(UOC-MP) - His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv and All Ukraine participated in an extraordinary session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, held on October 17, 2019 at the Patriarchal and Synodal Residence at St. Daniel Monastery in Moscow under the Chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Ruś. During the Synodal session, an official Statement was adopted with regards to the situation currently existing in the Orthodox Church of Greece, particularly after the extraordinary meeting of its Council of Hierarchs that was held on October 12, 2019 in connection to the Ukrainian Church issue (Journal No. 125). Reports the UOC Department of Information and Education with a link to patriarchia.ru website.
“We treasure prayerful communion with our fellow brothers in the Orthodox Church of Greece and shall continue to maintain prayerful, canonical and Eucharistic communion with them – via all those archpastors and pastors who have spoken out or continue to oppose the Ukrainian schism and who refuse to besmear themselves by concelebrating Church services with the schismatic false hierarchs, and who truly exemplify genuine Christian courage and firmly stand for the truth of Christ. May the Lord strengthen them in their confessor’s podvig by the prayers of Saints Mark of Ephesus, Gregory Palamas, Venerable Maxim the Confessor, and all those Greek saints who have been revered and worshiped by us in Holy Ruś” – the Statement reads.
At the same time, the Holy Synod reminded that the Sacred Canons of the Church condemns persons who enter into prayerful communion and fellowship with those who have been defrocked and excommunicated (Apostles 10, 11, 12; I Ecumenical Council. 5; Antioch. 2, etc.).
“In this regard, we shall cease prayerful and Eucharistic communion with those hierarchs of the Church of Greece who have entered into, or who intend to enter into, such communion with representatives of the Ukrainian non-canonical schismatic groups. Pilgrimage trips to the eparchies ruled by such hierarchs will not be blessed forthwith. The relevant information will be widely disseminated among the pilgrimage and tourist organisations of the countries that make up the canonical territory of our Church, ” – the document states.
The Statement also declares that “The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church authorises His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Ruś to suspend the commemoration of His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos II of Athens and All Greece in the Diptychs, in the event that the Primate of the Orthodox Church of Greece should commence commemorating the head of one of the Ukrainian schismatic groups during Divine Services or if he takes other actions that may be construed as those that signify recognition of the Ukrainian Church schism.“ In case you're curious, Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kyiv does commemorate Patriarch Kirill.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Russian Church makes itself clear on future of ties to Greece
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This actually seems like their best attempt to prevent the continuing growth of this schism. The hardline response would be to cut off the entire Greek Church immediately, which would be easily justifiable given the same standards led to cutting off ties with Constantinople (i.e entering into communion with schismatics puts you in schism according to the Church canons).
ReplyDeleteIt’s also clearly an attempt to encourage the hierarchs of the Church of Greece not to go along with this. You can call that blackmail or threatening, but if you don’t recognize the legitimacy of the self consecrated Ukrainian group, its a natural response, just as hoping that this schism doesn’t lead to the total collapse of Orthodox unity is a natural hope.
Again if the MP doesn’t protest this move by Constantinople, the precedent will be set that EPB can take away historical territory from anyone at anytime as the all powerful “Mother Church”, with no conciliar process, and we will have a “first without equal”.
The obvious need for a Pan-Orthodox Council with actual dialogue, and not pre-determined ideas to rubber stamp, continues to grow. The only question is how long with EPB ignore this call, and when will someone call for the needed council without him? Alexandria or one of the ancient churches will be forced to step up or else the schism will grow or become tragically irreparable.
"...That is absurd"
ReplyDeleteWell us in our Anglo American culture it is. Once again the MP's legal and canonical bluster is revealed to be actually thinner than the EPs legal gamd canonical bluster. In other words most of this is just moral and rhetorical posturing.
I had a seminary prof. who had been an intelligent officer in a previous life. He was always trying to explain how in most of the rest of the world's cultures the truth is not in the same position as it is in ours. In many if not most of the places of the world the truth will get you killed, where as in our culture the truth is usually helpful.
When we look at all this through our cultural assumptions, no offense as sojourner has just done, we should not be surprised at the weakness and "tea leaf character" of our interpretations...
No offense taken, seems like a convenient way to discount the sincerity of other people’s actions/words, but to each their own.
