Thursday, October 25, 2018

Carpatho-Rusyn priest leaves diocese for ROCOR

People have emailed asking if he went through the normal release process. No. If ROCOR considers the entire Ecumenical Patriarchate to be in schism, then what good is a canonical release from a non-canonical Church?

This story started making the rounds in Russian, then in Ukrainian, then in English. I expect it to be passed around for some days to come.


(ROCOR) - Priest Mark Tyson, Rector of Holy Dormition Church in Bluefield, WV, transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as reported by Interfax. He writes that he celebrated his last Divine Liturgy in his former church, which is under the jurisdiction of the Constantinople Patriarchate, and “will no longer commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew.”

“My conscience will not allow me to stay… I decided simply but firmly to ‘walk away’ and unite in communion with the suffering Ukrainian Church, which was marginalized by the puzzling actions of Patriarch Bartholomew… A few days ago, the Patriarch, whom I devotedly and prayerfully honored over more than two decades, took the unprecedented step towards restoring the canonical status of a troublesome band of defrocked and discredited [former] clergymen in Ukraine,” wrote the clergyman to his ruling bishop.

The priest emphasized that “the amoral and uncanonical actions of Patriarch Bartholomew in Ukraine has enabled violence towards the canonical Church.” In Fr Mark’s opinion, the conflict is growing.

“Before our very eyes, an ecclesiastical civil war is developing… and our Patriarch gave his official approval. The new and independent ‘church’ he created consists of idolaters. They worship not the Holy Trinity, but a false God called ‘free Ukraine,’” he writes.
The Constantinople Patriarchate declared its intention to unilaterally grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine and appointed its own exarchs. As a result, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church expressed its decisive protest against these actions and adopted a decision to cease concelebration with hierarchs of the Constantinople Patriarchate. An analogous decision was made by the Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia called upon the primates of the Churches to a pan-Orthodox discussion of the situation in Ukraine. The unilateral and uncanonical actions of Constantinople have been condemned by almost all the heads of the Local Churches.

On October 11, 2018, the Synod of the CP adopted the decision to rescind the anathema of the heads of two uncanonical churches in Ukraine—Philaret of the “Kiev Patriarchate” and Makary of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, and expressed its desire to return the Kievan Metropoliate to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, negating the “legal obligation of the Synodal letter of 1686, which granted the Moscow Patriarch the right to appoint the metropolitan of Kiev.”

The Synod of the ROC then adopted the decision to break Eucharistic communion with the Constantinople Patriarchate. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia supported the decision of the ROC on the Ukraine and Constantinople matter.

24 comments:

  1. This is very sad. But only Moscow has been speaking of schism. To date, No other Autocephalous Church has done what Moscow has done. Other than release general statements encouraging Constantinople and Moscow to "work it out," No other Church has broken communion, and concelebration-commemoration is carrying on as before. They see it for what it actually is: The latest in a very long history of "Turf Wars" between Churches. Certainly not something to break communion over (which they have not), and most definitely not something to declare Constantinople "schismatic," (which they most surely have not done). It would be one thing if the MP had just protested strongly against "canonical intrusion" and broke communion over that (it's been done before), but Moscow went further. Their Communion breaking statement read like an indictment of the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself, venting a century worth of bile and grievance against Ecumenical Patriarchs, past and present. The Ecumenical Patriarch has not responded in kind. So all the separation is on the Russian side. As far as we (I am under the EP) are concerned, there is no schism.

    Not everyone in the EP agrees with how this issue has been handled. But that doesn't mean we view our Patriarch as a graceless schismatic or are willing to anathemize him, which many on the MP side do and are. Moscow went too far with their reaction, and the reactions of the other Churches I think reflect the general feeling that while they believe the EP is wrong, they also are not willing to destroy the unity of the Church over politics, over turf.

    I would take the MP's defense of the Canons more seriously if they themselves weren't prone to "bending them" on occasion to suit their own purposes. I have seen their shenanigans in the Mission Lands, receiving defrocked and excommunicated clergy from the EP into their ranks and setting up missions on the EP's territory (Indonesia and Korea being the most agregious examples). It is interesting that Moldova was in the news as well over this, seeing how Romania considers the MP infringing on their canonical territory (and probably why they remain silent over the issue of the Ukraine).

    Let's be honest: Both the EP and the MP have been "flexible" with the canonical order. This is all politics. Scorched Earth may have worked for the Russians against Napoleon and Hitler, but in an ecclesiastical dispute is probably not the way to go. I am sad about this, because the MP has set fire to all their bridges. All of the hurtful and ugly rhetoric, how can reconciliation take place in that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your general point- the MP's "abolition" of Georgian autocephaly in the 19th century is far more outrageous than what the EP is doing- but it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Korea and Indonesia are EP territory.

      Delete
    2. http://www.orthodoxkorea.org/en-interview-amen-2017/

      The Metropolis of Korea is the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Here is the Metropolitan laying out the situation. The situation in Indonesia is a rather ugly one, although yes it is very “grey” out in the mission lands.

