fuel feed the Nazi war machine, ironically that same Russian fuel later ran the tanks, trucks, and planes into Russia when they first invaded Russia. Before the invasion Germany received millions of tons of food, metals, and raw materials crucial for a war machine. Years later, Europe in rumble, and millions more killed because yet again, the Russians were on the wrong side of history.
More irony? When the Nazis and Russians carved up Poland, Russia said they did it to protect…you guessed it, Ukraine.
Since the war, loafs of bread, bottles vodka, and misery. Oh, and Communists Bishops.
They have been so broken for so many generations, they are content with Putin, and their poor conditions that barely gets most by, in not only a rich country, but the largest in the world. Their elder Bishops, for the most part, former KGB informants, from the old Soviet Union, Russian Orthodox Church. In other words, the devil ran their church. Putin was KGB, the MP had his part to play in the former KGB as well. Now he would be leader of Third Rome. Ukraine was a tool to get him there, and the EP fell right into the trap.
We are in a dark and dangerous place right now. More questions than answers, and that is why I am confused by it all, and take no sides. Only give prayers, and wonder if the devil ever left Russia.
Thoughtful post, Dino. One quibble though (with many layers to it however): Russia has not been on the “wrong side of history” for a long time. It did not inflict its errors on the rest of the world.
Holy Rus’ was taken over by foreigners who destroyed its Christian society. This takeover was made possible by Wall Street financiers and the British foreign ministry. There was nothing indigenous about the Bolsheviks. Even Lenin had not one drop of Russia Russian blood coursing through his demonic veins.
I say this not as a russophile but as an ardent student of history.
Regardless, perhaps it is the West which is on the “wrong side” of history? The great lie of equality has resulted in the destruction of greater numbers of people since at least 1789. And anyway wasn’t the unholy trinity of “liberte, egalite and fraternite” which gave rise to Bolshevism in the first place?
Dino
Before I comment
Has the official Tomos been declared yet?
I’ve only heard of the lifting of anathamas and the communion of the EP with the Ukrainian schism
I agree with you and Brian that prayer and forgiveness needs to be emphasized
However, I strongly disagree that to speak up is pointless
It matters a great deal
In your understanding of Russian history, I am wondering if you are confusing the relationship between Church and State there
It certainly is complicated
You have suspicions now of Russia and their supposed symphonia between the Russian Federation and the Russian Orthodox Church
Me too
However, they still seem to be in the right as far as principle and canon law is concerned
Also, the Russians are building up the Church in their own country. Remarkable!
What do we have?
The EP and GOA sucking us dry and they cant even finish an idol tribute memorial to their own greatness “St. Nicholas” monstrosity
They dont care about building the Church in America
They strangle it in its crib
And as far as politics is concerned
Come on man – it’s totally NWO oriented
Green Patriarch?
Notice he is pulling rank and attempting to rule over the entire globe when the Church Of Constantinople that he leads has what, 2000 members?
Church of Constantinople: approximately 2000 members
Global population of pandas: approximately 2000 bears
Coincidence? I think not!
Suffice it to say, that is not ROCOR’s self understanding. The OCA will have to speak for itself. ROCOR pursuant to Pat. Tikhon’s famous ukase 362, took over spiritual leadership and authority of the Church of Russia when the MP was no longer able to exercise these functions due to the Communist captivity. The MP, having been completely broken by the Soviet government, could direct nothing during its enslavement to militant atheism. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were initially agreed on that fact.
The Metropolia was initially part of the ROCOR, then broke in schism from it, reunited and, finally, after WWII, returned to schism under neither ROCOR or the MP.
Now ROCOR never officially stated that the MP was devoid of grace, only that it was under extreme duress and had made many, many statements and decisions which disqualified it from leadership.
Here’s a nice rundown from orthodoxengland:
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/home.htm
All that has precisely nothing to do with the Ukraine which, until a couple of months ago, was universally agreed to be the territory of the MP. You may also recognize the name Denisenko in the above linked narrative of events. Vipers congregate together.
We are not arguing, Brian. No one else seems to care. There are those who would even invent heresies and create its own accompanying jingo – the immediate signs of foolishness – and beg the intercession of the Pillars of Orthodoxy and Defenders of the Faith in order to trash the Ecumenical Patriarch. Yet they have not a word of moral rebuke for the Patriarch of Moscow; for his cowardice, for compromising his position, and for his abdication of the voice of moral authority in the largest Orthodox Church in the world. You will forgive me, Brian. I meant nothing personal in this exchange.
Is phyletism a heresy or not? Doesn’t giving primacy to nationalistic/ethnic politics in the Ukraine, and to Hellenism, constitute heresy on the part of the EP if so?
Brian, thanks for your reply. I can’t address your concerns about the statements made by the Hierarchs except to say that it is difficult to imagine the Orthodox Church without the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople. If the Phanar goes away, what will be left? I read through the entire statement carefully again, and can’t see a problem with it, but I have often been accused of having no clue. There is no question that Christ is All in All, and is the Divine Leader over all; and that is stated: “In times of greater or lesser historical challenge, our Patriarchate – faithful to its vocation and ministry – neither says nor does anything unrelated to the incarnate Word.” In other words; the Patriarchate doesn’t seem to me to be equating itself to Christ as you implied.
As for the dispute between Antioch and Jerusalem, what do you think the EP should be doing to solve it? Also, why do you state that it’s less complicated than the situation in Ukraine?