ReplyDeleteWhat is 'sincere' in all this? The MP is legalistic about 'schism', except of course when he is not just as you say. So which is it, is the MP in communion with schism or not? Why is his 'economia' anymore or less legitimate than the EP's? You're okay with the MP when he has strict, and you are okay when he is not. On the other hand you're not okay with the EP when he is strict, and you're not okay with the EP when he is not strict.
ReplyDeleteSo as a legal matter, it's just hypocrisy through and through. in other words you're making your judgement(s) not on the canons, but on some other basis...
You're not getting it, Jake. The MP threw sand in the face of Athens.
ReplyDeleteThey have yet to include Dumenko in the diptychs.
Well for starters, in the case of Constantinople, there was no dissent among the bishops there, it was a unanimous decision, so breaking total communion there makes sense. Secondly there has yet to be any official move by the Church of Greece (at least that has been reported) and i’ve already said how this could easily be viewed as an attempt to influence the outcome, like it or not, it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteI’m not an expert in these matters, but knowing that there are those in the Church of Greece (hierarchs, clergy, monastics and laity) who are openly opposed to the schism, it makes sense to me not to break communion with those who don’t commemorate the schismatics, why would you fight with those who are clearly on your side? Whereas if MP was as hardline and ill willed as many like to think, the nuclear option would be to break total communion immediately. This is honestly a surprisingly diplomatic response and shows a desire to avoid an escalation in the schism, there’s still time for dialogue here.
There were times when Arianism was rampant in the Church and in the same city you would have churches that at one time would be ruled by an Arian bishop, and at other times would come under the rule of a traditional bishop. Depending on who was in charge it would make sense not to commemorate particular bishops. Not being in communion with specific bishops doesn’t seem like much of a stretch in specific circumstances.
Personally I don’t want to see the Church explode in my lifetime. I want this situation to be resolved. Maybe that bias lends itself to seeing things in a less jaded way, but there’s a clear aggressor here and it’s not the MP, and there are many many voices calling for dialogue, and a council, and the aggressor is not interested.
Again I think it’s all too easy to look at this as Greeks vs Russians, EPB vs PK, New Rome vs “3rd Rome”, but while those factors are being used as political ammunition, what’s truly at stake here is how the Orthodox Church operates.
Do we have a “first without equal” who can act without the conciliar method or not? Can self consecrated men be made legitimate? Can schismatics be received without repentance? Can historical jurisdictional rights be revoked without consultation?
Regardless of how you feel about these issues, they’re what’s really at stake here. Again, a conciliar method, a Pan-Orthodox council, is the traditional response. If you (generically speaking) don’t believe that’s necessary or valid or important, then you clearly subscribe to a different version of Orthodoxy.
If this goes unchallenged, EPB has a new set of powers that totally upset the natural order of the Church. For all I care he could be doing this to Antioch or Alexandria, i’d be equally upset and concerned. I don’t have any special loyalty or support for Russia or the Moscow Patriarchate, I simply recognize something very dangerous being promoted by Constantinople. In history you can see how once a precedent has been established in a culture, in the laws of a country, in an organization, etc etc it can lead to further progression, a foot in the door if you will.
Even if you assign the purest motives and intentions to EPB the precedent that he is attempting to set is incredibly dangerous, and I don’t trust him or his successors to not abuse it or further develop it. Especially when we’ve already seen one Rome fall to such tendencies.
"Well for starters, in the case of Constantinople, there was no dissent among the bishops there, it was a unanimous decision, so breaking total communion there makes sense...."
ReplyDeleteStop right there. You (and or the MP) are making it up as you go along. There is no "half way", and there is no-sort-of-pregnant. There is no canonical basis for being in communion with schism and at the same time being in communion with the canonical Church. Just as David says, the MP can not pick and choose among a synod without a violation of his canonical reading of the "schismatic" Church in the Ukraine.
The rest of your post is a *cultural*, moral, and personal reading - a justification as to which side your on. That's ok such as it is, but let's not pretend that the MP is "canonical" and the Ukrainians, EP, Greeks, and everyone in communion with them are "schismatic".
You talk about "different version of Orthodoxy", but yours is just a personal/moral assertion. Your making you Orthodoxy up as you go along, and condemning those you don't agree with as not Orthodox, in violation of canons, etc.
All this to point out what a poor armature canon lawyer you are, and how your being led by the nose by a certain narrative of the MP. You can be led around by the MP propaganda if you wish, OR you can see all this for what it really is...
