Friday, November 8, 2019

Moscow strikes third Primate from commemorations

Moscow, November 8 (Interfax) - The recognition of the new "Orthodox Church of Ukraine" (OCU) by Greek Orthodox Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria and All Africa makes it impossible for Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia to commemorate his name during services, the Moscow Patriarchate said.

"The Russian Orthodox Church is deeply saddened by the reports on Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria's decision to recognize Yepifaniy Dumenko as the leader of the 'Orthodox Church of Ukraine' and commemorate his name in the Church of Alexandria's diptychs. This means that the name of the Patriarch of Alexandria can no longer be commemorated during patriarchal services in the Russian Orthodox Church," Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Department for External Church Relations Archpriest Nikolay Balashov told Interfax on Friday.

41 comments:

  1. Patriarch Theodore looked like a broken man.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is becoming more apparent that it is not the EP that is isolating itself from the Church, but the MP.

    The OCU is a reality. Their attempt to strangle it in the cradle has failed. NOW, the MP has a choice to make-----do they continue their destructive campaign, alienating more Bishops and accelerating the OCU's recognition (creating bad blood in the process), or do they open up and see the way out?

    Their mistake was breaking Communion with the EP and declaring war on it. They miscalculated, because they overestimated their power and influence outside of Eastern Europe. They played a political game, and it is blowing up in their face. Will they do the right thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has always been clear that with rare exceptions, Greeks side with Greeks. I have family friends in Greece, having lived there, and I love the Greeks, but when push comes to shove blood is thicker than anything else to Greeks, including faith or dogma.

      So although its sad, this outcome is not even slightly surprising, yet another Greek church siding with the head of the Greeks.

      In spite of that, I don’t think you can downplay the significance of how irregular this situation is.

      As a prospective priest, not under the MP or ROCOR, i’m not alone in saying that I will never concelebrate with the OCU or those who have. I really don’t care about the Greek vs Russians angle, I recognize it, I’m saddened by it, but if the tables were reversed, if Russia was granting autocephaly to Old Calendarist schismatics in Greece who were defrocked and or self-ordained, against the direct wishes of the church of Greece, I would never go along with that or pretend that the passage of time could somehow make it irrelevant.

      Now i’m not pretending that my voice matters in any of this, but I just think you should realize that hoping that this is ‘just’ Russians being evil/ignorant/political/controlling or any other convenient label, will not make this issue disappear.

      I fully expect most if not all of the Greek churches to join EPB and for this to boil down to Slavs vs Greeks, but I still fully believe that a council is the only solution other than repentance on the part of the schismatics.

      Delete
    2. Sojourner,

      Of course it is irregular. Things have been irregular for centuries. The entire 20th Century was an "irregularity." The Church has an "emperor problem." The combination of the Russian and Ottoman Empires kept the status quo going for awhile, but with the end of both in the First World War, the 20th Century was a time of great tumult and canonical shenanigans. The Church kept it together as best they could with the Grace of God, but the fact is that Economy and creative applications of the Canons was a common occurance.

      Nobody has said how the "repentance" of the OCU to the MP is supposed to happen realistically. The OCU doesn't trust the MP, and their antagonism is akin to ROCOR's attitude in the 20th Century. For them, Sergianism is alive and well as "Putinism." The wounds of the Soviet Period run very very deep. Many in the OCU are former Uniates or have family ties as such. The MP's complicity in the Soviet liquidation of the Greek Catholics and the seizure of their Churches has not been forgotten. The MP's actions since the Fall of the Soviet Union have not done much to facilitate healing in that regard. I am amazed that the MP doesn't have more of an appreciation for that. The OCU is smaller than the UOC-MP, this is true, but there are still millions in the OCU who for various reasons, cannot join themselves to the MP in anyway.

      Pastorally, the recognition of the OCU was the right thing to do. The MP didn't break Communion with the EP when the Ukrainians in North America were recognized, even though they had the EXACT same canonical problems. This is why their opposition now rings so hollow.

      This issue will not go away until the MP lets go of Ukraine, or at least its Western half. Their refusal to even consider some kind of accomodation outside of demanding the OCU's submission has created this situation.

      Sojourner, perhaps you or someone else can answer that question for me: How is the "reconciliation" Realistically supposed to take place?

      Delete
    3. There are schismatic groups all over the world who refuse to reconcile with their mother Churches for various complex reasons. Why is this a special case?

      The Non Chalcedonians for example are a far larger group than the OCU, and have existed outside the Church for quite some time.