Beryl,
As rightly stated by the EP, it is his canonical role to mediate disputes between sister churches. He is, as it were, the appellate court who is tasked with hearing and helping to settle these disputes, restoring canonical order and peace. Antioch believes Jerusalem has overstepped its millennia-old territorial boundaries (and obviously Jerusalem disagrees). Antioch has reached out to him multiple times to help settle the dispute, and each time they have been ignored. To solve it, he should be hearing each side’s case and settling it if at all possible. Thus far, he has refused even to hear it.
It is infinitely less complicated than the Ukraine because East/West worldly geopolitics and historic ethnic and political hatreds are not really in play as they are in the Ukraine. The territory in question is Qatar, hardly a concern of the major word powers, and all sides are Arabs.
As for the rest, I won’t argue. I would only say that in the climate of suspicion that exists, it was the poorest possible choice of words.
Brian, I wouldn’t be so quick to say that Qatar is “hardly a concern of the major world powers.” It seems to me the Ecumenical Patriarchate would be very concerned about stepping in to help settle a dispute, especially since doing so would be like “taking sides” in a very, very tricky situation. Is there a danger that bloodshed might occur if the EP did “step in”? I would only add this: a link to an article by Andrew Korybko:
https://21stcenturywire.com/2017/06/07/the-machiavellian-plot-to-provoke-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-into-a-blood-border-war/
Beryl,
Of course the US cannot seem to keep itself from meddling anywhere and everywhere. However, this dispute is over a tiny community of about 2000 Christians with minuscule political influence in a country of over 2.7 million. The US State Department cares about them about as much as they care about us or the Christians in Iraq or in Egypt or in Syria, or in…
Swinging the population of the Ukraine (44.5 million), almost all of whom are Christian and half of whom are Orthodox is another kettle of fish entirely.
I don’t the situation; however, the question arises, was the EP being lazy? Uninformed? Papal? Petty? I did read up a bit, and a community of 2000 in Qatar, when we have highly volatile land deals, Israel being Israel, etc., it is hard for me to believe it’s a little thing.
Beryl,
Whatever the case, the Qatar dispute is far smaller and less complicated in comparison to the Ukraine (this was the question you asked). And still the question remains: Why the Ukraine and not Qatar?
It is certainly possible that part of the answer may be found in the EP’ self-understanding of having direct jurisdiction in the Ukraine (though that is not the primary argument he offered for his actions there). But setting that aside, there is a dispute over Qatar, and there was an appeal (which constitutes an affirmation of respect, not contempt, for his office and canonical role). Why is it being ignored?
Note that I am not the one accusing him of being lazy, uniformed. Papal, petty, etc., and you are welcome to hold your own opinions. I am merely explaining why so many are so suspicious. Ignoring this ongoing this dispute (about which, it should be noted, I have no personal interest) for a full five years now, especially in light of his stated rationale for intervention in the Ukraine, does little to allay these suspicions. One should at least understand why people feel the way they feel – just as I think many (even those who disagree with the EP on the Ukraine) can at least understand why so many Ukrainians feel the way they feel about Moscow.
Brian
“As rightly stated by the EP, it is his canonical role to mediate disputes between sister churches”
To facilitate a resolution with the aide of all Churches, or to act as sole/lone arbiter?
Brian
Furthermore, the Ukrainian situation was not a dispute between two canonical Churches
It was between a canonical Church and schismatic opponents
Also
The EP is not an arbitrator to a land outside of a dead Eastern Roman Empire
Between canonical Churches within the boundaries of the former empire doesn’t even make that much sense now – IMO – but I see that is at least debatable
The Ukrainian situation is not
Billy,
My understanding is that the EP is to act in the name of and with the blessing of all the Churches.
Someone more knowledgeable than I can likely cite the relevant canons on this.
4th Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon
Session XVI of the Proceedings
Canon 9
If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.
Canon 17
Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province. And if any one be wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example.
Canon 28
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.
“let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.” I guess this was highlighted in English in the original lol.
But assuming this was highlighted on this thread to apply to the current situation, yes but the application is not correct. In this case the realms named no longer exist, and there are two patriarchates now, so the EP alone does not have jurisdiction. The imperial city of Constantinople today is a memory and not factual but an historical fiction, and thus the throne of Constantinople as well. Or it could be re-named perhaps “the historical throne of Constantinople under the Turkish and neoliberal yoke.” The Thracian, Pontic, and Asian dioceses either no longer exist or in the case of the Thracian are I believe mainly under the Church of Greece, but in any case there’s no reference to the lands of the Slavs etc.
To paraphrase Nick Lowe channeled by Elvis Costello, “What’s so Funny ’bout Peace Love and Conciliarity?” That’s how this should be resolved today canonically and in the spirit of Orthodoxy.
Oxi Day
RE: ” . . . there are two patriarchates now, so the EP alone does not have jurisdiction.”
You sure about that?
The language applies to metropolitans or exarchs under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch, hence appointed by him. Ukraine has had an in-between status for centuries (with the Metropolitan appointed by the Patriarch of Moscow while the Ukraine also commemorates the EP), and is not in the historical territories of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate (complicating which is that Constantinople does not exist any longer, and not as the first city of a Christian empire either). So, yes, it is not up to the EP alone to decide this, unless the Byzantine Empire revives itself and the MP and the last few centuries of Ukrainian ecclesiology suddenly vanish. The EP’s interpretation is the kind of traditionalism (as opposed to living tradition) that EP-related scholars often try to call out elsewhere.
Oxi Day,
I take your point about Constantinople no longer being the seat of any Christian Empire. In this sense, it really is kind of a joke.
