[Editor’s note: I am waiting for a transcript and/or audio/video recording of the recently completed Virtual Town Hall on the Ukrainian situation. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Having said that, the remarks that follow are unfortunately hurried and I hope to comment at length in the near future on this event. I felt however that it was imperative that some comment take place as soon as possible.]
To be truthful, I thought that the recently completed Town Hall was not going to be conducted in good faith. As I wrote a few weeks ago, I believed that the Ecumenical Patriarchate was losing the argument as far as the Ukrainian situation was concerned. That’s why the Archons (certainly not the most humble name I could think of) felt pressured to conduct a virtual “Town Hall” to “discuss” (read: enforce in people’s minds) the recent, uncanonical grant of “autocephaly” to the schismatics in the Ukraine.
In listening to this Town Hall, I am now more than ever convinced that this was indeed the case. Except for His Eminence Metropolitan Emanuel of France, nobody on the panel was under any illusions that this was handled appropriately.
To be sure, Metropolitan Emanuel (said to be the next primate of the GOA) was very much in the Phanar’s corner more or less but the other spokesmen on the panel were more intellectually honest. The picture that was painted of that troubled land and the recent tomos was dire at best and chaotic at worst.
In their opening statements, no mention was made of the elephant in the room, that is to say, by what right does the EP have to unilaterally intrude into another patriarchate’s territory? To my mind, the annulment of the original tomos of transfer of Kiev to Moscow three hundred years ago was a self-serving stratagem and nothing more. Everything that follows is the fruit of a poisoned tree and thus illegitimate. (This point however was taken up by Dr Vera Shevzova towards the end of the discussion as shall be noted a little later.)
I overheard the word “hopeful” more than once, as in hopefully, this situation will straighten itself out in due time; hopefully, the other local Churches and their primates will attend so-called Metropolitan Epiphaniy’s enthronement on February 3rd.
One panelist in particular, Dr Vera Shevzova, was having none of it. A respected historian, she is well-versed in the troubled history of that troubled land and proved to be her own woman. In fact, towards the end of this discussion, she handed Metropolitan Emanuel his hat and spoke in poignant terms about the horrible and hypocritical way that Metropolitan Onuphriy, the primate of the canonical Ukrainian Church had been treated by Constantinople.
More will be said about this Town Hall and the Ukrainian situation in due time. For now, I would like to close on a cautionary note. I like the idea of a virtual Town Hall, especially one conducted in good faith, but given that the questioners as well as the panelists were not accepting the Phanar’s talking points, I seriously doubt that something like this will ever take place again.
And that’s a shame.
Again, please forgive the hurried nature of this report.
I recorded the program. Please contact me via email & I will send you a link to download my recording.
Here is the download link to the Archon program:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ve_DYmgAPyGFGF65QIbPVlR-bywGF2F5&fbclid=IwAR0vOJgvloFIFyyhNnLXrcxrlKa6RT9thmSM73wULXJmTYCBDD5vsjYeSDI
Thank you! The killer quotes are at approximately 1:29:00.
Brava Dr Shevzova!
Best quote from the program:
Met. Emmanuel of Gaul: Are you aware of the fact that this act* was revoked by the Ecumenical Patriarchate?
Dr. Vera Shevzov: Yes I am and I cannot help but laugh!
*1686 act restoring Kiev to the MP
I would love to shake her hand!
She has written an excellent book,’ Russian Orthodoxy on eve of revolution.’ Very detailed and good.
Re Ukraine, my thoughts have hardened against Constantinople. And George I am sure you know it is not just the papal ecclesiology but the fact bartholomaios has accepted into the fold in the shape of Denisenko ( το ψάρι σαπιζει από το κεφάλι,) as we say, crooks and possibly a murderd of Vladimir Romaniuk and possibly more.
I saw film of the Patrarch of Alexandria visiting official Ukrainian church and apart from the fact of there is a good and decent hierarch,worthy to be first amongst equals, the faces full of love and Peace of the people and clergy, so different to the Denisenko hate show. Does Mr Lipper understand the truth about Denisenko amd the unconsecrated bishops or is he blind or ignorant.?
We, if we are Orthodox, must oppose bartholomaios and support ACTIVELY the Ukrainian church and tell the USA government to keep it’s nose and money out of the Orthodox church.
Isn’t it disturbing that the Moscow Patriarchate was apparently consecrating married men as bishops? Unfortunately, the apparent marital status of the former Metropolitan of Kiev, Filaret, was completely irrelevant to the Moscow Patriarchate until he demanded autocephaly for Ukraine. That’s what is disturbing.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate is making the point that the OCU was discredited primarily for political reasons, not for moral/dogmatic reasons. For a process of reconciliation to go forward, there needed to be actual validation of the political injustice.
Nikos, you mention that you are a psychologist. I’m sure so many people who come to you for counseling primarily seek validation. However, validation is just part of the healing process. The EP is granting validation to the OCU, but the healing process will continue, and it will be very painful.
The “Patriarch” Filaret is obviously just a “Sideshow Bob” clown who needs to go away. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine will never be taken seriously as long as he is a prominent media feature. The EP was right to retire him. Now it’s the responsibility of the OCU to put him away.
Joseph,
The schismatic Ukrainian bishops were reformed without any inquiry into pertinent documents. The EPs official stance was that the MP was competent to judge this matter. What changed? When and how?
This unilateral and arbitrary manner of carrying this out doesn’t bother you?
Max, it’s called moving the goalposts.
Maximus,
If the form of apostolic succession is preserved, then perhaps all that is needed is reconciliation to the Orthodox Church for apostolic succession to be fulfilled.
For example, I would say the non-Chalcedonians have the form of apostolic succession, though they are not part of the Orthodox Church. Many Orthodox scholars, such as the late Fr. John Romanides of blessed memory, consider that schism to be primarily motivated by political reasons, not by actual theological reasons. The non-Chalcedonians really didn’t want to be part of the Byzantine Empire.
If the schism of Chalcedon were overcome, would that neccessitate all their bishops be reconsecrated? Probably not.
