Friday, March 15, 2019

EP responds to letter from Albanian Church

Finally translated for us.


(ARCHONS) - In a January 14, 2019 letter to His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and all Albania called for a pan-Orthodox Council to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. His All-Holiness’ response, detailing the duties, responsibilities and rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, follows below.

Protocol Number 104

Your Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and all Albania, most beloved and precious brother, concelebrant in Christ our God of our Modesty: We address Your venerable Beatitude with exceeding delight, even as we greet you with a fraternal embrace.

We received and thoroughly examined your fraternal letter of last January 14, 2019, following our letter of December 24, 2018, related to the canonical ecclesiastical acts that we initiated in Ukraine, and we would like to respond herewith so that, in a spirit of sincere instruction – which, as by God’s mercy Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, we bear responsibility before all holy brothers throughout the world – we may present the following:

The God-bearing Fathers, who through the holy and sacred canons have entrusted the Throne of Constantine with its universally recognized hallowed and dread responsibilities that transcend borders – not in the form of privileges but of self-sacrifice – foresaw with the guidance of the Holy Spirit the necessity for a definitive resolution to the problems emerging across the Local Churches, which are unable to settle them by themselves.

This legacy of our Great Church of Christ has been served without blemish throughout all previous centuries in a spirit of prudence and with fear of God, by our blessed and ever-memorable Predecessors, always within the sanctified and canonically immutable system of the Pentarchy of Ancient Thrones, through appropriate fraternal and reciprocal mutuality “united in spiritual concord and harmony, through love in the Holy Spirit, supporting one another.”[1]

In this constant reciprocal relationship, the preeminent position of Constantinople is universally declared without ever eliciting any reservation or consternation on the part of the other Patriarchates, since after all everyone knows very well that there has never been any danger whatsoever that “the cloudy delusion of the world would conceivably penetrate the Church of Christ, which offers the light of simplicity and dawn of humility to those who desire to see God.”[2] Indeed, as our late predecessor, Neophytos VII, explains, “supporting and inherently assisting the needs likewise of the other most holy Patriarchal and Apostolic Thrones is something that our own most holy Patriarchal, Apostolic and Ecumenical Throne has historically deemed very appropriate, without either seizing or coveting their rights out of a sense of greed – something we would neither act upon nor even dare to entertain. For the former is proper and right of itself, whereas on the contrary the latter is unjust and improper.”[3]

In the midst of such solemn declarations of respect for the canonical rights of internal administrative autonomy of the local sister Churches, we also record the decision of Anthimos VI to the Church of Antioch, according to whom “ . . . the Great Church, heaven forbid, never sought to abolish the canonical rules and rights possessed by the most holy Throne [of Antioch] by any interference or imposition, whether during a vacancy of its throne or any other time. On the contrary, it always supported the prerogatives [of Antioch] and provided ardent protection on numerous occasions of dire circumstance pertaining to the safeguarding of the Orthodox in the face of adversarial assault. There are countless examples that testify to such patronage and stressful protection of the Church [of Constantinople] for the Throne [of Antioch], including the recent restoration of the church in Amida, for which a considerable amount was and continues to be expended, but also previously the events in the Metropolis of Aleppo as well as countless other circumstances, when the Great Church has acted favorably – always without the slightest self-centered intention but with genuine self-sacrifice – from a position of authority, striving in manifold ways for the spiritual interests of the Throne [of Antioch] and the Orthodox who comprise it, while personally assuming many of its burdens.”[4]

All these points perfectly corresponded with the divinely and inviolably sanctified practice of the Church, which from the earliest times professed that “according to the custom prevailing from above, the most reverend Bishops residing in the illustrious City [Constantinople], whenever circumstances so demand, should convene and determine specific ecclesiastical affairs that emerge in order to honor the petitioners with appropriate resolutions.”

Accordingly, not only in cases of Doctrine, holy Tradition, and Canonical Church Regulations, or even of general matters concerning the entire body of the Church, but also in all matters pertaining to important issues of specific interest to one or another Local Church, the supervisory provision and protection of the Great Church of Christ intervenes – sometimes ex officio and out of obligation, at other times at the request of interested parties – in order to offer an effective contribution for the sake of arbitration and resolution of differences arising among the holy Churches of God, to settle differences between shepherds and their flocks, to avoid inflaming difficulties and facilitate the return of Ecclesiastical affairs to a Canonical path, to bolster the occasional inadequate ministry of spiritual leaders in certain Churches, to support the weak, wavering, or misled in the Orthodox faith, and overall never to delay or eschew suppressing all kinds of moral and material danger that threatens the stability of the most holy Churches.

Therefore, whoever thinks that this essential and completely necessary ministry of the Mother Church on behalf of the Universal Body of the Orthodox Church constitutes a product of later years is undoubtedly deceived because it undeniably derives its origin from much earlier times. In this regard, we submit, simply by way of illustration, the decision of Kallistos I in the matter of Germanos II of Tarnovo, who attempted to claim real patriarchal privileges beyond the mere title of “Patriarch” that he received from the Great Church. In response, Kallistos declared that “notwithstanding this, should the throne of Constantinople review and resolve, or advocate and validate the decisions of the other Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as the sacred Canons have determined and the Acta have witnessed, how much more is the Throne [of Constantinople] also sovereign over the Church of the Bulgarians, by which it was honored with the name of Patriarch”?[5] Moreover, as Luke I Chrysoberges has stated, whoever appears before us as exercising the right “of overseeing, rectifying, and resolving judgments over disputes among other Thrones,”[6] is on the same basis qualified to invalidate the penalty of deposition against Bishop John of Amathous issued by Archbishop John of Cyprus and his Synod.