However, there is one thing I can agree with Beryl about when she asked, “Where would Orthodoxy be without an EP?” What, precisely she meant by this question I do not know. But it is a good point. The canons assume an EP, and it would be difficult to follow the order established by the canons without one. Conciliarity, yes – absolutely. But even our fathers (who were far holier and more conciliar than we) recognized the need for a judge of some matters.
Do we really want the ensuing chaos that might result from overturning the order established by our fathers? Are we little more than Leftists in Christian garb who want to overturn the order itself because we don’t happen to like what is going on at this moment in time?
There is a distinction that should be made that I think would be helpful to this entire discussion. It is one thing to think that the person who currently holds the office of EP is doing foolish and destructive things that are harmful to the Church. It is quite another to advocate that the office of the EP should be abolished altogether.
It is notable that not even the Churches currently in conflict with the EP are calling for that – not even those who are now refusing to commemorate him.
Whether we like the current office holder or not, he will soon die, and the office will outlive him.
Good points, Brian, thank you for them. It would be worthwhile for the Church to examine prayerfully the canons regarding the Ecumenical Patriarchate and see what’s there and what’s accretion from Hellenistic phyletism and modern politics and Western influence in modern times, what was applicable only to ancient times, etc. That’s perhaps another reason for a Church Council for some inspired discernment on all this, apart from what seems like very political considerations and abrupt actions. Lord have mercy!
Oxy Day,
As much as I would like to agree with you, I suspect that those among us (and they do exist, thank God) who are as holy and wise as our Fathers number in the mere thousands or perhaps even hundreds. The rest of us (myself included), whether we realize it or not, are captive to modernism and passions of myriad types. Thus (sadly), I am not optimistic that any council called today could ever settle much of anything, much less be recognized by all as Council of the Church.
Some may (perhaps rightly) say that this pessimism represents a lack of faith. To this I would reply that as a whole we seem to be far removed from the Spirit of God Who drew those of various backgrounds and prejudices together to the point where they could say, “It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit…” My faith in Christ and His Church does not and will never depend on any unity imposed (or even maintained) by any law of any sort, including the canons – although as witnesses to a holiness that once was (a holiness to which I will likely never measure up), I do think it’s wise to be subject to their wisdom and to allow ourselves to be measured against the Spirit of holiness and wisdom to which they testify rather than to see ourselves as judges who presume we know better.
And that is the problem. Everyone seems to know better and holds his own opinion. The love of many has waxed cold, hatred is justified, the commandments of Christ and his Apostles are matters of debate, and the ancient boundary stones are ignored.
Not to change the subject, but all-too-many, even highly respected and ‘educated’ experts (so-called), some in high positions of authority, cannot even bring themselves to see the wisdom and profound insight into human nature expressed in the canons of not allowing clergy to divorce and remarry (It’s cold-hearted) or why a man sodomized as a child cannot be ordained (How is that his fault?) or why only men should be ordained (Are we not equal?), and the list of things to which they (we, I) have become blinded by pride and the spirit of modernism goes on…
Unity in the Holy Spirit is good and beautiful. Apart from Him it is a tower of Babel that far too many, I fear, seem to want to build.
I do not pretend to know how this current mess will end or how our Lord will use it for His purposes, but with my whole heart I trust that He is by no means surprised or worried for His Church. Whether by favor or by fire we are always being tried and purified. All we can do is take up the cross He has laid upon us for our good and maintain sure hope in the Resurrection. I have never known being crucified with Christ to be neat, tidy, or make perfect sense to my rational mind, He knows what He is doing though only rarely do I even remotely recognize His hand in the midst of it.
What do you call it when an Orthodox primate prays with heretics, when he refers to heretics as the other lung of the church?
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx
The translation is incomplete. “…he [Bartholomew] proffered a Koran [to Muhtar Kent, the CEO of Coca-Cola], which he called sacred and holy…”
That says it all.
And in your opinion, and pursuant to the teachings of the Church, referring to the Koran as “sacred and holy” makes him guilty of what specific heresy?
Well, THAT’S easy! The Koran denies the Trinity, reducing Christ to a “prophet.” Anything that flies in the face of the Nicean Creed is heresy.
No actually, it’s referred to as hyperbole. Unless, of course you would attempt to play me by asserting, before God Himself, that you honestly believe that the Ecumenical Patriarch accepts in his heart that the Koran is “sacred & holy” on the same level as the Holy Scripture. Now THAT was a simple refutation of silliness, was it not?
Perhaps I read it wrong, but I thought you were being critical of Brian for finding the “hyperbole of the Ecumenical Patriarch bordering outright blasphemy.” You wondered what heresy the EP has committed. George responded. Were you exaggerating and not taking either of them seriously? If you were, I missed it.
Yes, I do believe the EP accepts in his heart that the Koran is “sacred and holy.” When you give a copy of it to the chairman of the Caucasus Muslim Board in front of delegations of local Orthodox Churches, Vatican, and Islamic communities, I suspect it’s because you consider it a worthy gift. The respect he gives to heretical teachings is concerning because it suggests they are perfectly legitimate.
No one was trying to “play you,” Michael.
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=6623
I’m sure the EP throws up his hands in despair to hear you say that, Gail. Netanyahu gave a Bible to Melania and the Donald. Does that make him a heretic, too?
No, Beryl, he’s a Jew. Only an Orthodox Christian can become a heretic.