I agree with you. Amd the melkites and maronites and uniates as well.
Joseph, if you had read any of he “reunion” conference” documents between Antioch and the non-Chalcedonians (aka heretics) it is not a simple matter and the difference in Christology would be more clear. The NC comments came across as clearly monophysite (by Orthodox standards) despite public denial of such. In the documents I read it was the NC delegates who were insisting on substantial modification on our part Christologically in what read as an arrogant manner which included the refusal to recognize the validity of Councils 5, 6 & 7.
In addition there are the anathema’s against men the NCs honor as saints and vice-versa. (I no longer have copies as the computer they were on died years ago and the documents did not transfer to my new one but I imagine they can be found by a diligent search).
There are scores of existential issues that have develop over time as well.
The Patriarch Ignatius (of blessed memory) and the Holy Synod of Antioch were looking, I think, for a settlement based on economia of some sort such as you suggest, but it did not work and official dialog has pretty much ceased I believe. Antioch BTW claimed and was ceded sole jurisdiction over this matter.
Knowing g well the Coptic and Armenian churches I can say their Christology is not really Monophysite as their liturgies clearly express the two natures of Christ but how they see those two natures as joined in one and their Antiochan school of theology is the cultural block..
More to point as is pointed out, is how to face fact that who we consider as heretic,they consider as Saint. I do not have an answer for that but it is tragic. Maybe God will one day.
To me, a mere intelligent layman, relatively new to the Orthodox church, but getting old in the study of Christianity (if not its practice), the Chalcedonian controversies separating the Orthodox from the Oriental Orthodox are simply impenetrable. Of all the schisms/heresies, this one is the most regrettable, and has been seen as the most regrettable for 1500 years. Countless efforts over the centuries have been made to resolve it. I have read some modern deep commentaries that make it, at least, impossible to really accept the anathemas that the ancients were so wont to pronounce. The problem seems often less theological than particular– if only doctrines had been anathematized, then reconciliation could be found. But instead persons were anathematized– their saints were condemned. This presents much bigger problems.
I have been to Armenian services. Their churches feel like austere Catholic churches–and they have a wonderful Latin rite. I would love to go to a Coptic service and would without hesitation– they look like Orthodox services, but longer and noisier! Fascinating that such disparate churches are in communion with one another!
Yes I worked with Coptic drs in London and often attended Coptic liturgy in kensingtom, Alken St. The beautiful Armenian church of St Sarkis is just around the corner and yes very different.
The copts are very active and I would say the nearest in echos to byzantium. Wonderful chant.
Rhe Armenians Sadly have been very romanised but there is a organization in France that works to re- establish traditional Armenian chant which is beautiful. I will leave the email address page at end of post. They have just brought out a dvd that is facinating.
info@akn-chant.org
They have issued beautiful cds too
have been greatly blessed to have deep christological conversations with a couple of Armenian theologians, and there was finally no doubt in my mind that these men have the same understanding of the two natures of Christ as do we Chalcedonian orthodox.
Yet they venerate — among other irredeemable monophysites — Severus of Antioch. And the late Coptic Pope Shenouda wrote an entire book explaining and defending his church’s teaching of classic monophysitism.
So, while individuals and even groups of individuals among the nonchalcedonians may profess the same christology as do we Orthodox Christians, their churches do not. We must await their formal acceptance of at least the doctrinal content of all seven ecumenical synods, if not their disciplinary canons. Only then can we be in communion with them again.
Another 1500 years, I do not doubt!
Yes, Monk James Silver, you’re hitting the nail on the head. A good orthodox monk I know summed it up like this – if the orientals really share the same Christology as eastern orthodox, then let them start by accepting the 4th ecumenical council and up. But they won’t do this, and what does this say?
As Met.?/Pat.? Denisenko points out, the UOC-KP vastly outsizes the UAOC, so in case a merger into the OCU happens in the future in reality, will the UOC-KP effectively absorb the UAOC? According to Met.?/Pat? Denisenko, what is actually occurring or would occur is such an absorption. So at this point, to even talk about an “OCU” on the ground would appear premature or only prognostic.
Constantinos: “Isn’t it disturbing that the Moscow Patriarchate was apparently consecrating married men as bishops? ”
So you are blaming MP for transgressions of Denisenko? A nifty trick.
Either way Denisenko is the main creator and leader of the schismatics. You cannot bypass him, unless his old age (close to 90 years) will remove him from the picture.
Constantinos: “The EP is granting validation to the OCU, but the healing process will continue, and it will be very painful.”
First, it is not OCU but HCU (Holy Church in Ukraine) supported by the Uniates.
“Healing” will cause a lot of pain (like seizing the buildings and putting the real faithful on the street or pushing them into underground and stigmatizing them as foreign agents), and might kill the patient (together with the EP “doctor”).
no, the fact that Filaret was married was a feature and not a bug !
In all the communist-controlled churches the bishops were selected ONLY if the KGB had dirt on them. this way they could be blackmailed into doing exactly what the guys in power wanted.
the only difference between Filaret and the other Moscow patriarchate hierarchs at the time is that he disobeyed the orders from the bosses, and his dirt was exposed, while the others continued obeying the orders and their dirt stays hidden in the KGB archives.
ApS, are you not aware that the same criticism could be leveled against many of the titular metropolitans of the Phanar?
No, I am not 🙂
But it would not surprise me.
All institutions where the bishops elect each other (like the Fanar, or the Roman Catholics) are prone to such schemes. The only way to avoid it is have clergy-laity input, or to elect the big guy by casting lots (like the Serbs and the Copts do).
However, there is a difference between localized corruption and the systematic KGB policy (I do not know if you saw the “Death of Stalin” movie: after Stalin dies the first thing Beria does is to get the files with dirt that Stalin was keeping on all his lieutenants).
That was a most interesting movie, I thought. Some good acting there.
anonimus per Scorilo says: “In all the communist-controlled churches the bishops were selected ONLY if the KGB had dirt on them.”