Well I make no claim to be a canon lawyer, that’s true. I do find it interesting that simply because I don’t agree with Constantinople, i’m automatically a stooge of Russia/MP, that’s very convenient for polemical purposes. I gave you a historical example of how the Church does have a history of doing “half way” as you put it. Arianism was outright heresy, and even after it was a condemned heresy, there were Arian bishops within canonical jurisdictions, those who recognized their heresy did not commemorate them or serve with them, even while remaining in communion with the church at large.
DeleteIt’s also very convenient to ignore everything else I had to say because it doesn’t line up with your expert and (not so) secret woke status. “You can be wrong OR you can see things the way I do, which is much smarter”...
I’m fine with agreeing to disagree. There are different views in Orthodoxy about plenty of issues, let alone controversial issues. However I am not alone in seeing that this is a significant departure from tradition and the conciliar method. There are numerous calls for a Pan-Orthodox council, from the laity to the highest levels of hierarchy, but EPB scoffs at these calls and refuses to even consider it. If he is correct, if canon law is on his side, if the Moscow Patriarchate is the only one in delusion, what is there to lose by having a council? (Let me guess, politics would prevent the Holy Spirit from acting?)
You accuse me, and an entire Patriarchate, which you are apparently wiser than, of “making up it up” as I go along, but thankfully you are immune to this.
In any case, i’m sure you will have plenty of retorts to all of this, fair enough. I don’t think we’re going to agree at the end of the day and I can live with that. I just hope that the hierarchs can find a way to be more reasonable than either of us, and reunite the Church and clearly define the truth of the Church and its canons.
Well Sojourner, perhaps I am following you a bit better - please accept my apology for dismissing the rest of your post. The problem with the Arian analog is that it was Dogmatic Christological test that went to the heart of what Christianity is. The MP's and EP's tussle over whose "canonical" territory the Ukraine is, The EP's role as "Ecumenical Throne" in post Fall Empire wold, etc. and the how and when people are granted their own ethno-national "church" is more dissimilar than similar.
DeleteI do agree with you about what is at stake - I would put it as how to "be" Orthodox in a post-Empire reality. Your are carrying water for the MP however - he has you convinced of his *narrative* around what happened, why it is important, what the dangers are, etc.
Still, the way you are putting things helps me think about "conciliarity" and its relationship to the "Pan-Orthodox council". While conciliarity has not been completely missing in action since the fall of the Empire, there has not been a real universal, Ecumenical, truly "Pan_orthodox" council since the Empire. Instead a stasis has occurred, what you called the "natural order". However the existential reality of the world in which the Church of the East finds herself has rapidly changed in the last 150 years, and so the largely mythical conciliarity is now actually being tested and it turns out the ethno-national reality of Orthodoxy is how things actually "get done" so to speak.
I have no doubt that REAL council and resultant "canonical" order would transcend BOTH the MP's, EP's, and the rest of Orthodoxy ad hoc application of the canons to reality. Since the end result of the MP's legalistic stubbornness is their ethnic-national domination of the Ukrainian people (who now have their own culture, language, and state), and since the EP's interpretation of his role leads to certain "papal" questions, both positions are unworkable and need to be tossed out the airlock.
Question: Since there is no Empire to call, organize, and $pay$ for a REAL council (which could never get the required work done in a Crete like 2 week "retreat"), how is one ever going to actually occur? Honest question.
In any case, good discussion!
Well thank you for a sincere response, and forgive me if I was a bit harsh in my own. It’s easy to get caught up in exchanging shots online, and talking past people, but I am actually interested in genuine discussion on these matters. If someone raises a point or a piece of information that convinces me of their position, or that I was not aware of, i’m more than happy to reconsider my own.
DeleteI understand your point, but I have been frustrated with being labeled as a MP diehard etc because i’m not, there are things about the MP that worry me and that I don’t like. It just happens that Constantinople has worried me far more, and long before this current crisis, for reasons that have to do with my understanding of Orthodoxy as i’ve received it. The fact that my views coincide in favor of MP’s position is due to how i’ve been catechized and how i’ve come to understand the operations of the Orthodox Church, not because MP has successfully promoted some kind of propaganda that i’ve read and been convinced by.
In any case.
I completely agree, the Orthodox Church’s hierarchy and unity is a shadow of its former self in many ways, and has not aged well.