This quote from Patriarch Bartholomew, regarding the Holy Fathers that anathematized the Papists and Monophysites, is telling:
Basil,
I am so dense! How do you know that Patriarch Bartholomew’s statement is “regarding the Holy Fathers that anathematized the Papists and Monophysites”? From what I can find, he was speaking to Catholics regarding the forefathers from the Papists who caused the schism. In that context, his statement makes sense.
Netanyahu? Really, Beryl?
At the risk of bringing up a criticism of Judaism, there is the Jewish precept of hasbara (the Moslems have their own version called taqqiya). Both deal with dissimulation, or “targeted/acceptable lying in order to promote a cause”. (A paraphrase.)
We Christians don’t have that. That’s why if you read the Synaxarion, you’ll stumble upon the name of certain saints from the Ottoman period. All were Christians who for whatever reason recited the Shahada (which is the fundamental precept of Islam). Often they did it during a debate and did not mean to formally convert, merely to prove a point.
Coming to their senses however, some of them went directly to the local bey or pasha and confessed that they had temporarily apostasized from Christianity when they uttered those words but were now Christians, and hence, apostates from Islam and thus deserving of death.
Beryl, here’s the point: the Koran is neither “holy” nor “sacred”, at least not to a Christian. If the Moslems believe it is, that is their right and I will defend their right to go on believing it. I will not however give them the idea that I agree with them. That would not be charitable.
A religious leader gave a religious book to a leader. Arguing about it is like going down a tiny rabbit hole, out of which one cannot get. That’s my point.
But Netanyahu did not call the Christian Bible which he gave “sacred and holy”. Why? For a good reason: if he said those words then he would have to repudiate his religion and accept baptism. Otherwise, he’d be a liar.
As a general rule, Jewish and non-Jewish secular historians, scholars and anthropologists never use the terms “Before Christ” or “Anno Domoni” (i.e. BC/AD) and use instead “Before Common Era” (BCE) or “Common Era” (CE)? Why? Because BC/AD are explicitly Christological statements. Those who use them believe that Jesus is the Christ, that is to say the Annointed One –hence the eternal Logos which came into the world at a specific date in history.
A Bible or a Tanakh?
Btw, hasbarah is a part of Zionism, not Judaism.
Are you sure about that Isa? I don’t mean to quarrel but believe it’s something innate to Judaism. Consider the ruse that Abraham used to pawn off his sister-wife to Pharoah. While that was an uncomfortable episode it was sanctioned because this is what Abraham had to do to safeguard the safety of his company. The OT is full of such “divine deceptions”: Jacob and Esau, Judah and Tamar, Samson and his various prevarications. Etc.
In Genesis 21 we read that God made a covenant with Hagar and promised her that her beloved son, Ishmael, son of Abraham, was to become a great nation. Oh gosh, Islam is that “nation”! Does that holy and sacred covenant make God a heretic, TOO?
Islam is NOT that nation. Many Arabs are Christian, Orthodox or otherwise. The world’s most populous Moslem country, Indonesia, is not an Arab nation.
Yes, Ishmael’s descendants settled from Havilah to Shur and lived in hostility toward all their brothers.
Gail,
Enough with the head-hunting. Kindly find another target.
Most Arabs hold on to some form of monophysistism, which makes them at least partially muslim. The reason many Hispanics are becoming muslim is because they,too, are steeped, in monophysite culture form the Moors. The OCA agitprop insists, howaver, that monophysitism is some sort of resistance to Greek imperialism, which their fictional autocephalies would remedy.
Muslims are Arians, not Monophysites.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are also Arians, and it’s an American religion. That makes Americans partially Muslim.
Misha, is ROCOR in communion with Greek Old Calendar Churches? Is ROCOR in communion with the GOA? Are the Ephrem monasteries and Mt Athos in communion with the EP. You have become your own Pope.
There is only one who aspires to be another pope. His name begins with a “B”.
Q?
“However, using the term “church” to describe those outside of it…is the very definition of heresy. It is a direct contradiction of the Creed…”
St Nikolai Velimirovich of Ohrid gave a talk to the “Student Christian Movement” in England in the early 20th century preserved for us in an essay titled “The Agony of the Church”. He uses the term “Church” (ecclesia) in excess of 300 times. He specifically says “The Eastern Church” and “The Roman Church” and “The Anglican Church”.
I wonder why would he do that?
Both St Photios and St Mark of Ephesus referred to RC church as the Western church. Photios during the schism of his time and Mark after the Council of Florence.
Christopher,
If he did indeed do so, he was speaking informally. The Crete Council was supposed to be the formality of all formalities, a Great and Holy Synod. One may (unadvisedly) speak informally in a talk to students, or even a personal statement. But when you are talking about a supposedly binding statement of the Church, the standard is higher. One cannot contradict the Creed in that context.
I assume that no one doubted St. Nikolai’s adherence to the line in the Creed regarding “one . . . Church”. Unfortunately, speaking of different “churches” is the common usage in the West.
Misha
I fully agree and this is why I inquired and even confronted some Orthodox clergy when the Crete council happened
People need to understand the usage and purpose of language in context
If someone were to ask me, “Who or what is Zeus?”
I might reply, “A god worshipped by the ancient Greeks.” Or more simply, “A Greek god.”
However, if speaking precisely concerning truth
I would not affirm that Zeus was either Greek or a god at all
The council of Crete was attempting to use precise language
Outside of that context, I find it permissible to use the term in common speech, such as “Mormon church.”