How do you know?
anonimus per Scorilo says: ” this way they could be blackmailed into doing exactly what the guys in power wanted.”
Like what? Introduce organs and pews? Shortening services? Having wives?
New Calendar?
Actually they tried in 1920s with the help of EP. Didn’t work.
True that. Even the official Sergianist Church would not go along with the Renovationist trends hoped for by Metaxakis and the Soviets.
If this doesn’t prove that even a Church administered by KGB-controlled bishops isn’t guided and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit, nothing will.
The official Sergianist church had its bishops consecrated before the Soviets took over. They were therefore not chosen because of their blackmailable “qualities”.
The bishops consecrated after the Soviets took over were a whole different soup.
For example, all the russian bishops who participated in the pan-orthodox synod after WW2 were KGB agents who had FALSE BEARDS.
This was reported by the patriarch Nicodim of Romania (who was retired and died (probably poisoned) shortly after returning from Moscow where, by accident, he saw them removing their false beards after the synod) to Iuliu Maniu (a Romanian politician who died in communist prisons) and was witnessed by Maniu’s secretary Corneliu Coposu (who spent 20 years in communist prisons). Coposu lived a few more years after communism fell, and his interview can be found at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asojWAwSTzI
Those who do not speak romanian can get their frienly romanian-speaking friends to translate it for them.
Not surprised Potemkin bishops as in 1943 only 4 bishops were actually free. Some for 1944 snow were let free to attend but obviously Stalin wanted a good show but this just illustrates church H was fighting for it’s very life with tens of thousands of believers and clergy murderd.
George Michalopulos (January 30, 2019 at 8:08 am) says:
True that. Even the official Sergianist Church would not go along with the Renovationist trends hoped for by Metaxakis and the Soviets.
If this doesn’t prove that even a Church administered by KGB-controlled bishops isn’t guided and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit, nothing will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s long past time that we retired such terms as ‘sergianism’ and sergianist’, but I’d like to hear a clear definition of ‘sergianism’.
The definition which has the most currency suggests that it consists of the mistaken notion that the sovyet communist state would/could save the Russian Orthodox church, but even Patriarch Sergius Stragorodskiy didn’t believe that.
Truth be told, I’m not sure that there ever was such a thing as ‘the heresy of sergianism’ — merely an anti-sovyet attitude which wrongly implicated the Russian patriarchate.
While I wouldn’t say that it’s quite as ‘cut and dried’ as “merely an anti-sovyet attitude which wrongly implicated the Russian patriarchate” (There were very real issues of infiltration, after all), I nevertheless agree.
Hoping for political stability and praying for civil authorities, whoever they happen to be, “that we may lead a calm and peaceful life in all godliness and dignity” is not the same as supporting their political or ideological goals. One only has to remember who the political authorities of Paul’s time were (not to mention our own) in order to grasp this to grasp this.
We ourselves, regardless of our political persuasions, are commanded to pray – and do pray – for political leaders whose agendas we rightly despise. In doing so, we are asking for the peace of the Church and of the whole world and not for the success of evil leaders themselves.
This is timely and well-said.
I do not think even the living church in Russia introduced organs or pews. DOES ANYBODY KNOW FOR SURE? I have never heard of this. The rest yes, although at the 1917/18 Moscow Council, the calander question was on agenda as liturgical reform to bring greater lay involvement and Communion.
The living church whose leaders were in the main weak, unstable and self dealing, comprised though of many stands from well meaning to heretic. The trouble is it stopped genuine reform in it’s track.
And yes the EP supported this body as it brought suffering to the Church. But really why not, as it was right up their organ playing, shaved street. They did same with Church of Finland in 1920s too with the shaven bishop herman.
But I can remember my godmother in Greece ( Athens) calling monks dirty and ignorant. Her son become priest, clean shaven, in Uk with Archbishop Athenagoras kokinakis until the next Archbishop,Methodios sent him packing to Sweden. Methodios was himself removed via pressure from c of e. I am told.
Let’s separate organs and pews. As I’ve said over and over again, our parish pulled out the harmonium 30 years ago. The pews remain.
I haven’t been in a whole lot of GOA churches besides my own, but the ones I’ve been in don’t have organs.
You can’t debate organs; they have to go. How many are still out there, actually, as opposed to supposedly? Pews are not right, but the anathemas against them here are over the top. Note also what is seldom remarked here: Antiochian churches of the traditional stripe have pews. Antiochian churches of the convert groups don’t at all. What is one to make of that?
If by a miracle of God all of the Western churches became Orthodox, would we measure that by the issue of pews? The West is not the East.
It reminds me of the issue of icons. The churches that never were iconoclastic at all, never subject to the heresy– the West and the Copts, for example– have different iconography than the Orthodox. So, are they wrong? If the split had never happened, East and West would be quite different still…..
Agree totally and it would be good to know we need not debate the obvious but how we can live a Christian life. I did not know that organs are going west but assumed they were a strong features so u can understand I have just read the life of St Seraphim of Sarov ( Vaentine Zander) and it was so joyful and uplifting and full of peace inspite of his troubled life.
In Russia, the communist-backed ‘Living Church’ didn’t do anything about ‘organs and pews’, but they did introduce a married episcopate, vernacular Russian in the services, and the Gregorian calendar, among other changes..
Since such reforms were forever after associated with the failed experiment of the ‘Living Church’, even their good points were finally rejected. The whole embarrassment came to an end almost as swiftly as it started.
Thank you and yes thst is the dad fact. I understand Nikodimus who as a child I saw in Athens Cathedral with Pimen, wanted to introduced Russian but was called an Apostate etc. You see they assumed when they said publically that all was well in Russia, we had the savy to know they were taking the piss ao to speak and in doing so enable the Church to survive.
I know from my family history in Greece in war that these things not clear cut. My Grandmother doing German washing for potato bread to FEED the family who were starving but partisans calling this collaboration and things I would rather leave out here.
Can you or even I judge.?