      Your argument seems to imply that if EPB were to bring them back into communion, with no repentance or change, for /pastoral/ reasons, it would trump everything else. Love is not a valid excuse for ignoring truth.

      I have no quarrel with the laity in the OCU, for starters its very unclear exactly how many of them even exist, what they believe, or what their knowledge of the history/situation is. So I won't attempt to speak for them or judge them.

      However even giving every member of the laity the benefit of the doubt, that they are innocent sheep caught in terrible circumstances.

      What of the leadership?

      Can men become self made bishops? Can excommunicated, defrocked, clergy serve in the church?

      Are we just going to ignore that Philaret has already broken away into yet another schism? (Perhaps the greatest example of why without repentance, even a rubber stamp and a free pass doesnt last or have effect)

      I'll grant you, if you genuinely believed the USSR was alive and well in Russia and that the Church was not free, it would be a difficult situation. But the leadership of the OCU didnt break away out of fear of communism or "Putinism". Philaret broke away because he didnt get to be Patriarch, so he made himself "patriarch" and bought himself the hat to match. Then he found other men who wanted power and "ordained" them, including the current head of the "OCU".

      The fact that they have used ethnic and political issues to bolster their ranks doesnt give them validity. "The whole world groaned under Arianism" but St. Maximos made no compromise of the truth for the sake of "pastoral concern" for the countless Arians.

      Lets be honest, reconciliation is only difficult for the self made men who dont want to give up their titles.

      The majority of the Ukrainians dont want autocephaly, they haven't accepted it and they never asked for it. All the same I'd have no problem with Met. Onuphry becoming the head of a legitimate autocephalous church, however in the presence of a legitimate and independent Ukrainian church, do you think for one minute that the schismatic clergy would be interested in joining if it meant giving up power?

      Clearly the answer is no, because Philaret has already shown that even "autocephaly" is not enough for him. Tho to be fair to him, the terms of their "autocephaly" make them less independent than the autonomous Ukrainian church under Met. Onuphry. The schismatics are completely beholden to Constantinople under their deal.

      Anyways I haven't slept, apologies if I didnt make a clear response.

      Delete
    4. Each schism would have to be examined case by case. For the record, I support the reconciliation of the Old Calendarists and other breakaways as well, if they would be amenable (such a reconciliation is taking place in Australia under Archbishop Makarios, Many Years!) One group at a time.

      Why are we bringing the Miaphysites into this? Those dialogues are on going, of which the Russian Church is a happy party....are we going to condemn those dialogues? Of course not.

      Your citation of Arianism is not analogous, because Arianism is a heresy, and the OCU are not heretics.

      Can defrocked and excommunicated clergy serve? If the canonical sanctions are lifted, yes, which the EP did before receiving them (Whether he has the authority to do that is another argument, but the MP allows clergy defrocked and excommunicated by the EP to serve in their Churches by "economy").

      Why didn't the MP break Communion with the EP in the 90s when the Ukrainians in North America were received, given that they are from the same "Schism" with the same canonical problems? Why was it ok then, and not now?

      There was a big push for autocephaly in the aftermath of the Soviet break up. The former groups that make up the OCU were made up of people who would not accept the continued subordination of the Ukrainian Church to Moscow. The autonomy of the UOC-MP that is so lauded was a move to placate the moderate autocephalists and defang the movement. The hardline autocephalists could not accept this, and so went into schism. The OCU and UOC-MP recite the same Creed and have the same Faith. This is a political and cultural blood feud, where religion is sadly intertwined.

      You still haven't answered my question: Realistically, how is such a "repentance" supposed to take place, when the OCU do not trust the MP and it has no legitimacy or credibility to them. It is Sergianism, the sequel in their minds. Does it make sense to keep them in canonical limbo over this?

      Philaret is no longer a factor. He made his choice, and will have to answer for it before God.

      Delete
    5. I think ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ definitely applies here, although there is certainly a difference between the (very real problem of) accepting of sanctioned individuals by almost all jurisdictions (pick two jurisdictions that have strained relations and you’ll find priest swapping has occurred, perhaps most identifiably here in America where everything is disorderly).

      That’s a far cry from what has happened in Ukraine. I can’t speak for why Russia didn’t go to war over the Ukrainians in America, one could easily point out that you have to pick your battles, and America is already a territorial nightmare.

      However I can point out and say that EPB didn’t set up an Autocephalous church in America consisting of defrocked and excommunicated clergy, against the direct wishes of the reigning bishops. I think Russia would have made a fuss about that all things considered.