This ancient practice of the Church, which concurs with the Ecclesiastical Canons, is also explicitly confirmed by the four Patriarchs of the East, namely our own Predecessor Dionysios III, Paisios of Alexandria, Makarios of Antioch, and Nektarios of Jerusalem, in a Tomos of the year 1663, by which they settled twenty-five chapters of inquiries posed to them by clergy of the Russian Church. In the eighth question: “Whether every decision of other Churches may be appealed to the Throne of Constantinople for final determination in all Ecclesiastical matters?”, they replied that “This prerogative belonged to the Pope before he broke with the Catholic Church. . . . Since the Schism, however, matters of all Churches are referred to the Throne of Constantinople, from which they receive determination.” The same is repeated in responses to the twenty-first and twenty-second questions.[7]

Therefore, Your Beatitude, we can all appreciate what responsibility the Throne of Constantinople bears and how history has endowed him with exceptional prerogatives. From all these verified and established arguments, it may be unequivocally concluded that specific inter-Orthodox efforts and initiatives of the Holy Great Church of Christ during the previous and present centuries were perhaps erroneously interpreted by some as an abrogation of its unwavering responsibilities and at the same time ministerial privileges in the face of a parliamentary federation – as has unfortunately even been stated – of individual Local Churches, which supposedly decides on all matters with the Ancient Thrones.

The practice of the Mother Church has, in a spirit of kenosis, always aspired and continues to aspire to communion in love of Christ and clarity of heart among the local holy Churches of Christ for abundance of wisdom and grace, for guidance and comfort in pastoral matters, and finally for edification of the body of faithful. The newer so-called “autocephalies” were and are granted by the Church of Constantinople as the common source of nourishment of the Orthodox for a better and more orderly internal organization of Church affairs, but not for any modification of the holy commonweal of the Church, which emerged from the long and sacred canonical development of the Ecumenical Councils, or the creation of a false concept of self-sufficient local churches and division of the one and undivided Body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

When autocephaly is isolated and exaggerated, it is rendered problematic inasmuch as it does not serve the purpose for which it was considered beneficial to the Church. We should add here that the status of autocephaly, which was ceded on certain conditions and in various ways by the Mother Church for the occasional and circumstantial vital needs of Her children throughout the Oikoumene, does not comprise an immutable or static system but is adapted to current pastoral needs of the time, with holiness and much circumspection.

These few thoughts have been highlighted by way of providing a correction about the preeminent and sacrificial character of the Holy Mother and Great Church of Christ and an expression of a wholesome ecclesiology overall, even as we stand in the presence of blessed personalities, who served before us as Patriarchs, so that we may not be judged by the Lord of History or by them as diminishing what they established and preserved in the midst of pains and labors and difficult times, bearing the cross of responsibility for the Church.

Since this is the truth about our ecclesiastical affairs, the canonically established appellate provision of our Modesty appears clear and indisputable, just it was also exercised in the case of the Most Reverend Metropolitans Filaret, formerly of Kyiv, and Makariy of Lviv. There is, Your Beatitude, an extremely important treatise by someone who performed miraculous signs while still living – a man cultivated in virtue and profound in matters of the sacred canons, namely, the late Metropolitan Basil of Anchialosand subsequently of Smyrna. This treatise, composed and synodally ratified in 1877, pertained to the validity of ordination of clerics by a deposed, schismatic, or even heretical Bishop. We are attaching it herewith for you because it describes in many and convincing arguments the timeless position of the Orthodox Church on this issue.

While we do not wish to convey all of the cases delineated in the treatise, suffice it for us to note how the Holy and God-bearing Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea resolved the Melitian schism with the articulation of Canon 8 that reflects the Novatians. The said Melitios, Bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt, was accused of committing a whole series of unlawful acts, including denying the faith and sacrificing to idols. He was defrocked around the year 302 AD. Rejecting the defrocking, he formed an opposition and created the so-called Melitian schism. When reconciliation was achieved, according to the account of Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, the saint’s predecessor, Alexander of Alexandria, submitted a register or list of those ordained during the period of this schism – which included bishops, priests, and deacons – all of whom were restored to their proper rank without re-ordination. This schism troubled the Church up until the seventh century, while those reconciled were admitted into communion with the Church without re-baptism or even through Holy Chrism, as Theodore the Studite informs us all in his Great Epistle to Nafkratios.

Furthermore, in more recent years as well, when in 1945 our Holy and Great Church of Christ forgave the Bulgarians and their Church condemned by the Holy and Great Synod of 1872 – which not only defrocked but even excommunicated them – how did their restoration come about? Was it through re-ordination? Or were those forgiven perhaps the same as those condemned? Not only this, but those elected and chosen by them were also the same as those who succeeded them. And when the Church of Russia recently – under brazen political pressure – forgave the theretofore schismatic members of ROCOR, how did it receive them into communion? Was it through re-baptism or re-ordination?

Your Beatitude,

Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit for manifesting to us according to the likeness of the Triadic glory those things accomplished and established in the Church not only through Holy Scripture, like the Protestants, but also through the most honorable, kenotic, and sanctified holy practice of the Church over its two thousand-year journey on earth. This is why, in presenting the above, we understand that the tolerance and long-suffering stance of the Great Church of Christ has been construed by those who greatly benefited from Her as an abdication from the ongoing journey of the Church.

We are at a loss as to how this impertinence and slander against the Mother Church and our Modesty personally is tolerated by some and – wittingly or unwittingly – sometimes espoused in the form of affirmation or repetition of arguments by those who avenge their benefactor. Do these disciples love the Church and its unity more than their teachers? Surely not!

At the Phanar, we preach the genuine inheritance of ecclesiology because we draw from the wellspring of our Fathers and not from self-interest or other trivial motivations and political expediencies. Consequently, it is the responsibility of all others to assimilate these disclosed truths – not, of course, in order to validate them, inasmuch as they are already authentically validated by ecclesiastical practice, but rather to restore the precious and authentic experience of the Fathers, who hoped in God alone, to the proper and sanctified way. To Him be glory and dominion unto the ages. Amen.

February 20, 2019

Your reverent Beatitude’s

beloved brother in Christ

[1]Official Patriarchal Letter of Gabriel III on the election of Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, Kallinikos Delikanis, Official Documents Preserved in the Archives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, vol. 2, Constantinople, 1905, p. 468.
[2]Letter of the Fathers of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine, at the conclusion of the Canons of this Council.
[3]Kallinikos Delikanis, Official Documents, vol. 2, p. 217.
[4]Kallinikos Delikanis, Official Documents, vol. 2, p. 314.
[5]F. Miklosisch and I. Müller (eds), Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, vol.1, Vienna, 1862, p.438.
[6]Matthew Blastaris, Constitution according to Elements, Element 2, in G. Ralli and M. PotliConstitution of the Holy and Sacred Canons, vol. 6, Athens, 1859.
[7]Manuel Gedeon, Canonical Regulations, Athens, 1979, vol. I, pp. 341–346.

