skip to main |
skip to sidebar
(Orthodox Times) - The Patriarch of Georgia calls on the Patriarch of Russia to not intrude on the canonical territory of the Georgian Orthodox Church.
According to yesterday’s letter released by the Patriarchate of Georgia, Patriarch Ilia expressed his concern both about the expansionist tendencies of Russian troops in the Tskhinvali region and about the alleged intention of the Patriarchate of Russia to send priests to this region in order to minister.
“According to canon law, it is unacceptable that the clergy under our jurisdiction be sent without our permission as ministers to the military bodies and the laity place. This act is worsening the situation,” wrote in his letter Patriarch Ilia of Georgia.
Posts
Patriarch Ilia is the real deal (like Metropolitan Onufriy of Kiev), which is to say an exemplar Christian in virtually every way. Despite the complicated circumstance this issues is located within it's hard to argue with his clear yet humble appeal to the MP. I expect the response of Patriarch Kyrill will be appropriate.
ReplyDelete"Alleged"? DOes that mean that the MP hasn't committed said infraction? I agree with Patriarch Ilia that it is his canonical territory but I think he oversteps his bounds when he gets into politics by saying 20% of Georgia is occupied. Abkazia and South Ossetia are independent and never returning. Get over it.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like Georgia has some legitimate grievances. And it's bad optics when Moscow is in a major fight over Bart's violation of Russia's canonical territory. Right now Moscow does not need more enemies. If they are smart, they will settle this... quickly.
ReplyDeleteWhat are these grievances?
Delete"Abkazia and South Ossetia are independent and never returning. Get over it. "
ReplyDeleteAs is the Ukraine. This is the rather large downside of the ethno-national ontology of the church of the East, every small tribal affiliation gets to have it's own church according to the spirit of the de facto canonical application.
An "Ecumenical Patriarch" that is a real *authority* (in spirit and in practical economic canonical law) is not looking like such a bad idea is it..."Papal" reactionaries to the contrary ;)
I am not sure that Ukraine is independent or never returning. Time will tell.
DeleteJake,
DeleteGeographical constraints on a bishop's authority are quite ancient and wise. Ancient, because the earliest writings of the Church attest to it (think James the Lord's brother pronouncing the authority of the Apostolic council); wise, because each area requires its own pastoral consideration and care.
A remote patriarch issuing pronouncements for a remote area (whether in Rome, Constantinople or Moscow) does not follow that apostolic spirit.
Given that condition, the bishopric who is closest geographically should have the weightiest pastoral say in how his diocese is "overseen", and that person is not Patriarch Bartholomew, but Metropolitan Onufriy, who is the canonically recognized bishop of that area (even by Constantinople).
A single remote patriarchate that ignores the authority of the local bishop (a'la "Papal" as you say) is about as un-pastoral as it comes. To flip the coin that I believe you see, it presumes that the local bishop intends the worst for his flock. This is no different than what the pro-MP crowd believe of Patriarch Bartholomew.
oneofthetwain,
DeleteYour proposal/idea of an economy of ecclesia immediately begs the question:
What is the theological/economic basis of unity, of "One (and not several) Holy...Church"? What is the reality of the Unam Sanctam and how is it economically expressed? How are "bishopric's" related to each other and the whole Church?
Your idea leaves that question unanswered. It is not a mere theoretical problem as it was "asked" and in one sense (but not others) partially answered as early as the NT itself when St. Paul "opposed (Peter) to his face" when St. Peter "condemened" (as the NT puts it) himself by imposing a foreign Jewish culture and customs upon the Antiochians (very similar to how Met. Onufriy is attempting to impose Russian culture and custom upon the Ukrainians who have their own canonical Church, language, culture, and country).
Even before the first Ecumenical Council a *hierarchy* of "bishoprics" (i.e. some were more important than others) was already ancient custom and a solution to the question you left dangling, and this solution was ensconced in canon law that survives to this day. It is this ancient and canonical basis upon which EP has acted, and it is upon the thin thread of an ad hoc post Empire precedent ethno-nationalism that the MP protests.
Either way, BOTH the EP and the MP recognizes the question and answers it...
I found an article that explains this, lb.ua from a Ukrainian (and very much not pro-Moscow) news source, although it is riddled with obvious howlers. It seems there is a letter from an Archpriest Maxim Kozlov to interest seminarians in serving as military chaplains and mentions several military bases chaplains might serve that includes, among others, locations in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The article itself admits that the MP does not maintain parishes in these areas and rejects the schismatic bodies that have sprung up.
ReplyDeleteIt is my impression that American chaplains serving on bases simply serve as if they are on American territory. I do not believe that our chaplains were functioning under Serbia and Antioch when on American bases in the former Yugoslavia or the Middle East, but perhaps some one knows different.
One can use google translate if necessary
https://lb.ua/world/2019/11/22/442948_abhaziya_razdora_tserkovniy_konflikt.html