However I think Crete was actually a good example of how the Orthodox Church still has an active immune system. Crete was a power play, and EPB did everything he could to force everyone to play by his rules and do what he wanted, so that he could be the grand orchestrator of a historic “Great and Holy” (or Greek and lonely) Council, and it didn’t work. People from all sides, including the Greek side, spoke out against various theological and organizational problems that were present.
However it also demonstrated that there is a real lack of unity, in that the problems once addressed, could not be solved by mutual agreement. EPB refused to listen or to accept MP’s call for an emergency meeting to resolve the issues, instead he went full speed ahead for a massive waste of time and money, with many not even attending.
I think the biggest issue is that EPB is supposed to be the one to call such a council, that’s one of his actual jobs, but he’s refusing to do it (just like resolving issues between two sister churches *cough Jerusalem and Antioch* is one of his actual jobs, that he also refuses to do).
I think the logical next step is for Alexandria to call the council, as one of the Ancient Churches and next in line. The problem is I also think EPB would immediately break communion with Alexandria in protest, and anyone who showed up, because it would threaten his claim to being the spiritual leader of Orthodoxy and “Apostle to the Nations”.
If we could find a way to call the council though, money is the easy part. Orthodoxy is not without its wealthy benefactors. If I put out a flier tomorrow saying “Donations for a Pan-Orthodox (possibly future Ecumenical) council, benefactors will be commemorated by every Primate of the Orthodox Church in perpetuity” I’m pretty sure we’d have enough money to build a 2nd Agia Sophia by the end of the week.
Maybe that’s too optimistic or simplistic (obviously not speaking in literal terms with my proposal) but again I think not only is the calling part harder, but I have enough faith in God to think that He can handle financing the survival of His Church when push comes to shove.
Well changes are certainly on the way, bad and good.
DeletePersonally I wish we could just do away with the "first among equals" bit. It led to Rome's downfall, its leading to Constantinople being on the verge of a repeat performance, and im sure if Constantinople falls, whoever inherits Rome's status wont be far behind.
Either get rid of the idea or say the honorary status of being first in line rotates every year.
Thats just a personal pet peeve because something that was just meant to establish order among equals, has been a source of disaster and jealousy instead.
The EPs "modified order" really just seems to be his orders or get out.
I get that you're loyal to Constantinople, and attribute sincere motives to EPBs actions.
But for what its worth, I don't think you can ignore the bullying of his language or actions.
To date he has threatened those under his rule with serious punishments if they dont comply. On his own website it is stated he is first without equal. He has publicly rebuked his fellow bishops for daring to challenge his opinions, which they apparently are only allowed to acknowledge as truth, and he has caused a deep wound to the Ukrainian flock under Metropolitan Onuphry, who he has also threatened.
Can you at least see how to those of us who have enjoyed relative stability in Orthodoxy, all of this appears quite alarming and dangerous? Not to mention, as distasteful as his recent actions have been, EPB usually has more tact in his power plays. His would be successor, who states that the bishop of Constantinople is first without equal, makes for a terrifying follow up performance, and even more motivation to curb Constantinople's ambition.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this, but take it as a glimpse of what the other side sees and is concerned by.
It should be noted that the MP's position is modeled precisely on the way the EP broke communion with the Abp of Athens in 2004 and their weird understanding of the CoG's ecclesiology:
ReplyDeletehttps://orthodoxsynaxis.org/2019/09/25/when-the-ecumenical-patriarchate-broke-communion-with-the-church-of-greece/
What is different about what the EP has done in Ukraine is never in the entire history of the Church has an "autocephaly" (which is actually a lie, because it wasn't really autocephaly) been given to schismatics over the objection of the legitimate bishops of a local Church. Never. Not once.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as for how Russia handled it, they handled the same way the EP did, with far less justification: https://orthodoxsynaxis.org/2019/09/25/when-the-ecumenical-patriarchate-broke-communion-with-the-church-of-greece/
ROCOR was never declared to be schismatic. Metropolitan Anthony (Bashir) was in fact consecrated with the help of a ROCOR Bishop (Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko). The Ukrainian schismatics received their ordinations from a defrocked and anathematized bishop, whom the EP recognized to be defrocked and anathematized. Unordained bishops do not suddenly get ordained simply because the EP wishes them to be such. And schismatics do not cease to be schismatics without repentance.