76 comments:

  1. The Patriarch makes some interesting points about the reception of schismatics. I hadn't heard anything about "brazen political pressure" for Moscow and ROCOR to re-unite. I do know about Metropolitan Laurus' long and prayerful efforts to heal the divide, sometimes against serious opposition within ROCOR. What was the political pressure? (I'm not saying there wasn't any; I just hadn't heard claims of this kind before.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. "the supervisory provision and protection of the Great Church of Christ intervenes – sometimes ex officio and out of obligation, at other times at the request of interested parties –" I take this to essentially mean that the EP can intervene anywhere it deems necessary, whether locals request it or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funnily enough he doesn’t seem to want to use that right to intervene in the Antioch-Jerusalem affair

      Delete
    2. Or for GREEK Old Calendarists!

      Delete
  3. I posted this in 2015; Fr. Meyendorff was on to something.

    http://classicalchristianity.com/2015/03/26/on-ecumenical-patriarchal-claims-to-universality/

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Furthermore, in more recent years as well, when in 1945 our Holy and Great Church of Christ forgave the Bulgarians and their Church condemned by the Holy and Great Synod of 1872 – which not only defrocked but even excommunicated them – how did their restoration come about? Was it through re-ordination? "

    What say you who adhere to the, whats the word, *formalism* of the MP's position and canonical interpretation? I don't like the implications of the EP's *universalism*, even if there was an Empire still in extant which is assumed by the particular canons he is interpreting - but the EP does appear to be the *realist* in the room next to the MP when it comes to the Ukrainian use case. Even a cursory familiarity with the canons and the history of the creation/application allows us to see that a crude legal formalism was never their spirit and intent...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although I wouldn’t call myself a “formalist” I would definitely say that the EP’s interpretations of the canons in the case of defrocked bishops is stretching the canons way past their built-in ability to give a little slack in some cases. While the MP’s interpretations may be seen as “formalist” by some, the EP’s interpretation is just so brazenly out of wack that any negative elements of “formalism” of the MP’s interpretation simply pales in comparison. The EP’s interpretation has basically set the precedent that any bishop who has fallen away from the church is still legitimate in all their actions of ordination and consecration, without any form or repentance from heresy/schism needed for them (and their entire schismatic/heresy believing hierarchy) to return to the church. An interpretation which, oddly enough; supports a lot of the EP’s aspirations to re-unite with Rome without Rome having to repent or reconcile its doctrines with orthodoxy first. I would hardly say that the EP is on the “realist” side of this debate. Lord have mercy.

      Delete
  5. The EP compares the “Filaretians and Makariites” (now OCU) to the followers of Meletios of Lycopolis. These schismatics were indeed reinstated in their ranks by the Nicene Council... but after they received the laying on of hands.

    Synodal Letter of the Council of Nicea:

    But when the grace of God had delivered Egypt from that heresy and blasphemy, and from the persons who have dared to make disturbance and division among a people heretofore at peace, there remained the matter of the insolence of Meletius and those who have been ordained by him; and concerning this part of our work we now, beloved brethren, proceed to inform you of the decrees of the Synod. The Synod, then, being disposed to deal gently with Meletius (for in strict justice he deserved no leniency), decreed that he should remain in his own city, but have no authority either to ordain, or to administer affairs, or to make appointments; and that he should not appear in the country or in any other city for this purpose, but should enjoy the bare title of his rank; but that those who have been placed by him, after they have been confirmed by a more sacred laying on of hands, shall on these conditions be admitted to communion: that they shall both have their rank and the right to officiate, but that they shall be altogether the inferiors of all those who are enrolled in any church or parish, and have been appointed by our most honourable colleague Alexander.

    They weren’t just accepted, much less rewarded for their schismatic deeds. They were humbled before the Church of Egypt. Epifanii has reportedly already refused such methods of reconciliation.

    https://spzh.news/en/news/60510-jepifanij-my-ne-soglasny-na-pererukopolozhenije

    ReplyDelete
  6. Also, the Bulgarians and ROCOR were considered schismatics in some local churches but not in others. Their condemnation was never ratified by all the Patriarchs. This is another poor analogy.

    Who accepted the legitimacy of the KP or the autonomous group under Makari? No one. They didn’t even accept each other as legitimate

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sounds like Bart and his fellow phanariots are having a psychotic break.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Was St. Alexis Toth re-ordained before he was received by Moscow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. It's a fair point. The Church of Albania should have known that there are many examples of schismatic clergy being received in their orders, including by the Russian church. What I think the churches should really be doing is focusing not on these very tricky canonical issues but the general principle that the EP has the right to intervene anywhere.

      Delete
    2. The boundaries of the EP's powers is a fair question, and a discussion worth having. Unfortunately, it is a discussion that cannot be had at this time, because everyone is raw and defensive. The MP has been working for years to undermine the EP, making it a point to not address HAH as the Ecumenical Patriarch and through their media network (orthochristian.com and elsewhere)publishing hit pieces on an almost weekly basis-accusing the EP of "Modernism" "Heresy" and a host of other "crimes against Orthodoxy" (I know this for certain, because I was a longtime reader of that website and saw the bile often, I could ignore it because of the wonderfully edifying articles they do publish, but since this crisis it has become a flood and drumbeat and I am not interested in supporting the Church equivalent of Hannity or Rachel Maddow). As I noted before, there is somebody in the Phanar who has probably been reading that stuff and continues to read it. The fact that it comes from a publishing arm of a major Russian Monastery only lends credence to the view that this isn't just some fringe idea in Russian Orthodoxy, but widely believed. Metropolitan Hilarion has certain made some statements.

      How can a dialogue take place in that atmosphere? The MP is cannot be an honest partner, because they believe the Ecumenical Patriarchate should be abolished as an anachronism and is an "obstacle to Orthodox Unity." Honestly, How can any Council or Discussion take place with that going on?