I certainly do not believe the Nicene Creed refers to the Mormon church
This distinction of use of language – all the conspirators of the Council of Crete knew well what they were doing
While many dont understand what was really going on
They dont understand that it wasnt permissible then to use common speech
That’s also a part (among many other things) that made that false council so insidious
Misha,
The Crete document entitled “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian World” is very clear on the point that there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The document clearly states, “the non-Orthodox Churches and Confessions have diverged from the true faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
So, one might charge “Aha! But there is no such thing as non-Orthodox Churches! That would belie the unity of the One Church!”
The Crete document addresses this as follows:
“In accordance with the ontological nature of the Church, her unity can never be perturbed. In spite of this, the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her, and believes that her relations with them should be based on the most speedy and objective clarification possible of the whole ecclesiological question, and most especially of their more general teachings on sacraments, grace, priesthood, and apostolic succession.”
The important point the Crete document is making is that it accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches. That is to say, if the Methodists have historically called themselves a “Church” then fine, but they are not part of the One Church whose “unity can never be perturbed”.
We can’t just go around with a bottle of spray paint and edit out the word “Church” from the marquee of our local Methodist church. That would be vandalism and demeaning. It’s also not helpful to tell a Methodist that they are not part of a “Church”. That would be the end of the conversation.
However, we can point out how the “Methodist Church” has steered away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in regards to ecclesiology, sacraments, grace, priesthood, and apostolic succession.
The non-Orthodox and the Orthodox have different definitions of what “Church” is. Relations to non-Orthodox should be based on a “speedy and objective clarification” of those differences. This is what the Crete document is saying. It’s not saying that we should engage in the false ecumenism of finding commonalities, holding hands, and singing kumbaya.
https://www.holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world?_101_INSTANCE_VA0WE2pZ4Y0I_languageId=en_US
Joseph Lipper
You are flat out wrong
The document not only misuses language so that truth can be twisted, it uses double talk/speech
You said
“This is what the Crete document is saying. It’s not saying that we should engage in the false ecumenism of finding commonalities, holding hands, and singing kumbaya”
But that’s exactly why that needless document was written and forced imposed
No one in their right mind truly accepts that document
“No one in their right mind truly accepts that document”
The Moscow Patriarchate did. They signed off on it beforehand before they bailed on the council at the last minute. And why did they bail? I believe the primary reason was because the EP was being approached back in 2016 for Ukrainian autocephaly.
Joseph Lipper
The ROC certainly does not accept that document
The EP employed deception to make it appear that all accepted ut up front – knowing that it would be rejected ultimately
It is a lie
Your responses are sad and only prove how destructive that false council truly was
Joseph Lipper
The ROC certainly does not accept that document
The EP employed deception to make it appear that all accepted ut up front – knowing that it would be rejected ultimately
It is a lie
Your responses are sad and only prove how destructive that false council truly is
The Crete documents were prepared and finalized by the primates and delegations of the autocephalous Orthodox churches in Chambesy, Switzerland in January 2016. The Moscow Patriarchate was part of the group that prepared and finalized the Crete documents.
It was right before the 2016 council, that Poroshenko contacted the EP, requesting Ukrainian autocephaly:
http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/03/12/poroshenko-meets-with-the-patriarch-of-constantinople/
Guess who was the first hierarch to attack the council? Metropolitan Onuphrey of Ukraine.
Joseph, I’m with Billy Jack on this one. The ROC (and every other OC) tried mightily to ascribe good faith in the EP’s motives regarding the then-upcoming Cretan (now “Robber”) Council. Just like they all went along with the inception of the various Episcopal Assemblies. That’s what we Orthodox do: we try to be charitable to our brothers, knowing our sinfulness.
This has been the way we do things throughout Church history. When a brother bishop was suspected of falling into a heresy or causing a schism, all the stops were pulled out to try and overlook the actions which preceded them. Think of the Photian Schism, or Pope Gregory the Great’s chastisement of Patriarch John IV Neusteutis’ use of the title “ecumenical patriarch”. Extreme patience was used to bring about the offending brother’s repentance. Even today, there have been innumerable attempts to heal the Great Schism of 1054.
But there does come a point in which the die is cast and there can be no acceptance of a wayward bishop and/or council. The other OCs are unanimous in their castigation of the Cretan Robber Council and their opposition has only solidified with this latest outrage in the Ukraine.
George,
The criticism of Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos on the “Relations” document is one I completely agree with. He basically says that it was ill-conceived, vague, and tended towards diplomatic language rather than theological language. He says that it needs more work. However, he does not call the “Relations” document heretical, and neither do I.
Hmmmmm…..if Bartholomew is a heretic and you belong to a church that is in communion with the Phanar, what does that make you? The Old Calendarists are, in fact, the only group not in communion with the Phanar, which makes all of “world Orthodoxy” (whatever that means) heretical by virtue of being in communion with a heretical see.
Alithea, which old calendar sect do you belong to? There is disunity among the old calendar sects. One group is not as “orthodox” as the other. Apparently you identify all the Ephrem monasteries as being heretical.
I’m just describing how it is according to the tradition of the Orthodox Church. There are people here who are calling Patriarch Bartholomew a heretic or a schismatic, thus my comment.
Alithea, your description is based on people who think and interpret the tradition of the church as you do. I personally do not like the EP and believe he is the ultimate secularist.
JK, while I do believe that the EP is in the grips of a globalist delusion, I do not know whether he is “the ultimate secularist”. Also, as far as I’m concerned, I do actually “like” the EP. Both of these opinions however (mine as well as yours) are beside the point. What he is doing, is scandalous and uncanonical. The fact that he may be a puppet of the State Dept is also besides the point although that is bad enough.
