Friday, November 20, 2020

Moscow and Cyprus not on the best of terms

Moscow, November 20 (Interfax) - Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia is ceasing the liturgical commemoration of Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus for recognizing the new uncanonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church officially resolved during an online meeting on Friday that the liturgical commemoration of the name of Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus in diptychs, as well as prayer and Eucharistic communion with him, is no longer possible. The same concerns joint prayer services with those hierarchs of the Church of Cyprus who maintain communion with the Ukrainian schismatics. 

33 comments:

  1. Very sad but under the circumstances, probably necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly you are correct. Pray for unity based on truth expressed in love.

      Delete
    2. Necessary? No (see Cor 1.9)

      Delete
  2. Honestly just encouraged to see bishops in Cyprus openly opposing EPB’s power grab and not following along with the ethnocentric bait of Greeks vs Slavs. Hopefully the Archbishop represents a minority but we’ll see

    ReplyDelete
  3. It may be that the Moscow Patriarchate doesn't have much choice but to drop Archbishop Chrysostomos from their diptychs. They are at least being consistent with their objection to Ukrainian autocephaly. Perhaps their objection is really more of a political nature though.

    The threat to Russia of an inflamed U.S./Israeli backed proxy war in Ukraine cannot be denied. The "Israeli Peace" crusade is now in full swing. The main threat to any "Israeli Peace" (meaning the full takeover of Palestine) are the armies of Turkey, Iran, and mostly Russia. It's likely that all three will soon be engaged somehow in battle or otherwise in proxy war, especially since Donald Trump may only have a couple months left in office. The recent "withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq is actually not a good sign. Rather, it smells of war.

    At any rate, nobody has broken communion with Moscow over the Ukrainian autocephaly. Nobody has dropped Patriarch Kyrill from their diptychs. That's good. If their is full scale war in Ukraine, at least Ukrainians, whichever side they're on, won't have to make an awful decision between being schismatic or being obedient to the Church of their given aggressor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They may not have made an official decision to break communion with Patriarch Kirill, but they also chose to make it necessary entering into communion with the schismatics. These primates have made their decision. The Russian Holy Synod is really just stating what the primates have already made obvious and necessary.

      Delete
    2. Nobody else is breaking communion with Constantinople, Alexandria, Cyprus, and Greece over this. Nobody else has even threatened to break communion with them. It's just the Moscow Patriarchate.

      More churches will likely recognize Ukrainian autocephaly, and when they do, then we'll expect Russia to break communion with them also. It's not like anyone is trying to break communion with Russia though.

      Ukrainian autocephaly can't be held hostage by Russia, and Holy Communion is not a tool for extortion.

      Delete
    3. It is the for hierarchs to protect the chalice. If anyone is using Holy Communion as a weapon, it is Constantinople, who made schismatics "canonical," bringing them into communion solely as an attack against the MP. The hierarchs of the MP havev a responsibility to protect the chalice. Even the Cypriot hierarchs have noted that the canons not only justify Moscow's reaction, but in fact require it.

      Delete
    4. "...who made schismatics "canonical," bringing them into communion solely as an attack against the MP..."

      Good summation really. When millions of Orthodox are legal fodder in a legal (canonical) tit for tat, their needs and humanity are lost in the wider war. That said, this talk of "necessity", whether it be legal (canonical), or even spiritual, is off the mark. Why? Because the fruit is spoiled. The MP and their internet followers are "canonical" when it suits them, for example the goal of retaining Ukraine under the MP. They are not "canonical" when it does not suit them, for example when they take in schismatic RC clergy without 're-ordination'. The freedom of Christ and the fruit of love is not anywhere to be seen in these legal tit for tats.

      What's your skin in this legal game @jckstraw72? Really, why do you care either way about MP and 6 million Orthodox Ukrainians in the OCU?