      Delete
    3. There are more churches in the world than the EP and MP. I agree that the MP has ratcheted up the propaganda machine to the point where honest dialogue is difficult, but the same cannot be said regarding Antioch, Albania, and others who have all raised respectful concerns with the EP and been met with either silence or the arrogance on display in the above letter.

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  10. HAH has provided a good answer and a rebuttal to those who oppose the OCU on the basis of their ordinations. I suppose you can ask the same questions on several fronts in several situations: Did the MP re-ordain all of the Greek Catholics who joined the MP in the early 20th Century? What about the OCA and Archbishop Lazar Puhalo? If a heterodox Baptism can be received by economy, because it has "proper form" then what about an ordination with the "proper form" but outside the Church? Even a cursory reading of the jurisdictional mess of the 20th Century shows the "flexibility" that has been shown regarding this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is all true. But the key thing that is needed, which is inarguably the most important prerequisite for schismatics/heretics being received into the church, is repentance from the schism/heresy that they had engaged in. Something that is decidedly lacking from the EP’s recieving of these schismatics. In fact, not only have the the hierarchs that have been “received” refused to repent of the schism that they had engaged in, they have been actively aiding and abetting the persecution & brash intimidation of the faithful of the canonical church (UOC-MP). With “OCU” hierarchy outright denying the existence of these persecutions, or blaming them on Moscow.

      Delete
    2. David,

      The EPs response uses a historical instance wherein the schismatics fate had to be decided by an ecumenical council not unilaterally, the group had to be reordained and subsequently given a lesser status among the bishops. Another key issue that adds to the contention is that Ukraine was considered to be a part of the Russian Church by all local churches, including Cnople. And Filaret’s judgments were accepted by all churches including Cnople.

      I’m continually shocked by how the brethren are content for simple answers to this complex problem, depending upon which side one is on. You do make a great point about the historical precedent of accepting Uniates in their orders. Nobody got upset when the EP accepted Ukies in the USA under his omophorion. Filaret just doesn’t come across as repentant since he is still sending out correspondence in the name of the Kievan Patriarch, but he’s in his 90s, when he’s gone some things may cool down.

      Delete
    3. We don't know what the truth is. Russian and Ukrainian sources have an agenda here. There have been incidents absolutely, and the Russian media has blown up those incidents implying that it is happening EVERYWHERE, when there is no evidence of that. It shouldn't be happening at all, but Metropolitan Epiphany is not responsible for what every hooligan does, and the OCU recently admitted to the BBC that they really have no idea how many parishes have made the transition. Everything is still new and up in the air. Unfortunately, there is a widely held belief in Ukraine that the UOC-MP is an arm of the Russian Government (as it was in Soviet and Czarist times). Is it a fair characterization? Maybe, Maybe not. I'm not Ukrainian or Russian, so I am not going to offer an opinion on that as I don't know. All we know is what the media tells us, and if you get your news from orthochristian.com or RT, then you will get a very negative view of the OCU and Ukrainian government. On the flipside, if you go by what RISU says or Ukrainian news agencies, you are going to get a very different picture. Politics is hopelessly intertwined here. HAH's rehabilitation of the OCU has made it possible for the reconciliation process to begin. The question becomes, will either side take it? Metropolitan Epiphany has publicly stated he wants that, and perhaps a Poroshenko defeat in the election will allow things to settle down. There are Ukrainian Nationalists who are stirring things up, there are Russian provocateurs who are doing the same. There are political actors who have a vested interest in keeping things unstable and in conflict. The Tomos provides a way forward.

      Metropolitan Filaret is in his 90s. He won't be around much longer. The EP is not focused on Filaret, and will not allow his eccentricities or belligerence to derail the OCU. God will judge him, as he does us all.

      Delete
    4. "Metropolitan" Epiphany has no concern for the salvation of the Ukranian people, or the unification of the various Ukrainian jurisdictions. He wants more subjects, alligent to the Ukrainian state, and its Far-Right agenda. He regularly slanders the faithful of the UOC and Metropolitan Onufry. All he has shown himself to be is an agent of disunity and hatred. Truly I am worse than him and every schismatic in every way, as I am a terrible wretched sinner, but calling the chief hierarch of a schismatic far-right nationalist church group an agent of unity in Ukraine is absurd.

      Delete
    5. Are you Ukrainian or Russian, Randy? It seems to me that the Church is caught up in an extremely nasty geopolitical divorce, where each side wants to portray the other in the worst possible light. We don't know anything except what the Media tells us (and their "information" is highly suspect). People in Ukraine have their own opinions based on what "side of the fence" they are on. This is a blood feud, one that has been going on long before all of this drama. The Tomos provides a way forward, if the parties are amenible. Your characterization of the OCU (and on the flip side, the Ukrainian Nationalist portray of the UOC-MP) does nothing to facilitate healing.

      Delete
    6. I don't know quite how to tell you this , David, but the UOC-MP didn't exist in Tsarist times. The Patriarchate was abolished by Tsar Peter. Not that I think this was a good thing, on the contrary, it was during the reign of the Tsar Martyr Nicholas II, that talk of restoring the Patriarchate began. In fact, the Tsar proposed himself as a candidate, which would have entailed him leaving his family to take monastic vows. The Synod received his proposal in stunned silence, and the Tsar never raised the matter again.

      Delete
  11. We should pray for His Beatitude Onufry Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. I'm getting sick of listening to Bart talk like he's the Pope and Constantinople is the be all end all, so grateful he's wrong on both counts; undoubtedly more fruitful to instead focus on praying for the true faithful who are suffering in Ukraine because of his greed and arrogance.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely. Let us pray for all Orthodox in Ukraine.

      Delete
  12. Unknown,

    You said that this move “supports a lot of the EPs aspirations to re-unite with Rome without repentance”. You are correct.