Let me put it to y’all this way: you know how I feel about a local, autocephalous and fully territorial American Orthodox Church. I was for it yesterday, today and I’ll be for it tomorrow. However, I would be completely against the EP intruding himself into America and setting it right; heck he could make Metropolitan Jonah patriarch and I’d be against it.
Why? It’s the principle that’s involved here. If the EP can intrude onto the canonical territory of another local Church and make up all sorts of flimsy excuses and against the plain text of canonical law, as to why he has the right to do it, then he can do it anywhere. Such a scenario can never end well.
That’s why this particular intrusion into Ukraine won’t end well. And I’m not even talking about the bloodshed and violence that will take place when Poroshenko violently takes over the thousands of churches and monasteries by brute force. What a “witness” that will be to those thoughtful Protestants and Catholics who are clawing their way to the true Faith.
George Michalopulos
You have identified the same bottom line that matters to me in this
If the EP can do it there, he can do it anywhere
Even on the moon – as to your parody
The canons must be followed on principle or there will be chaos mixed with extreme subjegation
This is no joke and the EP is playing for keeps
The Pope in 1066 thought he was in the right as well when he unleashed William the Conqueror
No more Celtic/English Orthodox Church
Gone
This move by the EP will not free the Orthodox in the Ukraine
Ultimately, it will wipe out the Orthodox Church there
In a country that has already been over run with Uniatism as well as massive Protestant missionary endeavors
Right under the nose of the ROC
You think the OCA has a chance?
Goo bye!!
He can’t do it here, as long as Archbishop Demetrios stands between us and him, which is why I think he refused to retire. If Metropolitan Emmuanel, as an example, were allowed to replace him, we could be in trouble.
BJ, your reference to 1066 is spot on.
George Michalopulos
You know, George
Many of us found the Celtic Orthodox Church before we were able to find the Orthodox Church in our own time
We read about it and didn’t really understood what it was
Until we found the Orthodox Church
Then it made sense
But once it made sense, a deep sadness came
Because we understood what had been both lost and found for us
But yet remained forgotten for our family members
To think that the Ukrainians face this now is totally unacceptable
I stand with the canonical Ukranian Church
And therefore the Church
So help me God
I can appreciate that your particular narrative is infinitely more stimulating than the boring, lengthy documentation that was provided by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Nevertheless, had you bothered to read it, you have found that the justification for the actions in the Ukraine are focused, limited, and specific to the Ukraine. The Ecumenical Patriarch makes no argument for “interference” outside of his jurisdiction, but, in fact, demonstrates through letters, documents, and agreements (and I added to the conversation, elements provided by noted church historian Fr. John Meyendorff) the long and intimate relationship of the Ecumenical Patriarch with the Ukraine. It is simply untrue that the Ecumenical Patriarch has laid out a “path” or “formula” for further or later “incursion” or extension of his authority beyond what is, in my opinion, specifically detailed in impressive scholarship, but what you have ignorantly termed “flimsy excuses and against the plain text of canonical law.” This, in a manner of speaking, is like saying it is possible to take the repair manual for an Amana freezer and successfully building a nuclear reactor.
Dr S, I reject your interpretation of the Phanariote historiography which you reiterate. The Ukrainian archdiocese was given explicitly to the Muscovite patriarchy by the written and unambiguous declaration of Patriarch Dionysius IV several centuries ago. For the present EP to now say that this was done “under duress” when there is no documentary evidence of this at all, tells us that we have entered into Orwellian narrative shifting. (In fact, the evidence that this transmission to Moscow was considered at the time to be permanent is buttressed by the fact that the Patriarch of Jerusalem at the time –and others–were dead set against Dionysius doing this.)
In fact, this rewriting of history is so laughable that only one of the GOA metropolitans (Evangelos of New Jersey) had the temerity to issue a turgid and fabulous encyclical which he demanded to be read from the pulpit of his parishes.
Regardless, the history of the Papacy likewise grew incrementally. Now, it is accepted in RC canon law that “No man can judge the Pope”.
Mr. Michalopulos,
One man’s no documentary evidence of this at all is another man’s “I’ll only accept a refutation from you based on merit, with evidence, not your dramatic conjecture.” Where I’m from, your bluster is Pyrite – “fool’s gold,” whose attachments” are ominous sounding diaper-fill like “Orwellian” & “Phanariote historiography.” No. Not with me. If your claim is that the documentation is incorrect, refute it like a scholar, not Laura Ingrham.
We don’t have to go back centuries. Up until recently, there were no shortage of proclamations, communiques etc. from even the Phanar reiterating that the UOC in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow was the sole canonical Church.
https://www.patriarchate.org/-/communiq-1?fbclid=IwAR0KGSJJDENZMhIJTrMVlETBcY6uNW2UO1sfxpKRg-Qybt7JnDix0J0P3eM
Confusing day. First it looked like they were postponing this monumental mistake. Now it appears the Synod of Constantinople has renewed its agreement for Bartholomew to sign the autocephaly. This appears to be the real deal in that the end of the communique goes through a pro forma call to avoid church grabbing and violence. Still, we’ll have to wait to see the actual tomos to know for sure. These guys are completely treacherous and unstable so God only knows.