      It might be a tad polemical of me, but I can’t help but notice the irony that all “pastoral” care for Philaret is absent in your statement. Why can you ignore that he has a large group of people who don’t trust EPB or Moscow, and that pastorally someone should grant him autocephaly so that he can be patriarch?

      “Philaret is no longer a factor. He made his choice, and will have to answer for it before God.” That’s a very cold indifference to have towards a large group of Ukrainians wouldn’t you say? That sounds very “Russian” by your standards. Why is he no longer of concern?

      I pointed out the Non Chalcedonians, because they are a classic example of how schismatics, no matter how large in number they may be or how long they have been out of communion, don’t just get a free pass for “pastoral” reasons. Many would make the argument that the Non Chalcedonians, specifically the Malankarans and Coptics for example, have nearly identical if not identical faith to us, yet without a council it would be absurd for them to be brought back in on the whim of a single bishop and without specific repentance.

      You want a magic solution for reconciliation or else the only option in your mind is to grant schismatics their own church. That’s not how the Church works. You can’t force people to repent, you cant force people to accept the church, and you don’t just hand out autocephaly whenever there’s a group of defrocked clergy who don’t want to repent and give up the ranks they are no longer worthy of.

      If they think that Russia is not a valid church, that’s a serious claim. You’re saying that the largest Orthodox population in the world is under a false church; which goes on to imply no one should be in communion with Russia.

      So at the end of the day, either the Ukrainians who believe what you’re saying are right, and Russia is a false church, something horrifying to consider, or they’re wrong and their choice is being made for the wrong reasons, which we can’t force them to change but we also can’t accept just because they feel that way.

      Also you just stated that going into schism for non religious reasons is acceptable. “The hardline autocephalists could not accept this, and so went into schism”. How can that be acceptable? It also ignores the well documented history of Philaret who is the pioneer of the OCU, the man he “ordained” his protege is the current head of the OCU, and his reasons for forming it were not sincere in the least.

      Should America go into schism until it is granted a fully recognized Autocephaly? Is that how the church works now? Under this reasoning, I could break away from my church tomorrow, make myself patriarch, make a bunch of my friends bishops, gather a lot of people under me and then say that I had no choice but to go into schism because I don’t trust the Slavs and the Greeks, after all they’re just puppets to the E.U and Putin, and I’ll just remain in schism until I can work out a deal with a friendly patriarch.

      Ridiculous? Well that’s exactly what happened in Ukraine.

      Delete
    6. Sojourner,

      I made the point about the Ukrainian Church in North America because if it was as canonically grievous as the MP is making it out to be, they would have refused to accept what was done. The fact that they allowed it and accepted it (even grudgingly) when the Ukrainians in North America were a branch from that schism with the same canonical problems shows me that the there is a fix, if the MP was so inclined. Additionally, ROCOR was not always careful or canonical in their actions before the reunion, and yet the MP just “grandfathered” in all of that mess with the stroke of a pen in the interest of reunion. I’m not criticizing them for that, I think that was the right thing to do there too. My whole point is that there is a precedent and way to fix all of this, if the MP was open to do so. They are just choosing not to, for a mix of reasons. For me personally, the perogatives of the EP are a distant second in my consideration (I support the EP as the protos, but I am more moderate in where I think the boundaries are). I support the recognition of the OCU because I believe it to be the right thing to do, politics be damned.
      Metropolitan Philaret was offered the chance to repent and see his dream of an autocephalous Ukrainian Church come to fruition. He chose to slap the EP’s hand a way and turn against his brothers and sisters. That is what I meant when I said he made his choice. He can still repent, but that is between him and God.
      I don’t know if you want to go down the Non-Chalcedonian rabbit hole. The fact is, in quite a few parishes and places, they do get a “free pass” for pastoral reasons and are quietly communed. In Egypt and the Middle East there is a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy at the Chalice, where inter-marriage and unsanctioned but practiced intercommunion occurs. This is all low key and unsanctioned of course, but it is happening with regular frequency.
      The OCU can’t repent to the MP. That is the whole point I am trying to make. The wounds of the Soviet period are too deep. Even if there are unscrupulous men in the OCU (as there are everywhere), that doesn’t change the reality of the tragic history in Ukraine and the conflicts there. Former Uniates cannot and will not join the MP in ANY FORM. They can and will join the OCU, though. I don’t want a magic solution. I want a realistic and pastoral solution. Trying to force the OCU to rejoin the MP is akin to trying to force an abused wife to go back to her husband. Sure, the husband may have truly changed and is doing counseling and all of that, BUT some wounds are too deep.

