(Orthodox Times) - Protopresbyterian Nikolai Balashov talked in a negative and offensive manner about the decision of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, which is not considered “appropriate” for equal interlocutors of the two Sister Churches. His attitude also betrayed a kind of superiority of one church towards an inferior one.
The vice-chairman of the Department of the External Church Relations of the Patriarchate of Moscow said to Sputnik that: “Even though many Metropolitans set their objection to the decision-making down for the moment, the Committee of the Hierarchs of the Church of Greece decided in favour of the recognition of the autocephaly of the ‘Church of Ukraine’. However, it expressed the hope that the ‘autocephaly’ of the Church of Ukraine could strengthen the relations between the two Sister Churches.”
“The consequences of this decision on the relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church of Greece will be evaluated by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow.”
The leading figure of the Patriarchate of Moscow talked offensively and he seemed to be undermining the authority of the Church of Greece by comparing it to the Patriarchate of Moscow. In particular, he said, “The entire territory of Greece is not under the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece. On the contrary, the Russian Orthodox Church is as an international church and does not only address believers who live in Russia.” If by this he means opening Russian churches in Greece... how counterproductive would this be to healing this wound in the Church caused by the unilateral creation of the OCU.
Monday, October 14, 2019
Early response by Moscow to Greece's decision on OCU
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Unfortunately, this seems to be only a sign of things to come.
ReplyDeleteIt now appears things will ultimately just veer towards factionalism: Either you are with the EP or you are with the MP.
Since several Churches have already stated they do not recognize the EP's group over the canonical Church in Ukraine AND given that several of the Churches have called for this issue to be resolved by a meeting of the primates but the EP has not only scoffed, but openly ridiculed this suggestion, the natural course is simply a huge Schism.
As painful as that is, the EP now claims that granting (and taking away) Autocephaly his exclusive right. This now places all the Churches at an impasse. They can either accept this ecclesiological error or they will simply find themselves in Schism with the EP and the Church of Greece. Sad indeed. However, at this juncture (and in the future), the only resolution that will come will have to be at a meeting of the primates. Which, you know, is actually already being called for widely.
Sadly, HAH Bartholomew is going to go down in history as a schism and author of Church unity shattering Schism. That is, unless all Church kowtow to him and his new theology. I suspect that they will not. Nor do expect many faithful too either.
I pray that everyone come to their senses and that the primates of the Church do meet and resolve this issue (and the misunderstandings being perpetuated about autocephaly).
Well said Father Alexis
Delete"....If by this he means opening Russian churches in Greece... how counterproductive would this be to healing this wound in the Church caused by the unilateral creation of the OCU."
ReplyDeleteYet, this Imperial Church of the East has been de facto a collection of ethno-national "Churches" since the collapse of the Empire. This "wound" is but the old wound of an ecclesiology designed for an Empire that no longer exists. The RC criticism is mostly true - the East has no real Unam Sanctam, besides a unity around doctrine (and not ecclesiology) but this has proven and is proving to not be enough when you stress the ethno-national cultural ties just a little bit, let alone a lot as has happened in the Ukraine.
Yep, the MP's is as much of a "bully" as the EP. Yep, the Latin Church's version of Unam Sanctam while on the surface more "coherent" (to choose a word) and "updated", is probably even thinner underneath that the East's (i.e. more real theological/doctrinal messiness and diversity, etc.).
DeleteStill, the East's is not "from the hip", rather it is an ad hoc status quo that is at least a 1000 years old. It's not "messy", unless you mean it is etho-national, thin, and simply untenable - NA multi-jurisdictions have proven that.
Also, despite the Latin's weakness, they have had REAL stressors and survived, in that they had the Protestant revolution. The East has not had anything like that...
What good is a canon, or a violation there of, if it is in essence something created for another time and place, another "economy"? Not that the question points to a disagreement, on the contrary. Interesting what you say here:
Delete"Autocephaly and Multi-Jurisdictionalism are reactions to the modern era, and while they are not the ideal, are the only real practical way to maintain our Faith and unity in the Chalice as things currently stand"
In essence, it's an admission that the status quo is too large to change, and thus the *impractical* status quo is the only *practical* thing to do. When our thinking gets this tangled and contradictory, we should probably start asking ourselves what it is we are missing. Along those lines, I wonder if we cling too tightly to a (very false) "one Chalice" ideology (and not theology).
I do agree with you, in that if there are any men with the *charisma* (and by that I mean the older "in spirit" sense of the term) that are leading the Church to some kind of ontology for the reality of the world as it is today, I don't see them.
That said I don't see any reason to defend the status quo in any way, even with a kind of "it's up to God" sort of resignation. I think this is sort of a blaming of Providence that which is really our own sad creation, our own sin. I don't think this is sort of Church to which this promise refers...
Well stated David (clearly your a student of Fr. Stephen Freeman), and I don't disagree in the essentials at all. Your point about the paradoxical ontology of the Church/Christianity 'in the world' is spot on.
DeleteAll that said, where I do disagree with you is where the boundaries are - where "One Chalice" is ideology, and where it is Holy - and what is our sin and what is God's economic providence. This is where the emphasis of "fix...that is modernism" reaches its (very natural) limits. Repentance (which rests on truth) is not 'fixing'. Repentance is not modernism. At the risk of agreeing with the "progressive" Orthodox, not EVERYTHING in/of the Church is oriented toward Holiness, as there is in this Imperial Church of the East these Imperial leftovers that need repenting of. These things do have an impact on my salvation, and certainly on my children who somehow have to be formed properly in a Imperial church that is no more likely to retain/form its children then the RC or Protestants.
In any case, good discussion!
Well David from your lips to God's ears. They did not recognize ocu!
ReplyDelete