(ROC) - As the mass media have reported, Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus has mentioned Epifaniy Dumenko for the first time as ‘primate’ of the Ukrainian church, thus de facto recognising the schismatic structure ‘Orthodox Church of Ukriane’ that he heads. Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, speaks about a possible reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church to the recognition of the ‘OCU’ by the Church of Cyprus in his talk to RIA Novosti news agency.
– Your Eminence, how will the Russian Church react to the recognition of the Ukrainian schismatics by the Archbishop of Cyprus?
– We deeply regret to hear about this deplorable event. The decision will be made by the Holy Synod. However, I believe the Archbishop of Cyprus will be crossed out from the diptychs of the Russian Orthodox Church, that is to say. the liturgical mention of his name will be suspended until all the circumstances of this development are clear. It means the discontinuance of the Eucharistic communion with a particular person, not the Church of Cyprus as such. It will be important to understand whether he did it on his own or with the consent of the Synod. The Greek mass media write that he did it without the consent of the Synod.
– Under what circumstances was this liturgical mention made?
– They write that the Archbishop, together with the Metropolitan of Pathos, were consecrating Bishop Pancratios of Arcinoe, who was elected by the Synod as Vicar Bishop of the Metropolis of Pathos. In attendance (but not serving) were some other hierarchs of the Church of Cyprus. Some of them left the church when they heard the name of the leader of the Ukrainian schismatics coming from the lips of the Archbishop.
– How do you explain this decision made by the Archbishop?
– It is no secret for anybody that pressure was exerted on him by the Patriarch of Constantinople who is very interested in seeing at least one more Church recognizing his lawless action. There was also pressure from the USA where there is an interest in weakening the Russian Church and setting off the Greek world against the Slavic world.
– Could the recent visit of the Patriarch of Alexandria to Cyprus make an influence on the Archbishop of Cyprus? Indeed, he, too, has decided to make the liturgical mention of Epifaniy on his own, without any authorization by his Synod.
– It cannot be excluded.
– The Archbishop of Cyprus made unfriendly statements about the Russian Church and the Patriarch of Moscow earlier as well. For instance, in one of the interviews he related this about his talk with Patriarch Kirill: ‘He wants to be the first. I said to him that he would never become the first. For the last seventeen centuries the Patriarch of Constantinople has been recognized as the first among all the Orthodox Primates. You should understand this’. How can you comment this?
– Can you imagine that such a talk did really take place? I was present at all the meetings of Patriarch Kirill and Archbishop Chrisostomos and he never said anything like this. Such a talk could take place only in the Archbishop’s imagination because, first, he would never say anything like this in the Patriarch of Moscow’s face, even if he thought so to himself; secondly, the Russian Church has never claimed primacy in the Orthodox world. We have an official document ‘Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on Primacy in the Universal Church’ adopted by the Holy Synod in 2013. It is written in it in black and white: that from the 11th century ‘up to the present time, the primacy of honour in the Orthodox Church on the universal level belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equal Primates of Local Orthodox Churches’.
– What will be the consequences of this decision for the relationships between the Orthodox Churches of Russia and Cyprus?
– We will continue communion with all the hierarchs who do not recognize the personal decision of the Archbishop. The Russian people have always been close to the people of Cyprus; our pilgrims will continue coming to the holy places of those metropolises of the Church of Cyprus whose heads will remain in communion with the Russian Church.
But standing above all for us is the unity of our Church and the resolute preservation of the dogmatic teaching and canonical tradition of Holy Orthodoxy. The fact that particular hierarchs and even Primates of Churches violate canons is regrettable. However, we cannot and will not waive Orthodoxy and the canons. And we will steadfastly safeguard the unity of our Church.
Posts
Right. For the cannon warriors amongst us, by "that" David B. means this sort of thing:
ReplyDelete"We will continue communion with all the hierarchs who do not recognize the personal decision of the Archbishop."
When your building arguments/positions on nostalgic canons (i.e. an ecclesial economic structure that assumes an Empire and an Orthodox monoculture), well it leads to one in-coherency laid upon another, all of it buttressed by absurdity...