      Delete
    3. He admits in the interview that Russian missionaries were the first to arrive in Korea. There is no basis for asserting that it is EP territory.

      Delete
    4. There is only one canonical Church in Korea, and it isn’t Russian. ROCOR set up an illicit mission with an EP priest who was defrocked and excommunicated (which is pertinent to our current discussion).

      As I said, “grey.” The Russian Mission was abandoned, and the Korean Church petitioned the EP for help and to accept them, which is what happened.

      I don’t want to derail the conversation with this. My whole point was that a certain “flexibility” has been practiced by both the EP and MP. This hardline attitude about the Canons from the MP would be fine if it was consistent, which it is not.

      Delete
    5. The Russian mission in Korea had ceased to be following the expulsion of the Russian Orthodox priest by the Korean authorities. This followed the actual physical expulsion of the priest from the church by his own Korean flock after he raised the Soviet flag within the temple. There were also complaints that he allegedly neglected them in favour of the Russian parishioners. It’s an ugly story that Metropolitan Ambrosios kindly and wisely left out.

      So the Orthodox mission in Korea was dead until several decades later when missionaries from the EP arrived at the request of the Koreans. On the basis of St. Paul’s example of not building on the foundation of another, the Metropolitan’s assert is correct.

      Delete
    6. A number of inconsistencies in the position if the Moscow Patriarchate were pointed out in a precious discussion. But the most troubling one of all for me is the claim that the schismatic Ukrainians are graceless. On the one hand, the Basic Principles of the Russian Church document (1.17) states: “the Orthodox Church does not assess the extent to which grace-filled life has either been preserved intact or distorted in a non-Orthodox confession, considering this to be a mystery of God’s providence and judgment” while on the other they tell us that our Ukrainian Orthodox brothers who are cut off from the MP due to political circumstances and now the Ecumenical Patriarch (and perhaps even every member of the EP) are graceless. The position of the MP is based on political concerns rather than spiritual realities.

      Delete
  2. The Greeks burned all the bridges years ago. They are self serving and their actions in this debacle are unacceptable. When will the Greeks grant autocephaly to the Macedonians?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As for Macedonia/FYROM/Whatever, I believe His All Holiness already addressed that.

      Delete
    2. Yes he sidestepped the awkward issue.

      Delete
  3. Communion remains unbroken. Whatever you think about the EP's actions, do you think it is worth tearing the Church apart over it? Fortunately, the other Churches don't see it that way (nor does the EP). Moscow is alone in it's fire and brimstone actions. The more shrill and threatening their rhetoric becomes (the recent threat against the Jeruselem Patriarchate being an example) the more they will alienate themselves from the rest of the Church (the other Churches may not agree with Constantinople, but they won't appreciate Moscow threatening them with a withdrawal of "support" and other bullying tactics)

    ReplyDelete
  4. An impulsive and foolish act indicative of a mind more occupied with fantasies than with family and parish. And as long as other churches are in communion with both the MP and EP, the assertion that the EP is schismatic leads like a falling row of dominoes back to the MP itself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A brave, truth-loving man, may god bless him and his ministry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel sad for his parish. It didn’t have to be this way.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It says "priests" in title, but it's only been one so far, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Perhaps we should all remember his beatitude Metropolitan Onufrey in our prayers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree. And Metropolitan Filaret. And Father Makary. And all the faithful of the Ukraine. May God bless our Patriarchs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Filaret is a married man,hence he violated his monastic vows. I did not condemn him. He condemned himself. Deal with it.

      Delete
    2. As long as a body draws breath, it is never too late for repentance. Even after we leave, prayers are still offered. He too is a child of God as we all are. Politics should never blind us to this reality.

      Delete
    3. I never said he WASN'T a child of God. I hope he does repent. Perhaps you heard about the deacon that St. Basil the Great deposed for fornication. The deacon eventually was able to work miracles. When he pointed this out to St. Basil, the saint replied, "That is between you and God. But I cannot allow you to serve because you have scandalized the faithful.
      The former Metropolitan is the one who caused scandal. Your Patriarch is neither a Tsar nor a Pope that he can overturn a Synod of Bishops who defrocked the ex-Metropolitan.
      Why on earth did Constantinople receive Byzantine Catholic clergy as priests or deacons, yet they had to re-ordain and re-consecrated bishops who came over from the Old Calendarists?
      I happen to be a Monarchist for all Orthodox countries, Ukraine, Serbia, Russia,etc. I'm not all that fond of Russia's President, nor am I anti-Ukrainian. But it is Filaret who injected politics into the situation. He was passed over for Patriarch of Moscow. He probably would be Putin's best friend if he had been chosen.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This whole thing is tainted by secular politics. Whatever you think of the EP's actions, the status quo was no longer tenable. It isn't as black and white as the partisans on both sides make it seem. The Gospel and the pastoral aspect is being totally brushed aside in this. I pray that God's will be done in all things.

      Delete