Mr Lipper quite right the morality of many involved is not of the highest but the condition of the Church in Russia in 1962 with the height of the krushchev persecution where some 20000 churches were heading down to under 10, and clergy nos the same, and the total extinction of Church sought, was a different place to today, would u not agree.? The Church was not free and threatened morally. I am not a great fan of Kyril as i often state and his, shall we say living arrangements, are neither monastic or celibate but he is not a married man with children nor has engaged in mafia behaviour and worse .
Denisenko was ordained together in 1962 with Alexei the former Patrarch +2008 , who also was initially a married man but separated from his wife to take formal vows and lived a celibate life. His history of service to the Church and Russia speaks for itself through those difficult yrs. Memory Eternal.
Denisenko, and I am not going to go through the history again,was defrocked for very Very church and spiritual , good reasons and his attitude showed an arrogance and self absorbtion, second to none. This action was recognised by the entire church including of course the then newly appointment Bartholomaios in 1992/ 3 I think.
The other small schism church has dubious consecrations and some none in reality. But all made good at the point of a signature by the Phanar making a modern of the sacraments .
And Bartholomaios is free, does know, re Denisenko and says nothing, while treating the decent Onouphrios as a none person.
Denisenko as you may know at 90 with no fear of God, if he believes which i doubt, has made it clear he remains defacto Patrarch and power behind the throne. In addition there is much evidence to link him personally with murder ( Vassili Romaniuk) and possibly others. As we know poison favourite KGB means of sorting matters. Look at Salisbury Uk with updated version.
Tell me who you go with and I will tell you who you are, is a greek saying my late mother often said to me!
Now as i stated I am not judging ordinary people, who attend a particular church for a variety of reasons unrelated to church Politics, but Sadly often related to secular. As happened in greek church in USA with republican and royalist churches in 1920s. That is for individuals to make their own decision, but the Church must live by Orthodox standard and belief. Yes validation we all need in our lives but validation does NOT mean acceptance of every act to make it right.
I could go on but will not, except to say living in Bulgaria, there was no similar understanding in 1870-1945 nor currently with macedonian church that i last year experienced in visit there with bulgarian group.
It Gives me as a greek no Joy in attacking Constantinople especially given it’s persecution by turks but I am Orthodox first and Greek second.
Also re yr country is not autocephaly needed to save the Church?.
Philaret was exposed in failing to become Russian Patriarch not because he disobeyed the bosses but because in 1991 after failed coup, the communist party was powerless to push him over the winning line. He then reacted as history shows.
Just saying, if consecrating married Men as bishops,and I have explained the historical circumstances, IS WRONG, HOW IS IN PERFECT FREEDOM, ACCEPTING MARRIED MEN AS BISHOPS,ANY BETTER.?
I assume yr arguement is They are all crooks including my guy, so my guy is sort of doing you a post ironic favour . Good luck on that one. Next!!
This link can’t be downloaded because of bandwidth. Could you put it on your Youtube channel, George? Or is it available somewhere else?
I’ll see what I can do.
To all: any help would be greatly appreciated. Any chance of a video?
Rhonda … thank you so much for recording and downloading the Town Hall held by the Archons. It is greatly appreciated. God bless you and your family.
When the Archons cannot spin this thing in favor of Bartholomew of Istanbul…..you know they are on the ropes!
I can’t get the link to play the audio. Any suggestions?
Here are my notes of what was said in the Q and A section, which was the last hour of the 1.5 hour event:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,75505.msg1556659.html#msg1556659
https://orthodoxie.com/en/ukrainian-autocephaly-notes-after-the-archons-virtual-conference-call/
I attend a GOA parish. Under my own name I submitted a question as to what measures would be required to remove Bartholomew. I wonder I’d this was addressed?
It certainly was not addressed. I heard from someone who submitted a question that no questions emailed were posed in the conference, but I don’t think he is right – I listened to the conference call and one or two questions that had been previously submitted were posed to the panelists, but I am sure that there were many more submitted. It’s noteworthy that only 1.5 out of 2 hours blocked were used.
Dear George,
I’m really going to try to make this my last post. I ask that the posters not reply to me so I can get off this forum I would like to address why I’m so hostile to the clergy. One reason has to do with the incalcitrant rudeness, and arrogance of an Orthodox priest on this forum who was very nasty and sarcastic.
Obviously, that’s not the main reason. The real reason was when I was a member of a certain evangelical church, I was dating the pastor’s daughter. I dropped her because she was not exciting enough for my tastes. Naturally, the pastor didn’t like that. Before I dated his daughter I was very highly respected, and considered a role model. If the tragedy didn’t happen, I would have been the youngest, and only single deacon in the church.
I began dating my wife, and due to very strong temptation, we engaged in pre- marital sex. As a Christian, I felt very guilty about it so I confessed it to the youth pastor. As a consequence, he removed me from my work with young people. My future wife and I went to him for pre- marital counseling and we admitted we hadn’t been able to control our passions. He became very indignant, and threw the both of us out of his office. Still unable to control our passions, she became pregnant. He refused to marry us right away because he wouldn’t “sweep it under the rug.” In order to be forgiven by God, I had to confess the sin of fornication before the people I offended which was supposedly the youth group my age. I went from being respected to a pariah by the two pastors. Their treatment of me was very controversial so I left for the Episcopal Church . After thinking about the way I was humiliated , I called the pastor up, and told him I was resigning my membership from the church. He wouldn’t accept my resignation. I later learned that I had been excommunicated from the church. He wouldn’t accept my resignation so he could add insult to injury. Due to the controversy in the way they handled my situation, they were both removed from their pastoral positions in the church. I wasn’t unhappy when I learned that the head pastor died of a heart attack at the age of 46, or that the youth pastor left the ministry. I was sad to see the collapse of the church when I left. I’ve felt disgraced, humiliated, and embarrassed ever since. My wife and I got divorced after seventeen years of misery which led to further disgrace, and failure in my eyes. The only good thing to come out of it all is that my personality dramatically improved, and I retained my faith in the Lord through it all. I went from being totally miserable to having a sparkling personality. Believe me when this happened, I never saw it coming, or would have guessed. It’s like I’m a different person. That’s it. Over and done for sure. Many thanks George for your grace, class and dignity. I hope to acquire those traits some day.