      Delete
    5. What's anyone's skin in this game? As Orthodox Christians, shouldn't we care what is going on in our Church throughout the world? It is sad how millions of Ukrainians are being used. There is no reason for them to have been outside of the Church, but they were taken in by ethnophyletism. Repentance and return to the Church has always been open to them, just as it is open to the Old Calendarists and the schismatics that exist in every Local Church.

      Delete
    6. Thanks @jckstraw72 Ever wonder if it is convert american internet canon warriors that are being "used"? Nah...

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

      Delete
    8. It may be convenient for some to accuse the UOC of ethnophyleticism but the Moscow Patriarchate would know something about that too since the Russian Empire promoted ethnophyleticism across the Orthodox world in the 19th century to serve its geopolitical interests.

      For example, the Russian Empire played an active role in promoting Bulgarian nationalism and supported Bulgarian ecclesiastical independence from Constantinople. At the Council of 1872 held in Constantinople where ethnophyleticism and the Bulgarian schism were condemned, the Russian Church did not attend or recognize its proclamations. The Russian ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Nikolai Ignatief, who was later considered for the Bulgarian throne due to his assistance to the cause, even pressured Patriarch Cyril of Jerusalem to leave the council, with the latter excusing himself without appointing a representative in his place under the pretext that he was expecting Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia back at the patriarchate.

      Today, the ROC which supported the schism and the Bulgarian Church which owes its origin to schism have not recognized the UOC.

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

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

      Delete
    11. David, my intention was not to pointlessly dig up the mistakes of the past nor to offend any of our beloved brothers but to show those who are easily prone to manipulation that the supporter of schism is now condemning schismatics. The inconsistency has nothing to do with evolving attitudes over time but rather with the involvement of the Russian state in the affairs of the Church to the point where the latter has been serving worldly goals for centuries.* The position of the MP is incoherent and absurd as you said because it is simply not free to act pastorally and sacrificially for its divided Ukrainian children.

      *A trip to Serbia last week to attend the funeral of the Patriach involved a packed day of meetings with key political figures for the head of the Dept of External Relations for the MP (http://www.patriarchia.ru/en/db/text/5724560.html)

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David B., at the risk of being seen to support know-nothing-internet-canon-warriors and the MP, this "game" is a consequence of the an ecclesiology and canonical structure made for an Empire and not the present circumstances (and the last 1000 years). A "Pan-Orthodox Council", if it was truly "ecumenical", would in theory *update* the canonical structure to account for present circumstances, defining/normalizing "autocephaly", what/who is a metropolitan and patriarch, and the like. It could also refute modernheresies/theologoumenon around modern anthropology such as technological conception/assisted death, homosexualism, women's ordination, etc.

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

      Delete
  6. Well, are we really surprised that the GREEK Orthodox Church of Cyprus supported the decisions of the GREEK Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople?

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...and what about the recognition that came from the GREEK Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and the GREEK Orthodox Church of GREECE? I am sure the pressure is hotter than a freshly lit Saganaki for the GREEK Orthodox Church of Jerusalem to do this as well. Having said that, the Russian support and presence may have a moderating effect. This will all work out in a hundred years when Constantinople (by then headed by an AI Patriarch since the Turks will have snuffed out humans Greeks by then) recognizes the OCA.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. When your whole argument is "THE GREEKS," you have essentially lost the argument. That might be satisfactory over at Monomakhos but you will need to try a little harder here. Bringing in the OCA to this the way you did is ironic considering that during the discussions that occured at the December 9-17, 2009 preparatory meetings held in Chambesy for the Pan-Orthodox Council, the representative for the MP offered to revoke the OCA's autocephaly as a concession.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It would only be Greek Ethnophyletism if the OCU were a bunch of Greeks, but they're not, they're Slavs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the OCU, its Ukrainian ethnophyletism. Why did Constantinople and other primates jump on this bandwagon? Greek ethnophyletism.

      Their common tie is hatred of Russia.

      Delete
    2. Come on, really, what sounds more ethnic and nationalistic: "Orthodox Church of Ukraine" or "Ukrainian Orthodox Church"? Is the UOC-MP not ethnic and nationalistic?