George M,
What? “No documentary evidence”? I assume that you have not read the report by “His Grace Bishop Makarios of Christoupolis at the Synaxis of the Hierarchs of the Ecumenical Throne on the Ecclesiastical Issue in Ukraine (Constantinople, 1-3 September 2018).” In this extremely well-documented, meticulously researched report, we can (if we want to) read the exact reasons for the letter written by Patriarch Dionysius IV, along with much more historical documentation than I have seen provided by those who oppose the EP. Where you get your information I do not know. You are simply incorrect in your statement above, and the evidence to prove my statement that you are incorrect will be made clear if you will simply read the entire report. If it would help for the purposes of saving time, you might consider doing a search for “Dionysius” in the report.
PLEASE READ:
https://risu.org.ua/php_uploads/files/articles/ArticleFiles_72787_Report_by_His_Grace_Bishop_Makarios.pdf
Or you could just read the original document and see that there was nothing “temporary” about the original transfer.
George M, you suggest that we read the original letter of Patriarch Dionysius IV, but I can’t find it anywhere. Since you’ve obviously read it, would you provide a link? I did read a couple of “Orthodox Christianity” web site articles, which are possibly where you got your statement that there was “nothing temporary about it.”
An excerpt from the report by Patriarch Makarios includes two quotes from the letter. (Nothing like good ‘ol “cut-and-paste” in this case!):
“2) The blatant and unjustified subordination of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Patriarchate of Russia is based on the letter of the late Ecumenical Patriarch Dionysius, which, however, allowed the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain but not to authorize the transfer of his jurisdiction over the metropolis. The letter reads: “In the Holy Spirit the beloved and desired brother and the co-servant of our mediocrity (the Patriarch of Moscow) has permission to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv according to the Church regulation.” Beyond this, however, the prescribed term of the agreement was not met: “May he only keep the Metropolitan of Kyiv to commemorate the honorable name of the Holy Ecumenical Patriarch first when officiating the bloodless and divine Sacrament in that diocese.” The termination of the commemoration of one’s canonical Bishop’s name entails the canonical punishment of deposition. 3) The historical conditions under which the letter was written have now completely changed. Today, there is neither the “excess of the place” (or the distance) nor the difficulties caused by “fightings that occur between the two greatest Powers” that might prevent the Ecumenical Patriarch from exercising his canonical right over the Metropolis of Kyiv. So, since there are no historical conditions that caused the letter, and given that the clause on commemoration of the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople was breached, it is obvious that this letter is automatically considered invalid and can be revoked by its author. “
Alitheia, this is my point entirely. There is only so long that the canonical churches can overlook the CP’s heresy without being tainted by it due to intercommunion. In Orthodoxy we allow time for the wheels to turn but that time is not without limits. Eventually, what was known as canonical Orthodoxy falls into heresy by simply maintaining communion with a heretical local church.
Something is going on. Assembly of Bishops meeting seems about to declare autocephaly while Athos monks swarm all over America. Even Lex Lutsos hosted Ephaim of Vatopedi. Very unusual stuff.
Please excuse me for posting this here as I wasn’t sure where to post. Below please find a message from yesterday on the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the USA website.
Message of the 9th Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America
Thursday, October 04, 2018
http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/news/2018/message-ninth-assembly-of-canonical-orthodox-bishops
Billy, you are absolutely right that it’s a bad sign that no ROC/ROCOR clergy were present at this SCOBA meeting. Of course, the only reason they were not present is because they were not permitted by Patriarch Kirill. How’s that for foreign interference!
I believe the Antiochian Archdiocese was at least represented by Bishop Thomas (shown in the picture) and Fr. Thomas Zain.
“I believe the Antiochian Archdiocese was at least represented by Bishop Thomas (shown in the picture) and Fr. Thomas Zain.”
Not for long……wink, wink.
Below please find an article from Sunday on the Greek News Online website.
Russian Hierarchs withdrew from the Assembly Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America
OCTOBER 7TH, 2018
http://www.greeknewsonline.com/russian-hierarchs-withdrew-from-the-assembly-canonical-orthodox-bishops-of-the-united-states-of-america/
I wonder if the persistent posters here spend as much time in prayer for the Holy Church as they do publishing their thoughts and sniping at each other!
Father C
Why don’t you ask some of your fellow Orthodox clergymen?
Some of them are the most ruthless posters on this blog
In fact, a few of them are so terribly ruthless, it’s fascinating
You should ask them if they pray- if you wanna keep things fair
You can tell when a post hits BS right in the conscience.
Fr. George Washburn
Right on time
Sir, Father C would like to know how your prayer life is going
Is there a problem with this fictional person’s reading comprehension? Fr. C asks about the prayer life of “persistent posters,” which surely describes BS.
Fr. George Washburn
Reread the thread
I point out the condescending attitude of priests
Usually, at least at first, I dont make it personal
At least Father C’s point was not personable to anyone – or vulgar for that matter
Not you, though. That’s all you, Padre
Thanks for playing
The John Birch Society speaks of the Anarchic Tradition of the American Constitution and Constitutional Anarchy. Therefore American Orthodoxy is by definition, an oxymoron. The best the GOA can hope to be is a gateway to western faiths for immigrants or an ethnic palliative for those who want to go back. If Orthodoxy is the willing handmaiden of the Russian and Byzantine state, then why not the American and Turkish. The statist state is, after all, the other head of the two headed eagle, the stavraetos.
Basil. Following is a quote that appears to come from a speech by Patriarch Bartholomew, given on November 30, 1998. The longer quote I post makes more sense than the snippet you posted, which makes no sense at all. Do you have any evidence to back up your “quote”?