“For the Ecumenical Patriarch, ‘Filaret was wrong to ask autocephaly from Moscow. He had to ask the Mother Church in Constantinople, who had given them baptism, culture, and the Cyrillic alphabet, and was therefore the only one that had this right and privilege to grant autocephaly.’
“In any case, ‘Filaret asked Moscow for autocephaly and got excommunication instead, which is why we intervened as a Mother Church to restore the wrong they suffered. The rest is bad information of northern provenance.’
“It should be noted that in granting the Tomos to the new metropolitan of Kyiv Epiphanius on 6 January, Bartholomew also reminded him to respect those Orthodox Ukrainians who want to remain under the jurisdiction of his brother patriarch of Moscow.”
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/For-Bartholomew,-the-autocephaly-of-the-Ukrainian-Orthodox-Church-is-an-act-of-justice-46079.html
Believe me, I have followed this great controversy a little bit, but have not followed it all the way down the Eastern European/Russian historical rabbit hole; in that way madness lies.
But really; the Cyrillic alphabet? Can somebody tell me if truly the EP is citing the Cyrillic alphabet as part of the reason for its authority in this business?
Whatever happens– and I mean whatever happens– I will be attending St. Nicholas [Greek] Orthodox Church in Tacoma, Washington, where our priest and congregation remain faithful to the Orthodox faith. I have no use at all for the EP’s strange and bizarre actions, but whatever imprecations from anywhere else, Moscow, Belgrade, Moravia, Carpathia, Pannonia, Northern, Southern or Central Macedonia, Ruthenia, Red or White Russia, and all the ships at sea, I will stay there until it all blows over, and even if it doesn’t.
Did I mention whatever happens? Yes, I think I did. There you have it.
As an Anglo in the mysterious land of the Hellenes and Slavs, I am glad of that green and sceptered Isle; whereof one can actually learn the names of all the kings and queens, and know much about all the handful of wars, and the two or three ecclesiastical disputes over the last millennium!
God bless you. I always see Hentry viii break with a Rome as the first Brexit and that still not sorted. GOD help the second one.
The art is to worship quietly in yr Parish church week by were and pray. Bartholomaios will die and answer for his heresy and wordly means for survival as all before and the Church will survive.
In May 1966, an official delegation from the Russian Mission in North America, the ‘Metropolia’ which would later become The Orthodox Church in America went to Constantinople to ask Patriarch Athenagoras for his and his patriarchate’s help in regularizing the canonical chaos in North America.
If, in the ecumenical patriarch’s view, this included placing themselves under Constantinople’s jurisdiction, the Americans were willing to do so. But Pat. Athenagoras said ‘You are Russians. Go toi your mother church.’ And so they did,
Four years later, in 1970, the Metropolia and the Patriarchate of Moscow repaired the technically defined state of schism which had existed between them since the ‘Cleveland Sobor’ of 1946, and Moscow granted the tomos of autocephaly which created The Orthodox Church in America.
Given that history, whatever in the world makes Constantinople now think that it — and not Moscow — is the ‘mother church’ of Russia and of the missionary churches which the Russians established?
The ecumenical synods put the canons in place so that arbitrary, even predatory moves such as Constantinople is now making in Russia, cannot take place. But Constantinople keeps moving the goalposts and changing the rules of the game so that there will never be a canonically legal and morally right and just resolution — unless and until the autocephalous orthodox churches meet in synod and bring the ‘ecumenical patriarchate’ back to the center.
I couldn’t have said it better than that, Fr James.
The same thing that keeps Rome in schism. Pride is a tough thing to overcome without repentance.
To paraphrase Dr. Shevzov, this would laughable were it no so serious, both in its blatant falsehood and in its consequences.
Purposely deceptive and nonsensical even on its own terms. These supposed ‘injustices’ occurred a full 26 and 21 years ago respectively, and he was a willing confirmatory accomplice to both.
How very kind of him. And how very foolish to expect that openly unrepentant leopards will ever change their spots.
Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
May the Lord have mercy on His faithful.
Joseph in heaven ‘ s name the mother off loaded her kids in late 17th c to a Russian family, with official adoption papers (sic) tomos, so have no legal bloody authority over the kids anymore.!!!!!!
What bit of that do you not get???? ?
Do you have shares in Phanar banking? I’m greek and meant to be emotionally wedded to Phanar but am not because we do not want her
Nikos, the terms of the “adoption papers” were more like “baby sitting papers”. The EP insisted that the Ukrainian Church would still continue to commemorate “mommy” at the Phanar. Those terms were ignored, and that’s why the EP finally revoked the paper.
I really don’t think the EP wanted to do this. I believe the EP has been hoping all this time, since the schism in 1992, that Moscow would heal the schism or recognize Ukrainian autocephaly. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened, and the EP has shown great patience and reluctance in acting.
Patr. Bartholomew confronted Patr. Alexey II about this in 2008 when they concelebrated together in Ukraine, voicing his serious concern that the schism be resolved. Unfortunately, the MP’s only solution has been for Ukrainians to submit to the Moscow Patriarchate or be condemned to hell. After the annexation of Crimea, something needed to be done.
Crimea continues to be under the jurisdiction of the UOC-MP. There was no crisis except the one created by Bartholomew.
Antiochene Son,
Please explain the reason why the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has jurisdiction in Russia (Crimea). How does this make sense?
Frankly, your denial of the term “crisis” for a war between Ukranians and pro-Russian separatists, which has cost some 10,000 lives since 2014, is quite disturbing.
Because the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church are one and the same.
Exactly.
Mr Lipper. The reality is churches in Ukraine of Slavs were best understood by fellow Slavs do u not agree, speaking same or near language as i see here in Bulgaria? Not by Greeks hundreds of miles away and distant in Culture and I am greek.
In addition at that time Poland and the counter reformation were in full cry to force a unia as happened in 1596 and which only Moscow could oppose.