ReplyDeleteThe status of Northern Thrace does not change the fact that the EP broke communion over what was a relatively minor canonical dispute. What the EP has done in Ukraine was a flagrant violation of canonical norms, and one the EP promised all the heads of the local churches he would not do... and so he is a liar, in addition to being in communion with schismatics.
When communion does not exist between Churches, the normal protocols from receiving clergy are not followed. And simply because the EP defrocks a clergyman for coming into the Russian Church, it doesn't make it so, when they themselves have entered into communion with schismatics, contrary to the canons, and have placed themselves into a canonically questionable (at best) situation. Where I a priest of the EP, I would be compelled by my conscience to leave, and I wouldn't ask for a release either.
The EP has made himself the Pope of the East. The "First Without Equals". Rome's Papism was hardly so blatant as this https://www.patriarchate.org/-/primus-sine-paribus-hapantesis-eis-to-peri-proteiou-keimenon-tou-patriarcheiou-moschas-tou-sebasmiotatou-metropolitou-prouses-k-elpidophorou prior to Vatican I.
I would not defend everything that ROCOR did. There were very different opinions among our bishops as to how to handle the growing Ecumenism in local Churches such as the EP. I think in retrospect, more caution should have been shown, though I think the events of the last year show that the concerns of those about the direction of the EP were well founded.
ReplyDeleteThe EP will probably be union with Rome by 2025, when they have their celebration of Nicea, to which the Pope has already been invited. Perhaps they wont wait that long though. I suppose the question for you, is when the EP goes into Union with Rome, are you going to go along with it?
The Pope is already commemorated as an Orthodox Bishop at the Phanar when the Pope is present, as you can see in the video posted in this article https://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2014/06/further-thoughts-on-ancient-faith-today.html
The flagrant Ecumenism of the EP is only becoming moreso, as can be seen here: http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/news/2019/2019-10-08-assembly-scooch-meeting
And when you speak of receiving defrocked clergy from the EP. Which clergy specifically were defrocked before ROCOR received them? Philaret was not only defrocked, he was anathematized, and moreover, Bart himself had endorsed both actions.
Never in Church history has a Pope or Patriarch stepped into another local Church, and given autocephaly to unordained clergy, over the objections of the legitimate clergy of the territory in question. That is fact. Cite an example to the contrary if you can.
And as for the three Russian jurisdictions in Europe, the EP has at least as many in the US. I would expect that eventually those jurisdictions will merge at some point, but it certainly is not a bigger problem than the EP having a Ukrainian, Carpatho-Russian, and a Greek jurisdiction.
ReplyDelete"Never in Church history has a Pope or Patriarch stepped into another local Church, and given autocephaly to unordained clergy, over the objections of the legitimate clergy of the territory in question. That is fact. Cite an example to the contrary if you can."
ReplyDeleteExactly!!!
Fr John,
ReplyDeleteDo you believe as a practical, humanistic (I use that word in the classical sense) Christian matter, that the ROC stubborn resistance to the Ukrainian people - they have their own culture, language, and state now - is going to yield any good fruit? What would their *repentance* from being "schismatics" to "canonical" look like, and how would it be different from an *submission* to a dominating Russian culture?
David,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, it seems like you would benefit a great deal from a tablet of Xanax & a history book.
I'm saying this in a comical way, but I'm serious too. You're clearly rather emotionally distraught over an issue that you obviously have an incomplete & biased perspective on.
If Patriarch Bartholomew is correct why is he flying solo on this issue a year later? He preaches conciliarity, but refuses to meet in council despite the fact that all the other primates have repeatedly urged to do so.
He speaks unilaterally & authoritatively on the matter, and expects all the other primates / churches to accept it. He even went so far as to tell Archbishop Anastasios that it isn't his place to ratify the Phanar's decisions but merely to accept & implement them (certainly not disagree with them). The only thing that missing is a formal doctrine of EP infallibility, and I'm sure the ecclesiastical bureaucrats at the Phanar are working on that one as we speak.
Greece is the accelerator. A council is coming down the pike & it will not go well for the EP. Mark my words. All we need to do now is wait, watch & pray.
"The MP doesn't want to let go of Ukraine (as the Russian government doesn't) and so they are playing geopolitical games."