Patriarch Bartholomew, the Phanar, November 30th, 1998
“According to the Holy Fathers, the Popes of Rome and their representatives are the true cause of the West’s schism from the Catholic Orthodox Church. Your All-Holiness, you are aware that Saint Mark says literally: “For they have given cause for the schism, having obviously carried out the addition… We had previously broken from them, or rather had cut them off and separated them from the common body of the Church, as being of an improper and impious phromena and for irrationally having made the addition. Therefore, we turned away from them since they were heretics and for this reason separated from them.” And in our century, Saint Nectarios wrote: “Thenceforth the separation of the Churches began, which came into completion quite rightly under Photios, since the Church was in danger of going away from the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to become a Roman Church, or rather a papist Church, professing no longer the dogmas of the holy Apostles, but those of the popes.”
And these men, being the causes for the schism, are now in the hands of God, the righteous judge.
But is it possible that the holy Fathers, who rightfully cut heretical Rome off from the body of the Church as one would amputate an incurable body part, and stitched back together the seamless tunic of Christ—is it possible that they are “unfortunate victims of the serpent, chief of all evils?” What Orthodox Christian cannot help but grieve just by hearing those words alone?”
https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/6lt2o7/orthodox_view_of_pre_post_vatican_2_catholicism/?st=jn3v9704&sh=867a0247
Please excuse me for posting this here as I wasn’t sure where to post.
Below please find an article from today in The National Herald. Unfortunately, the article is locked and doesn’t appear in its entirety. I will continue to be on the lookout for the article in its entirely, and if found, I will post.
Archdiocese’s Games with Unpaid Contractors of Ionian Village and Savas Tsivikos
By Theodore Kalmoukos
October 23, 2018
https://www.thenationalherald.com/217539/archdioceses-games-with-unpaid-contractors-of-ionian-village-and-savas-tsivikos/
Below please find an article from Friday on the Religious Information Service of Ukraine website.
PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW TO VISIT KYIV TO HAND OVER TOMOS
19 October 2018, 13:16 | Religion and society
https://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/community/religion_and_society/73139/
Below please find an article from today on the Orthodox Christianity website.
FOUR TRIES: ATTEMPTS TO ACHIEVE UKRAINIAN AUTOCEPHALY IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS
John M Harwood
10/23/2018
http://orthochristian.com/116727.html
Below please find another article from yesterday on the Orthodox Christianity website.
RUSSIAN CHURCH HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO OBEY US—PAT. BARTHOLOMEW
The Patriarch dismisses arguments against his unilateral actions as “black propaganda”
Constantinople, October 23, 2018
http://orthochristian.com/116750.html
Below please find an article from today on the Orthodox Christianity website.
A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF PHILARET DENISENKO, WITH AN OPEN LETTER FROM HIS DAUGHTER
http://orthochristian.com/116749.html
Below please find another article from today on the Orthodox Christianity website.
WHO GOVERNS WHOM? THE ECCLESIASTICAL INSTITUTION OR THOSE WHO OVERSEE IT?
Fr Touma (Bitar) on Racism and Orthodoxy’s Byzantium Complex
http://orthochristian.com/116747.html
Below please find yet another article from yesterday on the Orthodox Christianity website.
MET. SERAPHIM OF PIRAEUS: CONSTANTINOPLE HAS NO RIGHT TO HEAR APPEALS FROM AND GRANT AUTOCEPHALY TO UKRAINE
Piraeus, Greece, October 23, 2018
http://orthochristian.com/116748.html
Please excuse me for posting this here as I wasn’t sure where to post.
Below please find an article from Friday in The National Herald which was locked. As of today, it is unlocked and in its entirety.
Archdiocese Ignored Spiritual Court’s Decision about Archimandrite Makris
By Theodore Kalmoukos
October 24, 2018
https://www.thenationalherald.com/217442/archdiocese-ignored-spiritual-courts-decision-about-archimandrite-makris/
Below please find a sermon from last Sunday given by Father John Whiteford of Saint Jonah Orthodox Church, on the Orthodox Christianity website.
ON THE BREAK WITH THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH AND PARISHIONERS OF THE ROCOR
Fr. John Whiteford
St. Jonah Orthodox Church
10/25/2018
http://orthochristian.com/116786.html
Below please find an article from yesterday on the Orthodoxia Info website.
In English
Constantinople, Jerusalem strengthen ties in response to Moscow decision
Κείμενο: English Edition 24/10/2018 * 10:27
https://orthodoxia.info/news/constantinople-jerusalem-strengthen-ties-in-response-to-moscow-decision/
Below please find an article from Monday on the Ukrinform – Ukrainian multimedia platform for broadcasting website.
Patriarch Bartholomew meets with children of Ukrainian soldiers killed in Donbas
22.10.2018 10:45
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/2563317-patriarch-bartholomew-meets-with-children-of-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-in-donbas.html
Below please find an article from Tuesday on the Interfax Religion website.
Home / Religion / Topic of the day
Topic of the day
23 October 2018
Russian Orthodox Church tells Patriarch Bartholomew it’s not obliged to obey him
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=dujour&div=179
Below please find an article from Monday on the Interfax Religion website.
Religion
Home / Religion / News
News
22 October 2018, 10:38
Russian Orthodox Church denies rumors of coming visit of Pope Francis to Moscow (updated)
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=14611
Below please find an article from yesterday on the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia website.
CHURCH LIFE
EASTERN AMERICAN DIOCESE: October 24, 2018
An American priest leaves the Constantinople Patriarchate in a sign of solidarity with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church
http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2018/20181024_enpriesttransfer.html?fbclid=IwAR2es_otQ2SZYnes3a-hA6T4tq4jx__pIt4tO9lyOoy04qztgGiJ4zo297E