I am not defending every twist and turn or action of Moscow Patrarchate but only Moscow could give protection and it was the Ukraine as known today although in historically smaller space, that asked Tsar Alexei I for union.
In Terms of the Church one can say that under Peter Great it was the Ukraine that colonised Moscow and much of what we see as Russian Orthodox tradition in singing etc is actually Ukrainian.
Fast forward. The particular historical circumstances that no one mentions of 1917-91 and especially of 41_44 German occupation meant that up to 1991 a good 2/3 of parishes of Russian church were in Ukraine. This is changing but still a 1/3 at least there. This needs understanding as well as interelated relationship. I have Moscow friend with Ukrainian wife with greek blood. Nor uncommon.
The legal autonomous church is actually more free than your pretend autocephaly.
No one, nor me, or most, do not argue against autocephaly in the long run but at this moment in time was not issue amongst those who are Orthodox rather than just nationalistic. And by Orthodox canons was to come from Moscow. Above all the legal Ukrainian church was not asking for it. Loving or hating russians has nothing to do with it. Since when, even if had the right , did giving autocephaly to non cannonical bodies let by dubious crooks and disregarding the legal church, constitute Orthodox practice.? I am outraged .
May we see same in Northern Macedonia and Montenegro and why did Bulgarian Church wait 74 yrs? And for USA. I won’t intrude on private grief.
Also and I am not going over history of Denisenko, and the moral status of others is not relevant, as we taking of him. But if you think accepting him as a bishop in good cannonical and sacramental and moral standing is justified, then I have to question yr moral compass, let alone yr Christianity, even before we get to being Orthodox.
And he is already rowing back on what was agreed. A 90 yr old concerned nationalistic atheist running a business.
Before you get to attacking the Church of Russia no body who has not lived that persecution can comment. And PLEASE note I make no comment about the Denisenko of those years BUT about the Denisenko actions after 1990.
In addition the actions of EP are claiming a papal like power THAT I DENY AND REJECT in the same was as was rejected in 1054. Perhaps uniatism would be a honourable course for you and yr fellow travelers. Feel free.
“In addition the actions of EP are claiming a papal like power THAT I DENY AND REJECT in the same was as was rejected in 1054. Perhaps uniatism would be a honourable course for you and yr fellow travelers. Feel free.”
I second that. Or perhaps actually they are Uniates?
The Politics and the Church are two different things. It would not make the papal actions of Constantinople right whst ever the moral stance of Russian church, and what ever problems there are, Ukrainian and Russia will be close culturally and connected by blood etc as this is a matter of fact as the State of Texas and rest of USA. I am not calling into doubt the Ukrainian right to their country but this does not automatically follow re church.
For bartholomaios not to understand or you actually, the historical events as described by me elswhere, relating to Ukraine and Russia, is wilful ignorance and disrespect to the martyrs who died AS ORTHODOX NOT EITHER RUSSIAN OR UKRAINIAN.
And Saint surgeon bishop Luke as many ‘russian Orthodox ‘ bishops was Ukrainian. But it matters not a jot. He was Orthodox.
Many thanks to Rhonda Dodson for providing the link. I advise anyone who is interested to download the audio, to keep it safe.
Also, thank you to George Michalopulos, for hosting this blog, and for providing the opportunity for us to learn more about what is happening in Orthodoxy.
I also want to express my appreciation to Dr. Vera Shevzova, one of the “town hall” panelists, for asking some very good questions, not all of which were answered, and none of which were answered satisfactorily, at least in my opinion.
I do not consider myself a good Christian, let alone a good Orthodox Christian. These are things I am struggling with. But I feel very deeply about the Orthodox Church in all of its manifestations (in other words, the 14 canonical local churches as a whole), a church that operates on the principle of conciliarity, one in which the important decisions are made by all the churches, acting together, after contemplation and prayer.
I also believe that the Russians have contributed a great deal to Orthodoxy over the centuries, not only Russian priests and bishops but also Russian artists such as Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsin, and more contemporary Russian theologians.
For what it is worth, I am Greek-American, fluent in Greek, as are my American-born children. I feel a close connection to my ethnic heritage. But in spite of that, I am dismayed and embarrassed by what has happened vis-à-vis Ukraine.
Temporal power undermines spiritual strength. Perhaps I was naïve and ignorant of history, but I thought that the stature of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was a product of its perseverance in a hostile environment. The late Patriarch Demetrios seemed to embody the humility and spirituality that went along with the difficult circumstances in which the Patriarch found itself.
True, for a long period of time up until 1453 the Patriarch was closely connected to worldly power and had a status that, for temporal reasons, put it above even older Patriarchates, such as Antioch and Alexandria. Of course, that worldly power ended after the fall of Byzantium. At first the Patriarch enjoyed some status, as the leader of the Millet, but in more recent times, starting as early as the Greek War of Independence in 1821 and various conflicts and pogroms, the Patriarchate became a besieged entity, an institution that could be viewed as existing in a state of martyrdom, a fact that I, perhaps naively, thought was the thing that gave the Patriarchate a position of respect.
But now it seems the Patriarchate wants to wield temporal power, at the expense of the idea of conciliarity, and in so doing risks losing the respect and the spiritual stature it may have once had.
God bless you. I always see Hentry viii break with a Rome as the first Brexit and that still not sorted. GOD help the second one.
The art is to worship quietly in yr Parish church week by were and pray. Bartholomaios will die and answer for his heresy and wordly means for survival as all before and the Church will survive.
Friend I felt for you reading yr entry and you express so well. I am greek and love my inheritence but live in a Slav land, Bulgaria, and know Russia well. Like you I have great respect and love for Slav Orthodox tradition let alone the 45-73 yrs of communist persecution which here in Bulgaria was harsh and total as in Russia that they experienced as my bulgarian teacher in her life.
In addition Sadly it has been us Greeks more easily led astray by outward superficial westernization while remaining clossed to the west where we need to be open
Yr words re Constantinople are mine exactly. I am deeply troubled and with sadness and yes Dmitrios was a humble man and bishop unlike yours truly.