ReplyDeleteWow! Talk about bias and propaganda! Your posts are dripping with them! 75% of Ukrainians belong to the canonical Church. Metropolitan Onuphriy is a pious, gentle and holy man. Have you read the history of the OCU schismatics? Did you know that the instigator of the entire facade (Philaret) has separated himself from the schismatics? No matter what you say, or how you say it, the OCU are a group of unrepentant non-ordained pretenders who raid Churches and beat people (while shouting Glory to Ukraine)! They were granted autocephaly after C'pole invaded the jurisdiction of another Church, then the EP twists the canons to justify it. Afterwards, he claims that he has the power to grant and revoke autocephaly at will, and his new Archbishop in America crowns him with being "first without equals". Lord have mercy!
We can take solace in the fact that the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ's Church and no matter how loudly you scream about the "prerogatives" of C'pole, Bartholomew's little experiment will not succeed.
Yeah, ditto...what Mikail said.
DeleteIt would seem "David" and "Jake" are on the warpath to flood the forum with pro-EP propaganda. They have made their points but this continued jumping at every percieved slight is getting tiresome. I suggest the moderator limit their posts to no more than one or two a day and spare us the trouble of having to wade through rehash.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteI'm left to inference, but your frequent use of ALL-CAPS words & phrases is generally considered the written equivalent of verbal shouting ergo my "emotionally distraught" comment.
I agree that the EP's primacy even has he currently reimagines it is significantly different than the Roman Catholic papal doctrines of primacy, supremacy & infallibility.
I've actually made this same point about the temptation of attempting to view them as the same because it undermines the more important point that the reimagined Constantinopilitan primacy is an illegitimate primatial innovation connected to an illegitimate ecclesiological innovation (i.e. heresy). The fact that the RC pope & the EP are not identical does not change this reality.
I'm not against pastoral economia under healthy conditions, but there are limits to all things. Throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater...or, in this case, pretending the filthy bathwater is clean & throwing the baby out is not a legitimate application of pastoral economia. It's just ridiculous, and all the other Orthodox Churches know this which is precisely why the EP is still isolated a year later.
Look at the history, nature & composition of the so-called OCU compared the the UOC...it is selfevident that the proof is in the pudding as Mikail pointed out in his 10/24/19 7:51 AM post below.
The EP commemorates the Pope as an Orthodox Bishop, and does liturgical fan dances with him. How is that Orthodox? It is not.
ReplyDeleteThe EP could resolve matters with the Old Calendarist if he started acting like an Orthodox bishop. He has not even attempted to reach out to them... unlike all his efforts expended on union with Rome.
The canons forbid praying with heretics. The EP prays with then regularly, and publicly.
Fr. John,
ReplyDeleteI have followed your work for years and respect it. I would call attention to your discussion to this podcast you had with Kevin Allen and Fr. Matthew Baker, both of blessed memory:
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/the_pope_and_the_patriarch
In it you pointed out several important issues with ecumenism and even Fr. Matthew (who was formidable in mind and heart to say the least) had to grant. Going from memory, I think it is you who bring up Augustine's military clothes analogy around ordinations and heresy/schism.
That said, you are playing the company man here I think. Can't follow your canonical argument, because you simply seem "ok" with canonical irregularities and interpretations of the MP and at the same time condemning the EP's, going so far as to link them as indicative of some imminent false union with Rome.
If "Bart" put the man ahead of the canonical Sabbath in the Ukraine...well, God bless him!
"The MP didn't consult anyone when it issued its Tomos to the OCA. The Churches either accept it or they don't."
ReplyDeleteGoing from memory here David, but the EP issued a tomos of to Poland, which the MP ignored, and then years later separately issued there own. All this is qualified of course under the xtra ordinarily difficult circumstances of the 20th century.
I notice that folks are ignoring your central point(s), always circling back to a "canonical" view, as if Creation, Man, and God were circumscribed by the Law.
Let us pray that not many more Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Christians are beaten and persecuted and have their Churches torn away from them...before the OCU finally goes down in flames.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteThere is a point, but the point is no doubt "hidden"...channeling Fr. Stephen here ;)
David, did you catch Fr. Stephen's article "Border Collies of Paradise", I don't know, a couple of years ago? He posted it and took it down within a day. If you did, do you remember why? Well, he had a point did he not...
"...before the OCU finally goes down in flames..."
ReplyDeleteYou have a fart can on your beat up 99 civic don't you, with some "kickers" shaking it as you drive down the road ;)