    Met. Elpidophoros of Bursa concurs:

    “For this reason, the requests that can be addressed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the granting of autocephaly can come from anti-canonical, schismatic, or canonical personalities, or from Uniates, so-called “Greek Catholics”.” (Interview about the Moscow Patriarchate and the current situation of the Orthodox Church in Turkey)

    Source: https://orthodoxie.com/en/interview-with-metropolitan-elpidophoros-of-bursa-ecumenical-patriarchate-about-the-moscow-patriarchate-and-the-current-situation-of-the-orthodox-church-in-turkey/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Met A Khrapovitsky, an eminent hierarch who I like to quote for the sake of those who are on the traditional Russian side offers explanations advocating for receiving heretics and schismatics in their orders and for a centralized approach to worldwide Orthodoxy for the good of the contemporary Church:

    http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/khrap_econ.aspx

    http://www.rocorstudies.org/articles/2012/02/24/metropolitan-anthony-khrapovitskii-how-would-we-have-treated-the-pope-had-he-converted-to-orthodoxy/

    ReplyDelete
  14. The elephant in the room is the fact that Constantinople's claim of being endowed with the responsibility of hearing appeals & intervening in any other Orthodox Church to render final & binding decisions on all ecclesiastical matters is based on canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council, i.e. Chalcedon 451 AD.

    However, if those canons mean what Constantinople says they mean, and not what St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite & all the other Orthodox Churches say them mean then ultimately this placed Constantinople above Rome for 500 years before the great schism. Rome would have never accepted Constantinople making unilateral decisions that it has to accept. We must recall that in the 5th century Rome was still Orthodox & held the universal primacy in worldwide Orthodoxy. Constantinople's primacy was merely Rome's primacy that it inherited by default when Rome cut itself off from the Church by lapsing into schism & heresy.

    Constantinople's claims of universal arbitration & universal jurisdiction in the so-called "diaspora", i.e. all lands outside the defined bounds of the Orthodox Churches of the 5th century would have made missionary activity impossible as well. As we all know evangelism of the local patriarchates beyond their local boundaries did in fact take place with Rome in western Europe, Alexandria in Africa, Antioch in the Middle East, etc. Never, was there "permission" granted by Constantinople to Rome or any of these other patriarchates to spread the faith & expand the Church.

    Constantinople "responsibilities" & "canonical rights" of universal jurisdiction in the diaspora & universal appeals / binding decision-making power didn't exist until a hundred years ago. They are 100% contrived, and history makes this embarrassingly obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like to remind myself that, according to Constantinople's current claims, the Roman missions to Ireland and Scotland, and then to the Germanic lands, were all canonical violations.

      Delete
    2. Abba Moses, that is exactly my point. The historical reality reveals Constantinople's current claims to be utterly preposterous.

      Constantinople has reimagined its legitimate primacy as something different than it actually was/is transforming it into an illegitimate primacy. This is exactly what Rome did 1,000 years ago.

      It's not a coincidence that the Patriarchate of Rome was isolated from the rest of the Church in its warped views of its primacy just like the Patriarchate of Constantinople is now isolated from the rest of the Church in its warped views of its primacy.

      As Yogi Berra famously said, "It's deja vu all over again."

      Delete
  15. Even + Meletios, who definitely embraced the elevated view of the EP, placed Africa under the authority of Alexandria when he was the Patriarch of Alexandria. The title went from All Egypt to All Africa.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Examples abound. For every citation that Constantinople offers in support of its unique notion of its primacy others citations to the contrary can be offered that are not only far superior in terms of the strength of logic & facts but are much greater in number as well. Constantinople is proof-texting its citations to support its narrative, which obviously doesn't hold water with objective people who are interested truth over agendas. I think we'll see a world-wide Orthodox council articulate these issues clearly.

      Delete
    2. Maximus, what's more amazing is the seemingly boundless & self-serving hypocrisy of said +Meletios Metaxakis who essentially invented much of this nonsense.

      As Archbishop of Athens (1918-1921) he organized the ethnic Greeks in the US into the Greek Archdiocese under the jurisdiction Athens based upon his application of a 1908 Patriarchal decree that allegedly granted jurisdiction of the Greeks in the US to the Church of Greece. Apparently, he was either ignorant of or deliberately ignored the 1872 Council of Constantinople's condemnation of the heresy ethnophyletism because he left out all the other various ethnic Orthodox in the US at that time.

      When he was elected Ecumenical Patriarch in 1921 he then revoked the 1908 Patriarchal decree & invoked (i.e. invented) his brand-new interpretation of canon 28 of Chalcedon's "barbarian" clause, claiming the EP had jurisdiction in the "diaspora" (i.e., all areas outside the allegedly crystallized boundaries of the 5th century Pentarchy), and transferred the American Greek Archdiocese from himself, as Archbishop of Athens, to himself, as Ecumenical Patriarch. I'm as impressed by that move as I am offended / scandalized by it. He was one clever man! Nevertheless, we are known by our fruits.

      The cherry on top of all this is that when he was Patriarch of Alexandria (1926-1935) he changed the official title from Patriarch of Alexandria & "all Egypt" to "all Africa" creating new bishoprics throughout the continent that were part of the Alexandrian Patriarchate, which by the way is what the Gospel commands, history demonstrates was customarily done & a practice safeguarded by the canons. However, we must bear in mind that this was after he invented the claim that the EP has universal jurisdiction in the "diaspora", which he apparently couldn't be held to when he was Archbishop of Athens since he hadn't yet invented that "canonical responsibility".

      His actions & claims as head of these 3 autocephalous Churches are simply irreconcilable & inconceivable. I can't think of a more glaring example of double-standards employed to serve his own personal ambitions that simultaneously invalidate the EP's claims.

      Delete
  16. Timmy,

    The EPs, even the Sainted ones, have been making these claims for centuries. It seems like it began in the time of St. Photios according to my studies thus far. In a paper written by Archbishop Gregory Afonsky he asserts that very thing, and Fr. Meyendorff agreed with that conclusion:

    “During the time of Patriarch Photius an attempt was made to elevate the Patriarch of Constantinople over all the other patriarchs by way of secular legislation by means of an Epanagoge of Emperor Basil of Macedon. In this document the Patriarch of Constantinople is distinguished from other Eastern patriarchs in that he is recognized as the first among them with the right to resolve any disputes in the other patriarchates....” (The Canonical Status of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church)

    The popular narrative that it began with + Meletios in the 20th century is incorrect. Check into these:

    On Canon 28 prior to + Meletios:

    https://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/07/24/the-non-invention-of-meletios-metaxakis/

    1st Millennium universalist claims (especially in dealing with Slavs):

    http://classicalchristianity.com/2015/03/26/on-ecumenical-patriarchal-claims-to-universality/

    Google this thoroughly written paper presenting the arguments on behalf of Cnople and Moscow from both sides.