The only pressure on the Church of Cyprus is coming from Metropolitan Hilarion. He's basically threatening to stop Russian pilgrimages to Cyprus.
ReplyDeleteAnd exactly what threatening pressure is coming from Constantinople and the U.S.? He says there's pressuring, but what? He doesn't provide any details.
One cannot suffieciently grasp the meaning of the word "pressure" in relation to the Ukraine without taking a closer look at the relationship between the Russian Federation and the Moscow Patriarchate. Since the time of the Russian Empire, certainly continuing through the Soviet period and right up until contemporary Russia, the Church has functioned as a department of the state, promoting state policies and often working towards secular goals.
ReplyDeleteIn order to execute its strategy of expanding its power and influence, Imperial Russia promoted nationalist sentiment in the Balkans and the Middle East which were the territory of the Ecumenical Patriachate and the Ottoman Empire while concurrently suppressing it on its own territory in the Ukraine. As an example of the latter, Alexander I forbade Ukrainian to be taught in schools while another one of the annointed ones, Czar Alexander II made it illegal to publish books in the Ukrainian language. So a thing can be good or bad depending on whether it may be exploited to political advantage.
We see the same double standard at play today in the ecclesial world. While receiving Roman Catholic clergy in their orders without ordination, Moscow protests that the clergy of the UOC are unordained. Despite warning that "he who communes with schismatics becomes schismatic", the Synod or Rocor was in communion with schismatics for half a century, not to mention that it was anathematized and considered schismatic by the Moscow Patriarchate itself. These kinds of details don't bother those seeking to prevent Ukrainian independence at all costs despite not having followed the canons that they now cite. The sacred canons are not instruments to be used to exert pressure on political opponents. They were established by the Church in order to be used with discernment and love to guide the faithful to salvation. Using canons that one does not follow anyway against enemies is under no circumstance behaviour befitting Orthodox Christians.
Several other tools to exert pressure are used such as the withdrawal of finacial support, halting religious tourism, setting up parishes without the blessing of the local hierarch and as Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaia (who defended the rights of Moscow in the Ukraine) observed, even the supreme sacrament, the holy eucharist has been exploited in such a manner: "Is it possible that the Holy Communion is part of political pressure and blackmail?"
Very accurate and interesting assessment of Moscow's inconsistencies
DeleteRussia,like most places, would prefer to span a whole continent. From their perspective, Ukraine is another neoliberal outpost on their flank. Also the Russian Church, unlike American Christianity, is not a secular institution.
DeleteI understood the objection to be more that UOC autocephaly was not the EP's to give, as if American Antiochians were to get a tomos from Constantinople (Istanbul) instead of Antioch (Beirut/Damascus).
Of course, at the end of the day autocephaly, like sovereignty, is more in the taking than the granting.
The ROC had it's own reasons for not granting autocephaly to Ukraine in 1992. Patriarch Alexei II felt that the Russian Church was too weak by itself to exist without Ukraine. I believe he was right, and we can probably thank the current resurgence of the ROC to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. When the Patriarch has had a synaxis and full Cathedral at Christ the Saviour in Moscow, oftentimes most of the bishops and clergy have been Ukrainian.
ReplyDeleteFor this reason, for the good of the ROC, the EP had been hesitant and reluctant to get involved in Ukraine since 1992. Yet in 2008, Patriarch Bartholomew personally broached the subject to Patriarch Alexei, essentially saying, "What are you doing about this schism? Do something." So there was patience and deference given to the ROC by Constantinople. Unfortunately the ROC did nothing, and the schism took a turn for the worse after the annexation of Crimea.
Is it right for the ROC to maintain the schism in Ukraine for its own purposes? Perhaps yes, but then it's equally right for the EP to grant autocephaly to those Ukrainians who want it.
Well, that gets to the nub of the matter: is autocephaly the EP's to give? I really don't see how the answer could be yes if he's not an "Eastern Pope."
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"...is autocephaly the EP's to give? I really don't see how the answer could be yes if he's not an "Eastern Pope."