      END PART 1

      Delete
    7. PART 2

      They don’t think the MP is invalid. Metropolitan Epiphany commemorates Patriarch Kyrill at every Liturgy. There could be reconciliation in time, if the Moscow Patriarchate let them go. NOBODY except Metropolitan Philaret and the extremists who left with him are saying that (officially, anyway). They of course are truly outside of the Church now, a sad place to be. Both the EP and the OCU are in Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. It is the MP that has declared the EP to be schismatic, although they had to walk that rhetoric back when the other Churches (and some Russian Laity with ties to Mt. Athos) pushed back.
      Trying to force them to return to the MP when the MP has hurt them is not possible, pastoral or right. There is another way for them to be reconciled to the Church, if the MP was amenable and open to it. They’re not, because of politics and because Ukraine has become another pawn in a power struggle.

      I never said going into schism for non-religious reasons was acceptable. It just happens. I was merely stating a fact, that they couldn’t accept what occurred. For the record, I’m for the acceptance of Old Calendarists back with as much Economy as we can practice, because for me it isn’t about politics, it’s about the Body of Christ. I also applauded the MP receiving Rue Daru back even though that would add yet another Bishop to Western Europe. I find their canonical concern to be one sided especially when it comes to multiplying hierarchs, but irregardless taking in Rue Daru was the right thing to do.
      Nobody is saying that schism for its own sake is acceptable or right. Schisms happen for different reasons. The question is, how can reconciliation take place? For the Old Calendarists its one thing, for the Ukrainians something else. Nobody denies the history of the schism or its reasoning. Akrevia is not going to heal the schism. It just isn’t. What else can be done?




      Delete
    8. Well David, you make your point. I don’t know that I agree with the conclusion, but I see where you’re coming from. I can’t side with EPB, and I can’t acknowledge the OCU without a council first addressing the nature of acceptance of excommunicated and defrocked clergy by a foreign bishop over and against the will of those who administered the canonical punishments. I’m not even saying that they can’t be accepted theoretically, as clergy, under the right circumstances, but I know enough about Orthodoxy to know that repentance is essential to everything and those without it end up like Philaret.

      You will know a tree by its fruits, and so far the fruit of this OCU’s creation has been highly negative and only stands to get worse as the Slavs and the Greeks continue to draw lines in the sand. It didn’t bring unity to the Ukrainians, it just pitted Ukrainians against Ukrainians and allowed geo-political factions to support their respective sides.

      That being said, the situation was complicated and difficult before, its even more complicated and more difficult now, but I understand how having desired for there to be a solution, people could support what they believe to be a solution i.e EPB doing what he is doing. I just think that if you wanted a solution, this was not the way to go about it. EPB could have taken a more diplomatic approach, he could have been the one to call for a council to discuss this in the first place, and then either a council would have decided what to do, or Russia would have refused to participate and at least then he would have the moral high ground of saying he tried to use the conciliar method before acting unilaterally.

      Mostly I’m just sad because as I was discussing with a friend today, never mind that we have a huge schism brewing, never mind that we can’t concelebrate with our friends and family depending on their jurisdiction; how are we supposed to evangelize and bring people to the true faith, and declare that we believe in One Holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church; when the Slavs and the Greeks are tearing said church to ribbons in the background? It’s quite discouraging, the equivalent to inviting a friend to a family gathering and the two drunk uncles are fighting. A sign of the times perhaps, not to say that people wont continue to join the Church, but we are our own worst enemies when it comes to promoting Orthodoxy.

      Delete
    9. "how are we supposed to evangelize and bring people to the true faith, and declare that we believe in One Holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church; when the Slavs and the Greeks are tearing said church to ribbons in the background?"

      Amen, amen, amen!

      Delete
    10. Sojourner,

      I would note that your evaluation of the ecclesiastical (and not I don't mean just bishops) is too shallow. The details of the 1990's through today rest on a the last 100 years, and those 100 years rest on 800 years. In a real sense, your like a man discussing the latest race row in NA while ignoring the 60's, act of 64, jim crow, reconstruction, civil war, slavery, etc. etc.

      Also, what exactly does the age old (its literally 500 or more years old - a quarter of Christian history) cultural divide between the Greeks and Slavs have to do with evangelizing a culture such as NA?!? I agree with you, we are "our own worst enemies". One way we defeat ourselves is focusing on the unimportant such as these meta-ecclesiastical questions that almost NO ONE in NA are even aware exist, let alone are important. 99.999999% of them EXPECT it to be exactly so, coming from Protestant or counter-reformation RCism.