    The Constantinople and Moscow Divide: Troitsky and Photiades on the Extra-Jurisdictional Rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate by A. Dragas



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maximus, I should clarify my position.

      I completely agree that Constantinople's claims of centralized power began long before Meletios Metaxakis. By way of analogy, for convenience we tend to date the Great Schism to 1054 AD, but as we know this date is almost arbitrary. Rome had been making claims of centralized power for centuries before this, sometimes resulting in local & temporary breaks in communion with Rome before 1054 AD, and there was communion even after 1054 AD. 1204 AD is really when a break in communion became painfully obvious to all the Orthodox when their western Christian "brothers" were ravaging the eastern Christians during the 4th crusade.

      Similarly, there is not doubt that Constantinopolitan claims of centralized authority go way back. These, however, were generally not accepted & often hotly contested not only by Rome but the other 3 patriarchates of the east as well. Examples can be provided of pre-great schism feuds between Rome & Constantinople, and after the great schism the centralization of the Orthodox Church around the Patriarch of Constantinople as ethnarch, which was imposed by the Sultan, during the Ottoman period simply reinforced Constantinople's evolving view of its primacy.

      I'm very much aware of all this. However, I think a distinction must be made.

      Starting roughly 100 years ago things changed. The Ottoman Empire fell, and the centralization of the Rum Millet did too. What's more, there was no longer a Christian Empire for the EP to be the center of either, and the EP was losing it's flock with the exchange of populations. At the same time the EP desperately doubled down on its efforts to assert its importance within the Orthodox Church, and this is were we get personalities such as Joachim III & Meletios attempting to make novel re-interpretations of the canons & history. They are obvious proof-texting efforts to justify its self-aggrandized view.

      As you pointed out, it was, in fact, Joachim III in 1908 who was the 1st to make a written argument for Constantinople's controversial "barbarian" clause of canon 28 of Chalcedon. Whether it originated with Joachim III or Meletios, a point that is sometimes debated as the comments thread points out in the link you provided, is beside the point; nevertheless, I should have been more careful with my words for the sake of accuracy. Ultimately, to the best of my knowledge, there is no documentary evidence that this canon was interpreted this way before 1908, which is my main point: it was contrived roughly 100 years ago to suite the evolving agenda of the EP.

      The fact that the historical record contains numerous instances of the Constantinople making exaggerated claims about its authority, which were either politely tolerated out of forbearance or vigorously rejected, doesn't prove the truth of the EP's current claims anymore than the fact that the historical record contains contains numerous pre-schism instances of Rome making exaggerated claims about its authority, which were either politely tolerated out of forbearance or vigorously rejected. What the historical record does prove is both Rome's & Constantinople's slow slide into error that the rest of the Church was/is able to recognize & reject with relative ease.

      Delete
    2. Hot off the press from Orthodox Synaxis, some details to back the above claim:

      https://orthodoxsynaxis.org/2019/03/18/the-pseudomorphosis-of-ottoman-ecclesiology/#_ftn3

      Delete
  17. Last time I checked Constantinople no longer exists there no longer a new Rome. The third Rome ,,,Moscow is still with us,,,,, .We are living an archaic myth aren't we? We are giving our foes much foddero

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Yes we are. Rome and "Constantinople" have been in shock since their Empires fell, and haven't bothered to modify their ecclesiology in the 1,000 intervening years since. Incredible.

      Delete
    2. I thought Moscow didn't teach "Third Rome"? Yet if you scratch the surface of any Russian Orthodox blog or partisan, "Holy Rus", "Russky Mir" and "Third Rome" undergird the whole thing...it is foundational to the Russian Imperium, the Czars and all of the romantic fantasies that go with that. For the MP to criticize the EP and deny the Third Rome myth, claiming it to be a fantasy is disengenous to the extreme, as the Third Rome myth permeates modern Russian Orthodoxy. NOTE TO MP PARTISANS: Someone in the Phanar is reading that stuff on Russian Orthodox websites. HAH is not imagining things.

      Delete
    3. Ok. Thanks for the info David. God be with you.

      Delete
    4. May God be with us all. This whole situation is sad. There is this belief that the MP is the bastion of true Orthodoxy, and it will save the Church from the "modernism" and corruption of "the Greeks." The Third Rome myth is a part of this view of "Holy Rus." I don't know how widespread it is in the parishes, but it is certainly everywhere on the Russian Orthodox internet sphere. It isn't just appearing out of nowhere, SOMEONE is teaching it.

      Delete
  18. Pan Klancko, you sound like some Carpy realtives of mine... "No to Moscow! No to Vienna! No to Rome!" And then, of course, "wait... the Greeks aren't Carpy. What now?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pan is the most derogatory appellation one can call me and my people I am deeply insulted and hurt

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

      Delete
  19. Timmy,

    Well said. St Justin Popovich sums up the matter for me:

    …[T]he Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centred in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses. At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchias, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, CANNOT have and DO NOT have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, they MAY CONSTITUTE an obstacle in the correct functioning of the conciliar principle IF they obstruct and reject the episcopal character and structure of the Church and of the Churches. Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox and papal ecclesiology. (On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maximus, thanks for posting that truly excellent quote by St. Justin Popovich.

      It really reflects the essence of the current ecclesiological controversy. Ukraine is merely a symptom of the Phanar's pathological ecclesiology. If it wasn't Ukraine today it would be another issue tomorrow that manifested this disease. In some ways Metropolitan Onufriy of Kiev is "the right man for the job" given his profound humility & love, which make him capable of bearing this cross in a salvific way, not only his salvation but everyone's slavation.

      By the prayers of St. Justin Popovich & St. Ignatius of Antioch may the hearts of the EP hierarchs be illumined by the Light of Christ. The last thing I want to witness is the falling away of yet another historic & venerable center of Christianity hallowed by so many saints we all know & love.

      Delete
  20. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpatkos and Arta has written about these issues. He is a very large figure in academic theology and one of the most articulate voices on "the Greek side" of things. He explains the view of the EP as Protos and its function within the Church, neither Papal or a Protestant Confederation (which the Autocephalists would have us move towards).


