Tbilisi, January 10, (Interfax) - The Georgian Orthodox Church will not rush its decision on whether to recognize the autocephaly of the new church of Ukraine, Metropolitan Nikoloz of Akhalkalaki and Kumurdo told reporters.
"The Churches that are ahead of us in the hierarchy have to state their positions first. The decision of the Constantinople Patriarchate to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian church needs to be studied. On the one hand, the Georgian Church can support the right of the Ukrainian state to have an autocephalous church, but on the other hand, one needs to take into account who should recognize this autocephaly and on what conditions. In particular, who the head of the Ukrainian church and other hierarchs should be," Metropolitan Nikoloz told the Georgian information agency Interpressnews.
It is especially important to determine the canonicity of those Ukrainian clergymen who are represented in the new church of Ukraine, as some of them were anathematized in a decision shared by all Orthodox Churches, including the Constantinople Patriarchate.
"Today we cannot recognize these clergymen and serve with them," the metropolitan said.
The Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church has not yet studied the tomos received by the Ukrainian church in detail, he said.
"We need to study the tomos in the original, not one of the translated versions published a couple of days ago. There can be no rush here, given that the Constantinople Patriarchate has still not made a decision regarding a similar tomos for the Georgian Orthodox Church and has not settled the diptych issue. It took the Constantinople 1,500 years to recognize the autocephaly of the Georgian Orthodox Church. If the Ukrainian church has to wait a little, there will be nothing special in that. We restored our autocephaly in 1917, which was recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943 and by the Constantinople Patriarchate in 1990. The issue of recognition is a lengthy and complex process, so it's tactless and inappropriate to talk about our position right now," Metropolitan Nikoloz said.
The Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church discussed the Constantinople Patriarchate's letter on granting autocephaly to the new church of Ukraine, he said.
"The official letter contains a very dangerous phrase to the effect that the Constantinople Patriarchate has the exclusive right to interfere in the affairs of any local Church. This is unacceptable and could lead to many challenges in the future," the metropolitan said, without ruling out that the kind of situation surrounding the granting of autocephaly to Ukraine may occur with the self-proclaimed Abkhaz Church in the future.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Georgian Church clarifies position on Ukraine
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"It took the Constantinople 1,500 years to recognize the autocephaly of the Georgian Orthodox Church. If the Ukrainian church has to wait a little, there will be nothing special in that." Ouch.
ReplyDeleteAsk Georgian nationalists what they think of the prospect of Abkhaz autocephaly and you will get a spiel that sounds a lot like Russian nationalists talking about Ukraine. I doubt though that the EP would take much interest in the Abkhaz cause- it's considerably less attractive in terms of numbers and geopolitics.
ReplyDeleteWhile the formal approval of Georgian autocephaly was in process, did their clergy serve with other Orthodox clergy? It sounds as if the Georgian church has also left the laity out of this mess, too; nothing was said about whether laity could intercommune - they will simply not (yet) recognize Ukrainian clergy or serve with them until the situation is resolved. That's basically the same as happened regarding the disuputed status of ROCOR and the OCA relative to each other and the EP - for decades, clergy would not serve with each other but laity could commune. The difference being there was no question of whether the clergy of each were, in fact, clergy, which is a question here.
ReplyDelete"While the formal approval of Georgian autocephaly was in process, did their clergy serve with other Orthodox clergy?"
DeleteThat was in the 5th century.... There's no indication that the Georgians unilateraly split from Antioch, just an indication that Antioch granted it.
Wow, the whitewashing has already started. The OCA and ROCOR are completely unlike the schismatics in the Ukraine. Difference being there is no question of the validity of either Church's hierarchy. If the EP had ordained the whole lot of the schismatic Ukrainian Bishops you might have a case to say it's the same.
Delete"That's basically the same as happened regarding the disuputed status of ROCOR and the OCA relative to each other and the EP - for decades, clergy would not serve with each other but laity could commune."
DeleteThat was not universally true. Back in the 1980's, the local OCA were not generally welcomed at the local ROCOR parish. Come to think of it, I don't think any of the local non ROCOR were welcome to commune. We had Greeks, Ukrainians, ACROD and OCA.
John (Ad Orientem): "Come to think of it, I don't think any of the local non ROCOR were welcome to commune"
DeleteIt was after ROCOR anatemized the heresy of Ecumenism:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow.aspx
Wallace, you can't ordain someone who was validly ordained, but then defrocked. Case in point, Filaret Denisenko was a married Metropolitan of the MP. Up until he was passed over for Patriarch of Moscow, he had nothing but contempt for the Ukrainian language. When the bishops chose Alexis as Patriarch, Filaret suddenly became Ukrainian and started playing the Nationalism card. That is very Soviet; Stalin, a Georgian, began playing the Russian Nationalist card during WW II to whip up Soviet patriotism against Hitler.
DeleteProbably during the Soviet era, Filaret worked loyally for the KGB, hence the bishops were powerless to take action against him. Not singling him out; many bishops and clergy did the same.
John,
ReplyDeleteThat was especially true during the old calendar greek captivity of rocor, but not universally applied.
The Bishop, who explicitly express pro-Russian position is not supported unanimously in the Holy Synod of GOC. Though, some group of Primates are trying to grasp quasi-canonical arguments with no grounds, in fact. Sadly, the Synod lacks the deliberate discussion of the issues
ReplyDelete