Early response by Moscow to Greece's decision on OCU

(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.

Comments

  1. Fr. Alexis BaldwinOctober 14, 2019 at 11:58 AM

    Unfortunately, this seems to be only a sign of things to come.
    It 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).

    ReplyDelete
  2. JakeOctober 14, 2019 at 6:49 PM

    "....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."

    Yet, 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JakeOctober 14, 2019 at 8:12 PM

      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.).

      Still, 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...

      Delete
    2. JakeOctober 14, 2019 at 9:16 PM

      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:

      "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...

      Delete
    3. JakeOctober 15, 2019 at 2:36 PM

      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.

      All 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!

      Delete
  3. Archimandrite GregoryOctober 14, 2019 at 6:51 PM

    Well David from your lips to God's ears. They did not recognize ocu!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sr. Vassa: There's no ontological impediment to priestesses

Image
Is the male-only priesthood a discipline or essential to the nature of being a priest? Sr. Vassa (again unflinchingly taking up a contentious topic by climbing up the ladder to the highest platform and then jumping into the deep end head first) dives right in and says there is no reason beyond personal preference to not have female clergy. You know, when people ask me about women in priesthood, they say, 'Sister, why can't women be priests?' And I say, 'Women CAN be priests. We don't WANT them to be priests.' Because you see, God can do anything, and the Church, by divine authority, uh, can do anything, but, the Church doesn't want to - and that's a legitimate reason. What I don't like is when we TRY to pretend that there are other reasons for this, because it's legitimate not to want something, and there are reasons not to want this - right? - but, we shouldn't pretent that there's some... reason, that, for example, the maleness...
Read more

OCA takes strong stand for canonical Orthodoxy

( Orthochristian.com ) - The primate of the Orthodox Church in America, His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon of Washington and All America and Canada, will concelebrate with the primate of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine, in western Ukraine later this week. The Ukrainian Orthodox Diocese of Chernivtsi and Bukovina “awaits the visit of the primate of the Orthodox Church in America on June 1–2, 2024. Solemn services will be held in the Cathedral of the Descent of the Holy Spirit in Chernivtsi, with the participation of both primates.” The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America formally rejects communion with the schismatics of the “Orthodox Church in Ukraine,” recognizing only the canonical UOC under Met. Onuphry. The Ukrainian primate was the honored guest at the OCA’s 18th All-American Council in July 2015.
Read more

A Response to “On administering Holy Communion in a Time of a Plague”

This was sent to me and deserves a read. You can read the Calivas article here . We can all agree that we are living in unusual times. However, the nature and extent of the illness that we face, and the proper response of the Church, is a matter of much disagreement. We have seen various responses to the COVID-19 epidemic: calls to close our Churches as infectious vectors, and demands to open them as places of spiritual healing. Directives a) ordering the cessation of sacramental life as part of an effort to “flatten the curve,” and cries for access to the divine grace that flows forth from those very mysteries; b) calling for the restriction of “at-risk persons,” and serious questions about the validity of such controls, c) instructions to liturgists to wear personal protective equipment during the celebration of the divine services and the distribution of the holy Mysteries, and uncertainty about the fitness of such practices. Who has been championing what and on behalf of whom? The ...
Read more