      So your upset that you have friends and family whom you can't commune with now. Well cry me a river. As Christ said, even sinners love those who love them. Did this tiny little cross bring you down? Boo hoo hoo. THIS is how your going to account for Orthodoxy's (rather large) failures at even passing the faith on to their children, let alone evangelizing the post-protestant secular culture that surrounds it!? Boo hoo hoo.

      Buck up Christian soldier. Try to focus on reality...

      Delete
    11. You know Jake, I try to have discussions here in good faith. Occasionally I’ll admit I have been polemical, sarcastic or what have you, but if someone raises a valid point I do my best to consider it and respond appropriately. The latest example being that David, who I do not tend to agree with, presented his case of the situation in such a way that although I do not tend to agree with his view or conclusion, I understand what he means and I can respect his point of view.

      I have to admit that if i’m being 100% honest, I probably know better than to waste my time exchanging opinions on a blog. Probably doesn’t benefit me spiritually or practically, but hey i’m only human and its nice to have a site that revolves around Orthodoxy.

      But you don’t argue in good faith, let alone discuss matters respectfully, you seem more than happy to troll from a position of feigned superiority.

      It’s a shame because you’re obviously not a complete idiot, contrary to the impressions you give on occasion, and if you have things to contribute i’d be interested in hearing them, but i’m not impressed by arrogance or claims to wisdom made in condescending remarks.

      “As Christ said, even sinners love those who love them” Are you serious? You’re saying that I shouldn’t be upset that my friends and family are not in communion, that people are attempting to divide the Body of Christ? Yes even sinners love, but you don’t seem to care about love at all based on your statement. Not to mention using a random quote from the Bible in the wrong context, classic.

      “Try to focus on reality...” Like the reality that when potential converts ask me about the differences between “Greek” Orthodoxy and “Russian” Orthodoxy and “American” Orthodoxy, I have to explain that we hold the same faith and are united, while praying they don’t come across the latest news flash of how that unity is sorely lacking in practice at the moment?

      In any case, I don’t know why I’m wasting my time responding to you.

      You clearly get your kicks by trolling people on here and announcing to everyone that you have far more wisdom and knowledge than them, and that they couldn’t possibly understand what they’re talking about without knowing what you do, because after all anyone who is not Jake is just an ignorant person following propaganda, which thankfully Jake is impervious to having been noetically formed in a vacuum.

      Delete
    12. "“As Christ said, even sinners love those who love them” Are you serious? You’re saying that I shouldn’t be upset that my friends and family are not in communion, that people are attempting to divide the Body of Christ? "

      Yep, that's what I am saying. Well, its natural to be "upset", but let's not say it is more than it is. Did you notice how Judas was in the very heart of the 12, or how Peter denied our lord? These are but two examples of REALLY being "out of communion"...sort of makes Ukrainian territory and economic (canonical) concerns look trivial. There does not appear to perfection in communion (or any aspect of the Church - it is a human reality after all) this side of the Eschaton.

      "the reality that when potential converts ask me about the differences between “Greek” Orthodoxy and “Russian” Orthodoxy and “American” Orthodoxy, I have to explain..."

      You can't be serious :) If "potential" converts are getting hung up on the Greek vs. Russian divide, then they never had any real "potential" in the first place, OR Orthodoxy (or your local expression of it) has no real "potential" and life. In either case, good riddance. If your faith is this thin, then as Flannery O'Connor would say "to hell with it".

      Who could be saved in a Church and Faith that somehow required the Greeks and the Slavs to get along?!? That ain't the real world, and more importantly it ain't Christianity :)

      Delete
  3. David, you're dreaming. The Russians play the long game, always have, always will. And I'm Greek, 100%.

    Bartholomew and whoever else sides with him will be in schism. Even Arb Anastasios of Albania said this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David has not met priests from the Uktraine who have suffered at the hands of the OCU. I have. The OCU is not some sort of wimpy persecuted minority. They are the persecutors. David can spout all the fancy arguments he wants. What Bartholomew did was malicious and a raw power grab.