I have from people that know many stories about the worldliness and indifference of the Phanar. How has it fallen from Gregory vi, martyr of blessed memory.
This blog entry above says “Except for His Eminence Metropolitan Emanuel of France, nobody on the panel was under any illusions that this was handled appropriately.”
I missed the opening statements by Fr. Nicholas. May I please ask what he said if anything that suggested that the EP’s actions were not handled correctly? During the Q and A he asked something like “What do you do when no one has the power to make an appeal for help?” I took this to mean either something like “Who can step in to solve the problem of Ukraine’s church situation?”, as if he thought that it might be good for some outside force like the EP or a synod could unite the Orthodox of Ukraine into a canonical jurisdiction.
But in reality, I don’t know that any outside or superior church force really could bring all the churches in Ukraine into a canonical situation because it’s really up to those parishes and bishops themselves to decide whether they want to join the canonical church, unite, etc. If Met. Onufrey (and his flock) doesn’t want to join with “Pat.” Filaret (or the UOC-KP) or vice verse, no outside churchly institution can force them to do that.
So really Fr. Nicholas’ question itself is incorrect or in fact could be posed the opposite way: If the EP were in the wrong and overstepping its bounds and harming a canonical jurisdiction not under its care, who could that aggrieved jurisdiction appeal to?
Rako,
I cannot directly answer your question because I did not listen to the entire call.
I did, however, listen to this entire interview with Dn. Nicholas and thought I’d share it with you so you can get a sense of his views on the matter.
It was interesting to hear some of the greater historical context that he relates, but I found what he says at about the 42 minute mark and shortly following to be particularly disingenuous, especially as a scholar.
Does anyone know anything about that big meeting in Romania recently? A man in my parish attended and yesterday after Liturgy he said it was the largest Orthodox lay meeting in a thousand years.
He said the group is called IOTA.
Here it is:
https://archangelsgoc.org/inaugural-conference-iota-jan-2019/
What is it? What is going on ?
I feel uneasy about it.
I went to the FB page of the man I mentioned who is a member of my parish, and found more information.
I apologize, George, if this is way off topic, and maybe you all know all about this already and I’m just way out of the loop. Don’t post this post of mine, or the one before it if it’s irrelevant or a distraction. But it does seem on topic after looking at what he links to.
On his FB page, he links to the Virtual Town Meeting on the Public Orthodoxy site:
https://publicorthodoxy.org/2019/01/24/virtual-town-meeting-aims-to-clarify-the-issue-of-ukrainian-autocephaly/?fbclid=IwAR35DvhN6hp7ScA8jBMESTDul4T6dOR3xs6dO7yOIrX7UNKEGlCWnLt2N5A
He also links to the IOTA Youtube page:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMJH5F1VdTz7Y_d865i30ag?fbclid=IwAR0kmJY-IA3tFh5nzzuyyvmATO2MYt4AJ6BLOLaq8YQIrFXmgfcGIrM5i3E
And the IOTA Facebook page:
Interesting photo.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1858584624364362/?fref=mentions
And this:
http://www.acadimia.org/en/news-announcements/press/644-iota-inaugural-conference-january-9-12-2019-iasi-romania?fbclid=IwAR0SlB_X9CD_btqm5D9nCbTu_VWxR9h1tllJsqiOlOJQanE6k-oF21-7BIs
Here’s his Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/paul.gavrilyuk.3
I’ve known about (and dreaded) the IOTA gathering for about six months or so. It is an ecumenist nightmare. You will notice the large contingency of Greek “theologians”. I believe that Fordham University was one of the major sponsors. That should tell you all you need to know.
They want to repeat this tragedy every year in different countries.
You’re correct that there are lay ‘theologians’ from Greece on here. However I note that St Vladimir’s Seminary, flagship of the OCA, is a major sponsor. There are also many prominent OCA clergy involved in the program and visible in the pictures. So, what does that tell us about “all you need to know?”
As a priest of the much-hated, supposedly Uniate EP, I only noticed two of my brothers. I also noticed plenty of speakers/presenters listed as “Rev.” coming from Russia.
The heresy of ecumenism cuts across all jurisdictions of Holy Orthodoxy. For every instance alleged against the Greeks, I’m certain we’ll find many, many more against the numerically superior Church of Russia, and their descendants throughout the world.
St Vladimir and Fordham? That tells you all you need to know. The uniate-minded CP has been in decline for 100 years. From Metaxakis’ calendar schism….to Athenagoras’ lifting of the anathemas……to Bartholomew’s papal pretensions.
I appreciate that you are trying to turn it on the Russians, (that is what Bartholomew tries to do), but it doesn’t wash with the other Local Churches.
Given the current events and state of World Orthodoxy in general, I would highly recommend this article from Orthodox Word, probably from the 1970’s, about Archbishop Averky entitled “One Man in the Face of Apostasy” (link below). Here’s something from it that hits the mark:
“Archbishop Averky feared that the spirit of Orthodox ecclesiology would be replaced by a papistic conception of the Church, and that Orthodox leaders would, in the consciousness of the faithful, be seen as “mini-popes” and eclipse Christ as the Head of the Church. When the Church will become identified first of all with a temporal administration, the archbishop realized, then the Antichrist will have an open door to the hearts of men and will with little effort make them his obedient servants. With their wrong understanding of the Church, they will do—”for the good of the Church”—things manifestly opposed to the commandments and will of Christ.
From Orthodox Word: http://dsgouras.tripod.com/oneman.htm
I come to very much respect Archbishop Averky. Pity his commentary on the Apocolypse is our of print.
Not so, Dan!
Holy Trinity Monastery Press recently released a 3-volume set of Archbishop Averky’s biblical commentaries. Volume 3 includes the Epistles and Apocalypse:
http://www.holytrinitypublications.com/en/Book/5/388/The_Epistles_and_the_Apocalypse.html
Any time I or anybody else does anything “for the good of the Church” no matter how outwardly virtuous, it will be wrong.
Boy howdy, did you get that one right!