    On the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself-------

    https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/01/the-primacy-of-ecumenical-patriarchate.html

    On Ukraine and Autocephaly-------

    https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2018/12/the-institution-of-autocephaly-in.html

    https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2018/12/the-debate-over-declaration-of.html

    https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2018/10/metr-hierotheos-of-nafpaktos-weighs-in.html#more

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Note that Metropolitan Hierotheus essay on the primacy explicitly names consent and consultation as a condition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's intervention anywhere. On the other hand, the above letter to the Church of Albania states that the EP can intervene without anyone's request.

      Delete
    2. There is a question as to where the boundaries are when it comes to the EP's authority. That is a legitimate discussion. His Eminence has dissented from the EP's position before (his actions during the Council of Crete for example) but he doesn't question the Ecumenical Patriarchate as an institution itself. The MP is trying to undermine the Ecumenical Patriachate ITSELF, not merely dissenting from this particular action, as Antioch and Serbia have done. This is where the line is drawn.

      Delete
    3. Yes, the MP's incendiary polemics are unhelpful to say the least, but the EP's assertion of what is effectively universal jurisdiction can be blamed on no one but the EP itself. Having said that... is it so crazy to question the continued relevance of an institution that was created based on a long-defunct geopolitical order? The 28th canon of Chalcedon explicitly bases Constantinople's pre-eminence on the presence of the imperial government there. Both that empire, and the Ottoman empire that succeeded it, are long gone. That doesn't mean that the EP should be suddenly ignored or abolished, but it does raise legitimate questions about how primacy should be determined now. Granted, Moscow's polemical attacks in this direction poison the discussion and are self-serving, and God forbid that Moscow ever becomes "first without equals", but the question itself is not illegitimate.

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

      Delete
  21. Although it may seem that the Metropolitan is taking a pro- Constantinople stance on this issue. He is merely indicating that the issue of autocephaly was not addressed at the Cretan robber council. I will admit that it is disappointing to see him write with a seemingly bias against the Russian Church. However, he is certainly not condoning the "magical" reversal of the schismatic de-frockings. Having said that, the Metropolitan is not "the Church". I will reiterate that not one Local Church has yet supported the tragic actions of Bartholomew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Yes, and that fact alone is sufficient to demonstrate that this is not merely a pro-MP partisan position.

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

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you Maximos. Sadly, the Saints are often left out of opinions we as individuals render, as if we know best and to our detriment, given they are one pillar of Orthodoxy and have far superior wisdom to our own. St. Paisios the Athonite and St John Maximovich have written pointedly, as has the Blessed Elder Sophrony and many stellar living servants of the Church on the perils of the EP misunderstanding/misapplying his role (and the factors involved in that) and thus misunderstanding the Orthodox Tradition and Church itself. May we not be tempted to substitute our own research and opinions for theirs, as some other faith traditions have done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A much needed reminder to everyone discussing the Ukraine issue. Especially myself. Thank you Troon.

      Delete
  24. There is no "magic" here, they were received into the Ecumenical Patriachate. You may not recognize the OCU as an autocephalous body (ala the OCA) but they are Bishops. When the MP uncanonically received the Indonesian mission, "undoing" the defrocking of those clergy, was it "magic?" When ROCOR received the defrocked and excommunicated priest who founded their "mission" in South Korea, was that "magic?" The only difference here is scale. When the MP does it, it's ok, but when the EP does it, it is out of bounds?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apples and oranges David. No other Church recognizes the schismatic, defrocked, UNREPENTANT OCU pretenders.

      Delete
    2. As I pointed about above, the EP's centralized authority over the rest of the Orthodox Church imposed by the Sultan during Ottoman times is not the baseline or the gold standard of the EP's legitimate primacy, but rather it was an unacceptable distortion of primacy that was imposed on the Church from without by worldly / demonic powers. Sadly, the EP seems unable or unwilling to shake this from its consciousness. Ironically, the more the EP attempts to reinforce this view of itself the more isolate it becomes from the rest of the Church. It appears we are locked in a game of chicken headed for the cliff at full throttle.

      https://orthodoxsynaxis.org/2019/03/18/the-pseudomorphosis-of-ottoman-ecclesiology/#_ftn3

      Delete
    3. Mikail, how is it different? Receiving defrocked and excommunicated clergy has been done by both the EP and MP in varying ways/degrees. You can dispute the legitimacy of the Tomos and characterize the OCU as an uncanonical EP Exarchate (that seems to be the pattern), but at the very least they are EP clergy.

      https://www.romfea.news/bartholomew-there-is-no-pope-of-the-east-in-the-religious-conscience-of-orthodox-church/

      HAH further addresses his detractors, including the issue of Metropolitans Filaret and Makary.

      Delete
    4. They're also self ordained. If the Church starts accepting anyone who declares themself a bishop, we might as well become Protestants

      Delete
    5. That link reads, “Bartholomew said that ‘for some people, the Schism in Ukraine was the best excuse for abandoning these pious peoples...’”

      Hovever, “these pious peoples” are violently seizing temples from the canonical church. The litmus test that is used on “these pious peoples” is asking them to recite the symbol of faith, the ten commandments, etc. Not surprisingly, they are typically unable to do so given that violent nationalism & Russian hatred seems to be their priority & not the cross of Christ.

      The option of being reunited with the Church has always been available to them through repentance. Moscow has essentially no say in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s daily life. It’s a local / indigenous Church, and there is zero documentary evidence that it is “controlled” by Moscow or the Kremlin. That myth is a boogie man.

      Delete
    6. Timmy, you are painting ALL of the people in the OCU with a broad brush. There is a history here that many people are overlooking. The MP is distrusted, virulently so in much of Ukraine. The reason for that has to a lot to do with Soviet history (and before). The whole reason that the UOC-MP has the special privileges that it has (which to my knowledge no other Autonomous Church has) was to appeal to the moderate autocephalists and defang the push for independence...the clamor for an independent Ukrainian Church was very very loud in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. I have heard reports that the UOC-MP even allows some of its clerics to NOT commemorate Patriarch Kyrill (or do so quietly) in some parts of Ukraine (due to this hostility). Why would such a allowance be made, if all was well?