      Delete
    2. This isn't a chess game. The other Churches aren't playing. They aren't breaking Communion, and they aren't going along with the MP's provocations. Archbishop Anastasios of Albania said nothing of the kind, as the MP partisans who sniped at him for his support for HAH will attest.
      The MP can flail and rage by itself, further alienating the other Churches. I pray they do not do this, as there is enough division. Their pivot to an anti-Greek scorched earth campaign will only backfire on them. Even the other Churches who have voiced concerns and opposition may not be friendly very long the longer this campaign of destruction goes on.

      I would beg the Moscow Patriarchate to not do this anymore and talk with their brother bishops.

      Wallace: I never said the OCU was some wimpy persecuted minority. They are a party in a blood feud that has been going on for a very long. The OCU represents a segment of Ukrainian society that wants nothing more to do with the MP. What is gained by clutching them and keeping them in canonical limbo? Let them go. The MP seems to have forgotten the wounds of the Soviet period.

      I have no doubt that there are priests in the UOC-MP who have had incidents with supporters of the OCU. Just as the Greek Catholics and UOC-MP have fought over Churches. A blood feud and political war, with a religious element. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. The EP's intervention was a step to reunite, or barring that, separating the two in their respective corners until a peace can be had in the future.

      Delete
    3. "...David can spout all the fancy arguments he wants...."

      In other words, don't bother me with the truth - a simplistic propaganda narrative is all I need to know ;)

      Delete
    4. @David

      "...Let them go..." no one is stopping the OCU from playing church. If they want to go off and do that it's on them. The problem is they are demanding legitimacy that self ordination cannot bring. If Bartholemew ordains them THEN we have a territorial dispute. Until then you sir are perpetrating schism.

      Delete
  4. "I would beg the Moscow Patriarchate to not do this anymore and talk with their brother bishops."

    I would beg Bartholomew to end his ego trip and return to Orthodoxy. He has recognized a group of laymen pretending to be hierarchs in a make-believe Church. He has thrust himself into schism and is dragging other hierarchs into the abyss with him. He is smashing the entire Orthodox Church to pieces. I used to think that Metaxakis was one of the worst EP's to ever rule in Istanbul. This man beats them all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mikail,

      You might want to look into one of those "Genuine Orthodox" groups if you are wanting a "pure Church." Everybody else commemorates and concelebrates with the EP, including the MP, albeit indirectly (through their canonically incoherent half-Communion with a few select Greek Bishops and Athonite Monasteries).

      Fortunately, NO ONE, not even the MP wants the Church war that you seem to be itching for.

      Delete
    2. Hey Dave,

      You may want to go ahead and joint one of the uniate formations...because that is where you are headed anyway. I will stay with the canonical Orthodox Church. It may be smaller, but it will remain Christ's true Church. 😉

      Delete
    3. Mikail,

      That's quite the coincidence! I too am staying with the canonical Orthodox Church.

      Given the direction the Latin Church is headed, the Greek Catholics may end up seeking reunion with us (getting tired of being treated like an embarassment and red headed step-child, coupled with the turmoil that seems to engulf the Catholics more and more). The existence of of the OCU provides them with a means to reunite with Orthodoxy (they would never join the MP under any circumstances). May reunion happen as God wills. Then We all will share the Chalice.

      Delete
    4. Yes. That is what I thought. Your posts make perfect sense to me now. You will not be in the Canonical Church. You will be a uniate in disguise...a prenteder like the OCU make-believe "hierarchs" and "clergy".

      Delete
    5. You haven't read a word I said, Mikail. Perhaps there is some wisdom in replying to your posts with fart can jokes.

      We are brothers, whether you want to admit that or not. One Church, One Baptism.

      Delete
    6. And you have not read a word that I have said. It is your prerogative to respond with fart can jokes. And if you do, then I will stop responding to you also...because at that point...it is evident that you have nothing to say.

      All people are my brothers and sisters...but there is only One Church, One Baptism. I am already familiar with the man who has claimed to be first without equals since Pius IX jammed it through in 1854. Now there is another claiming the same authority and I want no part of it.

      Delete
    7. I hear you loud and clear, Mikail. Your heart is hardened towards the OCU. Perhaps that is because you are Russian, or a Ukrainian in the UOC-MP or you have ties to the same. Such bitterness is understandable, and I never claimed otherwise. I bear you no ill will, I get it...believe me. My use of the term "blood feud" is deliberate, with all of the depth of hatreds and feelings that flow with it. Ukraine's history is a tragic one, and I don't think anyone is saying anything else.

      With that said, there is a group of MILLIONS (the exact number is disputed) who are out of communion because of a political/ethnic/cultural dispute, not because of Faith. The MP fails to appreciate how they are perceived by a significant chunk of the Ukrainian population. Have they forgotten the Soviet period so quickly? Many people aren't ready to join hands with them, and some may never will.