      And what makes you think that Greeks hate Russia? Was it because the Greeks were all jumping over themselves to recognize the OCU as quickly as possible? No, rather it is the Greek love for Russia that has made recognition of the OCU painfully slow.

      Delete
  11. The Moscow Patriarchate has never repented of their own false union at the "Council of Lviv" initiated by Joseph Stalin in 1946. This was Russia's own brand of extreme Uniatism, making Eastern Rite Catholicism illegal in Ukraine and taking over all their church properties, handing them over to the Moscow Patriarchate. Even though political circumstances beginning in 1989 allowed for the return of Eastern Rite Catholicism in Ukraine, and the return of their church properties, the Moscow Patriarchate still denies any wrong doing. They still consider themselves as having "righted" the historical wrong of the Polish Unia of 1596 that saw Orthodox bishops aposticize in exchange for political protection (from Russia).

    Yet two wrongs never make a right. The Russian Unia didn't fix the problem of the Polish unia; it just made things worse. The Moscow Patriarchate still hasn't repented of this. So it comes across as completely absurd when the MP demands repentance from those Ukrainians and asking them to return to their "Mother Church of Russia".

    ReplyDelete
  12. "..."THE GREEKS," you have essentially lost the argument. That might be satisfactory over at Monomakhos..."

    George is an odd case is he not? He is of Greek heritage, and fancies himself a student of history and real politic. Yet, he has swallowed whole the MP's very ahistorical and self serving position. Is he in the end a simple victim of the MP's propaganda machine and a lack of depth of his historical understanding?

    I think there is another explanation. Like so many in western civ who look at this situation, they see it through the lens of the anxiety around secularization of the culture and the Church itself. They reach for a solidity in "canons" and ecclesiology that simply is not there. They wage a battle against the EP's very real problematic relationship with modernity (the sexual revolution and environmentalism being two obvious symptoms) and seem all to willing to sacrifice other truths to the war. Heck, they might be on the proverbial "right side of history", as I too have a hard time seeing the EP pull out of its modern dive in any realistic assessment of its current and likely future...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let me clarify my comments.... the Churches of Constantinople, Greece, Alexandria, Cyprus and Jerusalem are all lead by Greeks and many/most of their clergyman are even Greek citizens (the exception being Constantinople, who requires the clergy to be Turkish citizens). Visit a Monastery in the canonical territory of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and you will find a Greek national flag. My point being there is cultural, ecclesiastical and even national pressure for these churches to "align." We have had schisms before about autocephaly (think Bulgaria, Ohrid etc) and eventually everyone comes around and recognizes what "is".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the recent open vote of the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus to support the initiative of the Archbishop to commemorate Epiphany went 10-7. That is not the sign of conformity.

      Furthermore, it's not exactly a secret on the island that almost all the bishops who voted against are the recipients of Russian financial support. This obviously goes for some of the other patriarchates, metropolises and monasteries in that part of the world too. It's best to leave these kinds of considerations out of the discussion but since you are evaluating hierarchical decisions through the lens of pressure, why in the world would you fail to mention this?

      Delete
  14. Time for anathemas not simply denying Eucharistic commemoration. Open an Orthodox Archdiocese in each of these defunct Sees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So let's just suppose the seven dissenting bishops form their own Synod and break with Church of Cyprus. Who would recognize them? Let's see, I guess maybe Moscow would. That would probably be it.

      However, if Moscow recognized a schismatic Church of Cyprus, then I guess that would make the ROC schismatic also (he who communes with schismatics is himself schismatic). Then I suppose all the other autocephalous churches would have to decide between the primacy of Constantinople or the primacy of Moscow. In my opinion, that's really what it comes down to.

      If people are complaining now about a Constantinople "papacy", then perhaps they will be able to experience what a Moscow papacy would be like, nuclear weapons and all.

      Delete