      The reason the Ukrainians want nothing to do with the MP are the same reasons why Greece broke away from the EP in the aftermath of their revolution. They want NO ties whatsoever to the Russian State (or in the Greek case, the Ottoman). The EP had to let Greece go, even though it didn't want to. The MP must do the same with Ukraine.

      As for the Ottoman period, yes the Sultans influenced the Church in Constantinople, often times to the detriment of the faithful (this is where the hostility to the EP in the Balkans and Arab Churches come from). HOWEVER, some Churches didn't mind when that "Symphonia" benefitted them. For example, when the Sultan gave the Bulgarians their "Tomos" and broke them away from the EP, or when the Russian Empire pushed the buttons of Istanbul to get political considerations (What were the geopolitical circumstances surrounding the "transfer" of Ukraine to Moscow...that is THE question the partisans don't want to explore.)

      One could also do a long paper on the unfortunate influence the Russian State has had on the MP (including it's abolition). This isn't about tit for tat (although some are making it that way). As Metropolitan Hierotheos said, the Canons are not "Cannons" and the pastoral aspect is being overlooked.

      NOBODY should be seizing Churches. This harassment is happening, but it isn't happening EVERYWHERE (the Russian media takes the few incidents that are happening and blowing them up to imply that it is universal). Metropolitan Epiphany is not responsible for what every hooligan does. Perhaps BOTH hierarchs can be given the benefit of the doubt, and prayers offered for both Metropolitan Epiphany and Onufry, because as I said before, this is a blood feud that will take a lot of prayer and time to heal.

      Delete
    7. David, I don't think all the people of the OCU are "evil" anymore than the two of us are evil; we are sinner, but not "evil" as in good people vs bad people. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, the line separating good & evil runs through the center of every person's heart. In fact, I regularly pray of all the people involved in this mess, not just the UOC.

      However, if Epiphany valued Christ over nationalism he would not be keeping any of the temples that "these pious peoples" have violently seized, but the reality is the OCU is keeping them! Are there any documented efforts to rectify these actions or sanction the thugs who are taking them? No! The OCU is even leveraging the state to seize the UCO's monasteries & anything else they can get their hands on. This reality speaks for itself.

      It is worth pointing out that, to the best of my knowledge, the UOC never even attempted similar things on the so-called KP or UAOC in the last 30 years. The UOC co-existed peacefully with these two schismatic groups lamenting the schism but respecting their freedom in hopes of reconcilliation.

      We are known by our fruits, and this situation says it all.

      If the entire country wanted autocephaly this would be a very different story, but the reality is that a minority group composed largely of violent nationalist (certainly the leaders & many of the followers) are demanding it, valuing it over unity, and the way it is unfolding is revealing the EP's unOrthodox ecclesiology, which is what I find most troubling.

      We can spout off on blogs all day long, but the Church will render a decision on all this soon enough. We should wait patiently & pray in the meantime.

      Delete
  25. I will bow out of this conversation with this link:

    https://theorthodoxworld.com/exclusive-the-sunday-of-orthodoxy-reconciliation-and-ukraine/

    This crisis has exposed some deep bitterness and animosity that has been lingering for decades. Those who disliked HAH Bartholomew before this mess are only "reinforced" in their disdain. Those who had it in for the MP before this are only "reinforced" in that.

    Orthodoxy isn't a street gang. There are no "sides" here. As I said, this has all the characteristics of the worst you would see in Divorce Court. When you are so vested in your "side" you lose sight of the human and the Gospel. I would receive Communion from Metropolitan Epiphany AND Metropolitan Onufry (although the latter would likely not commune me). All Orthodox in Ukraine need our prayers and love (OCU and UOC-MP). There are hurts there that those of us who are not Ukrainian will never understand (both ways, no matter what "side" you're on). Reconciliation takes time. HAH did this to break the empasse, to push a way forward for BOTH "sides." Maybe he is wrong, but I think one can question the judgement of a person without questioning their motives. I don't think Patriarch Kyrill is a bad man either, despite the hurtful actions the MP has taken towards the EP. They feel under seige and caught in a geopolitical web they are trying to navigate.
    Let's not have hardness of hearts. The good Deacon's article I linked to speaks in that spirit. I think it's a good meditation going forward in Great Lent. I pray that this all ends soon, with reconciliation...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " There are articles and video programs assuring us that ‘they’ are evil and incapable of redemption, and therefore must be shut out of the Orthodox Eucharistic assembly.

      But has anyone taken the time to investigate whether or not these allegations are true, or false? The only way to learn the truth is to meet the people of these communities, as they really are, and allow them to share their histories with us without mediation or censorship, a privilege every people reserves for itself. If Orthodox Christians refuse to assemble with and grant a hearing to fellow Orthodox from whom they have been estranged for decades – through no fault of their own – then they stand accused of the very Lenten rites of self-examination and forgiveness of the other they claim to cherish above all."

      As a supporter of women's ordination, I don't normally recommend anything by Deacon Nicholas, but what he is pointing to her is right.

      Delete
    2. I had an exchange with Dcn Nicholas where I shared some pictures of Archbishop Daniel, of the UOC of USA, celebrating the UPA at a monument to said group. Dcn Nicholas replied that it was "Russian propaganda." The problem is, the pictures came straight from the official UOC of USA website. That in a nutshell sums up the stubborn, fanatical denial from pro-OCU apologists about the prominent fascist element in their chosen camp.

      Delete
  26. 1)The Phanar is not an Apostolic Church. 2)Even if these claims aren't new or are a millennia old they are still fraudulent since they were not imparted to us by Christ and His apostles and therefore can never be part of our Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Metropolitan Jonah and I did not agree often but he was right when he said, "if we wanted a Pope we’d be under the
    real one."

    ReplyDelete
  28. When a church is Autonomous, the Patriarch need not be commemorated. In the Greek Archdiocese, normally only the Archbishop and ruling Metropolitan are commemorated. I've been in Serbian churches where only the diocesan bishop is commemorated, not the Patriarch. Finally, in the OCA'S own Romanian diocese, Archbishop Nathaniel is commemorated. And these three above churches aren't even Autonomous.

    ReplyDelete