      How to reconcile those people with the Church? They can't come back to the MP, Mikail. They see the MP as an abusive spiritual father. For some Ukrainians, you say "Moscow" and they think family. For other Ukrainians (especially Greek Catholic, former Greek Catholics or other Western Ukrainians) they see Imperialism and the enemy.

      I don't understand why the MP fails to see the pastoral implications of this. Akrevia is not solving the problem. Is Holy Rus/The Russky Mir so important, that they are willing to hurt millions of people to maintain it?

      Delete
    8. You are completely wrong David. I am not Russian...nor part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. I see a Patriarch (EP) who is out of control. I see a group of unrepentant schismatics persecuting pious Christians. It is not that my heart is hardened....it is that my conscience is properly formed.

      The OCU schismatics can return to the canonical Church where the vast majority of their brothers and sisters reside. To hold on to the anti-Russian hatred means they are the ones with hardened hearts.

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

      Delete
    10. Where does that hatred come from, Mikail? It didn't just come out of nowhere. These people feel hurt by Russia and the MP in one way or another. Many of them are former Greek Catholics (or come from families with Greek Catholics), who remember the MP's complicity in their liquidation. For others, they remember how their grandmother's confessor was a KGB agent. These wounds are real, and to simply demand that they "get over it" is pastorally abhorrent, even if it satisfies some notion of "correctness."

      No Mikail, that is not the answer. This is about more than HAH Bartholomew. That is just an excuse.

      Delete
    11. Wrong again David. The Russian Orthodox Church is a canonical Church of God. They are not communists and they are not liquidating families. I know people who are Ukrainian uniates. They are of one mind with the OCU schismatics. They are nationalists. There is even fascist symbolism in their icons. They did not need another "Church." They have a beautiful canonical Church with more freedom than this pseudo autocephaly they received from Bartholomew. There is a holy man by the name of Metropolitan Onufriy who will care deeply for them and lead them to the Kingdom of Heaven. No David...I am not buying into any of your (or Bartholomew's) anti-Russia propaganda. And yes David, I pin all of this chaos on Bartholomew.

      Delete
    12. Mikail,

      This isn't about anti-Russian propaganda. The MP of 2019 is not doing those things (and it is a canonical Church of God), but the MP was complicit with the Soviet regime in one way or another, and there was hurt and pain caused many people at many times. That legacy is still painfully real in Ukraine, and there are people who will never forgive Russia for what was done. That is sad, but it is akin to some Irish of a certain generation towards the English, or Koreans towards the Japanese, etc....There is a pastoral crisis in Ukraine, and the MP was unable or unwilling to solve it. I think it is both.

      This will be my last post to you. You can think what you like, but this isn't about anti-Russian or anti-Greek...this is about how to bring the OCU back into the Church in a pastoral and good way for their salvation. Forcing them back into the MP is not the way to do it. Maybe you don't like what the EP did, OK....but REALISTICALLY, it was the only way it was going to happen.

      The chaos was there before the EP acted. This was an attempt to break the deadlock.

      For me it is very very simple: If the OCU is blessed by God, it will endure. If it is not, it won't. Period.

      May St. Maxim the Greek and St. Tikhon of Moscow pray for us all.

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

      Delete
    14. There is one way to solve the problem, David. Do away with the pseudo-autocephalous OCU. Let the people gently return to the Omophorion of a man of deep faith and genuine holiness, Metropolitan Onufriy. If the Hierarchs and clergy choose to repent and return to the Church, God forgives and will have mercy.

      There...I solved it for you. It is really quite simple

      Delete
  5. Sojourner,

    A Council would have been ideal, but we have to acknowledge the reality---the MP and OCU don't trust each other, and the distrust is deep. AND more unfortunately for this situation, the MP and EP also don't trust each other. The authority of the EP in such matters is a point of contention, and with the absence of an agreed upon framework has helped create the situation we are in now.