Mr Lipper quite right the morality of many involved is not of the highest but the condition of the Church in Russia in 1962 with the height of the krushchev persecution where some 20000 churches were heading down to under 10, and clergy nos the same, and the total extinction of Church sought, was a different place to today, would u not agree.? The Church was not free and threatened morally. I am not a great fan of Kyril as i often state and his, shall we say living arrangements, are neither monastic or celibate but he is not a married man with children nor has engaged in mafia behaviour and worse .
Denisenko was ordained together in 1962 with Alexei the former Patrarch +2008 , who also was initially a married man but separated from his wife to take formal vows and lived a celibate life. His history of service to the Church and Russia speaks for itself through those difficult yrs. Memory Eternal.
Denisenko, and I am not going to go through the history again,was defrocked for very Very church and spiritual , good reasons and his attitude showed an arrogance and self absorbtion, second to none. This action was recognised by the entire church including of course the then newly appointment Bartholomaios in 1992/ 3 I think.
The other small schism church has dubious consecrations and some none in reality. But all made good at the point of a signature by the Phanar making a modern of the sacraments .
And Bartholomaios is free, does know, re Denisenko and says nothing, while treating the decent Onouphrios as a none person.
Denisenko as you may know at 90 with no fear of God, if he believes which i doubt, has made it clear he remains defacto Patrarch and power behind the throne. In addition there is much evidence to link him personally with murder ( Vassili Romaniuk) and possibly others. As we know poison favourite KGB means of sorting matters. Look at Salisbury Uk with updated version.
Tell me who you go with and I will tell you who you are, is a greek saying my late mother often said to me!
Now as i stated I am not judging ordinary people, who attend a particular church for a variety of reasons unrelated to church Politics, but Sadly often related to secular. As happened in greek church in USA with republican and royalist churches in 1920s. That is for individuals to make their own decision, but the Church must live by Orthodox standard and belief. Yes validation we all need in our lives but validation does NOT mean acceptance of every act to make it right.
I could go on but will not, except to say living in Bulgaria, there was no similar understanding in 1870-1945 nor currently with macedonian church that i last year experienced in visit there with bulgarian group.
It Gives me as a greek no Joy in attacking Constantinople especially given it’s persecution by turks but I am Orthodox first and Greek second.
Also re yr country is not autocephaly needed to save the Church?.
Philaret was exposed in failing to become Russian Patriarch not because he disobeyed the bosses but because in 1991 after failed coup, the communist party was powerless to push him over the winning line. He then reacted as history shows.
From the Archons’ virtual town hall meeting, when Dr. Vera Shevzov asked Metropolitan Emmanuel how it’s possible that Filaret’s status of being deposed and eventually anathematized was suddenly reversed — on what basis?: Metropolitan Emmanuel answered, “I don’t think that [Filaret’s deposing/defrocking and anathematization] was a just decision.” According to him, the anathematization of Filaret was not just, because it was not based on dogmatic reasons, thus the Church of Constantinople went in and simply reversed it.
———————-
This exchange tells us a lot on how Metropolitan Emmanuel and the Patriarch of Constantinople operate and view their roles/abilities, essentially as “bishops with special powers” in the Orthodox world. A bishop or priest is deposed and/or anathematized in an Orthodox church and Istanbul doesn’t agree with it. Thus they can swoop in and, without any in-depth consultation and dialogue with the Church that did the deposing/defrocking and anathematization in the first place, simply “undo” it, like magic?
Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology knows that this approach is nonsensical from an Orthodox Christian perspective.
“PapaH” commented above that he is “a priest of the much-hated, supposedly Uniate EP.” Father H, faithful who are paying attention to the details are labeling Istanbul as Uniate for these exact reasons, because of its behavior. We are simply observing and describing what is going on.
As someone who’s half-Greek myself and who was baptized in the Greek Archdiocese a while back (but who left it a long time ago), I’d love to think that the EP and the GOA hierarchy are bastions of faithful Christian Orthodoxy. But I just don’t see it. I’d love for someone to convince me that I’m wrong, but the data just aren’t there to support that much of the EP and the GOA hierarchy are faithful to Christian Orthodoxy.
By contrast, the data overwhelmingly support that the EP/Istanbul is comprised of many hierarchs (including Patriarch Bartholomew and Metropolitan Emmanuel) whose behavior suggests that they view their church as having special episcopal powers that other Orthodox bishops don’t have. There is zero suggestion of any sense of conciliarity unless things are done “Istanbul’s way.”
It’s all quite narcissistic — “my way or the highway.”
Many have already made excellent cases and arguments that this Ukrainian debacle is way more than mere “political squabbles,” as some seem to conveniently minimize what is going on. I wholeheartedly agree — what is going on is quite significant and is way more than a mere political squabble, no matter how much we may wish it were otherwise.
Many are anticipating that when Archbishop Demetrois retires or is retired after Pascha this coming April 2019, Metropolitan Emmanuel will become the next GOA Archbishop in New York. With his demonstrated preference for how he conducts inter-Orthodox “dialogue” (or rather non-dialogue…. Met. Emmanuel seems to prefer having “arrangements” with other bishops/churches, rather than having real relationships with them), we are bracing for cataclysmic changes in how the various churches in America work alongside one another.
Myself, I’m concerned that Met. Emmanuel will bring his “my way or the highway” approach to inter-Orthodox work to the United States. Thus each Orthodox group in the United States would need to either submit to him and Istanbul or would need to set clear boundaries and enforce these boundaries (i.e., telling the Church of Constantinople not to meddle in their business and possibly needing to tell them to get lost or cutting of ties with them, as the Church of Russia did).
The fact that the Church of Russia cut off communion with the Church of Constantinople shows that it has a sense of self-value and integrity and that it protects itself with boundaries. Constantinople crossed a boundary with the Church of Russia, despite weeks and months of warning, and the Church of Russia is enforcing its boundaries. If only all of the other Orthodox Churches were as emotionally healthy — only then would Constantinople learn that it cannot narcissistically walk all over whomever it wants.