    Is "repentance" possible? For the OCU, the MP is an abusive spiritual father and duplicitous non-partner. Would we pastorally expect a layperson to go back to an abusive spiritual father for Confession and the like? Perhaps the OCU's characterization of the MP in 2019 is unfair, but as I said before, the wounds of the Soviet Period run very very deep.
    Creating the OCU was not going to unify the Ukrainians right away. I think that was an unrealistic expectation in the beginning. The more realistic outcome was to separate the two sides in their respective corners, clean up the canonical mess some, and allow the Estonia arrangement to calm things down a bit. After a generation or so of co-existence as canonical bodies, THEN there could be talk of reunion. Russia's proxy war in Eastern Ukraine has stirred up the hornets nest in many ways. Once that is over, you will see things quiet down---even with that, the Church seizures and mess has all but stopped, with only the occasional isolated incident of confrontation/fighting (which the MP propaganda plays up to paint the entire OCU in a negative light). If Moscow wants to stop the conflicts, the Kremlin would end their proxy war and the MP would allow the UOC-MP and OCU to try being roommates for a decade or two and then we'll see what happens.

    A Council would have been ideal, but HAH was quite right when he said what the fruit of that would be. We would be exactly where we are now, and the MP partisans would be attacking the EP just as before, except with even more vigor because they would cite the failed council in their attacks. I think a Council will happen, but only after every Church has rendered their YES or NO on the OCU. The MP has to accept the OCU as a reality. Their hardline stance will go nowhere, and that is becoming more obvious as more Churches commemorate Metropolitan Epiphany. The MP made a big mistake when they broke Communion with the EP. If they wanted to prevent the OCU's recognition, alienating the other Greek Churches was the worst thing to do. But we are where we are now. There is no going back. The MP has to realize this, and be open to an accomodation of some kind, perhaps an OCA style non-recognition on their part, with an icy acceptance of the OCU as an "EP Exarchate" in Ukraine.

    END PART 1

    ReplyDelete
  6. PART 2

    What I have outlined is not ideal, but it is a start. Dialogue can't happen until Communion is restored. The MP and EP have both hurt each other in different ways. Reconciliation will not be easy but with God all things are possible. Both will have to give up some things for them to be brothers once again.

    I am comforted by what is happening, as crazy as that sounds. What is happening is an OLD argument, and the Orthodox status quo. When I look at the Catholics and Protestants and what they are going through, I am very very grateful to Our Lord that ours is just the squabbles of the ages. It isn't right, and yes it does scandalize, but it has always done so. God is in control, no matter what. I have accepted the fact that I may not be able to commune in a Russian Church in my lifetime. It is very sad, but look at how long the Bulgarian Schism lasted...I hope it doesn't, but it could. It doesn't mean that we are not one Church or that God has abandoned us. Brothers fight, and sometimes they stop talking for awhile, but they don't cease to be family. Orthodoxy is messy and reflective of the human condition, and God works through that. The Gates of Hell will not prevail, but that doesn't mean we won't get some brimstone on our foreheads as the doors shake on their hinges.

    I think we should look to St. Maxim the Greek and St. Tikhon of Moscow in this crisis. Both men were hurt by the other Patriarchate, and both were saints who loved the Church and the Russian people. May we have their intercession.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The MP has to accept the OCU as a reality."

    LOL! That is quite humorous! What would ever make you think they would accept a group of unrepentant schismatics who play pretend in their make-believe "church"?

    You are a real card, Dave. 😁

    ReplyDelete
  8. At any rate, I refer the matter to St. Maxim the Greek. This will be my last post on the Ukraine matter, period. "Talk to St. Maxim." will be my answer to anybody who chances to ask me about this topic.

    I pray everyone has a blessed Nativity Fast. Forgive me for any offense I may have caused.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It goes like this: Do the people of Ukraine have a canonical Church to attend with good priests and holy hierarchs who care for the salvation of their souls? Yes, the UOC. Is the Metropolitan of this Church competent? Yes. In fact, he is one of the most pious and caring shepherds on this Earth. But....if the people are looking for a nationalistic organization with unordained schismatics as clergy...where they are raiding the canonical Churches and beating their clergy and parishioners...then they do not have a Church at all. In fact, they are not even Christians. Bartholomew decided to normalize this abomination that mocks Christ's Holy Church. Lord have mercy on his soul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...unordained schismatics...they do not have a Church at all...they are not even Christians...abomination...mocks..."

      Another day, another repetition of a (seemingly logical) propaganda narrative which is a fantasy in the mind some NA convert who believe his salvation has something to do with a fantasy of legal perfection this side of the Eschaton which he actually thinks exists in Moscow. Now THAT is a "heresy" if there ever was one!

      And the fart can blows

      phhheeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....pppplllpplopllpllppsssssss...brrrrrpppppppprrrrrppppppppp....

      Delete
    2. No Jake. You are spreading lies and propaganda. Try meeting some people who know the OCU and have experienced persecution from them first hand.

      Delete