DeleteLet's unpack this a bit. Why would the EP need to be something called "an Eastern Pope" to grant autocephaly? Was the MP/Russian Church also adhering to some sort of papal ecclesiology when it granted autocephaly to the OCA? If Antioch (i.e. Damascus) granted autocephaly to the NA Antiochian 'jurisdiction', would this also be papism?
The EP's stance is that it never ceded Ukraine to the Russian Church. As problematic as that is historically (let's leave canons out of it since there are no canons for either this situation or 'autocephaly' per se - those usually cited assume an Empire), the Russian church has an even greater problem in that they never consolidated Russian ecclesial/cultural hegemony over Ukraine. This is obvious because there is a country with it's own culture, language, and now Church in the Ukraine right now.
Something called 'Eastern Papism' is a red herring, not least because it is never actually defined...
That's simple: I can cede what's mine, but I can't cede what's somebody else's. So if +John wants to cede rule to his American parishes he can. But his brother sovereign in Turkey can't cede them for him. Unless, as he maintains, all the Faithful outside a few rival nation-states are his.
Delete“Granting” Epifany Autocephaly is the real red herring.
ReplyDeleteMet. Onuphury has consistently been the canonically recognized Hierarch.
Only when HAH decided to “void” the canonical Hierarch and Autonpmoyd church, did this even become a “question”
Regardless of some 300 yr old arrangement, the Autonomy was not a question. Met. Onuphrys canonicity was not a question.
This whole thing is a proxy war of power between the EP and MP.
For HAH, against the assent of the other Patriarchs, to void Kiev and Met. Onuphry is just a pretext for him de facto becoming an Eastern Papalist. Look at his dissolving of the Russian Western Exarchate. Look at the subjugation of the GOAA. Look at the strong arming of Alexandria, Greece, and Cyprus.
It’s all feeding a ecclesial chaos at this point. We can probably handle it with the ecclesiology we have, but it’s still terrible.
It this point, Moscow should just grant Autocephaly to Met. Onuphry and let the chips fall where they may.
If this issue of Autocephaly doesn’t get worked out by our Xhufch, the Ukraine Issue will just duplicate. And the multiplicity of jurisdiction in countries will not only be a norm, but lead to an ecclesial population competition.
I’m all for Ukrainian Autocephaly, as long as the Patriarchates come together to agree on it first.
"I’m all for Ukrainian Autocephaly, as long as the Patriarchates come together to agree on it first."
DeleteRight - this is your opinion, desire, and "idea" of ecclesiology. Everything you said before is just rhetoric (I would call it an "argument", but it does not quite rise to that level) in support of this conclusion. For example, you use "canonical" repeatedly, without actually defining it. Why are the Russian Church's "canonical" claims in Ukraine valid/applicable/precedent, and the EP's are not? You don't actually say.
What the Ukraine is revealing (although it was obvious before) is that since the fall of the Empire, the "canonical" structure of this Imperial Church of the East is not up to the task of coherently providing an ontology of the Church in the modern world. An unam sanctam which relies on an ultimately vague assertion of "unity of Faith" and a "conciliar" model that has not actually occurred for 1300 years is what exactly?
My opinion: it's a mere collection of ethno/national "churches" that has only lasted this long because history did not press the issue too much (i.e. Slavic isolation, Ottoman captivity, etc. etc.). Now with modern political circumstances, cultural (particularly "multiculturalism" and secularism), communication and travel, nation states - now that all this and more is occurring the non-answers of the canons (trapped as they are in the assumption of Empire) are allowing us to see the obvious cracks and our fundamental *non-unity*. Will this non-unity become disunity? It rapidly is becoming that, particularly with all the parallel jurisdictions being set up in the Ukraine, western Europe/NA, etc.
This causes some of us great anxiety, and we retreat into a nostalgia that our "canonical" basis is fundamentally sound, it's just that this or that patriarch/bishop/church is doing it wrong. Nonsense. Since when did Christians become afraid of the truth? The truth is that there is no "canonical" basis to solve the dilemma(s) of this Church of the East in the modern world. Short of a real "Ecumenical Council" that literally sets up canonical structure of Church-in-modern-world, we will continue into greater dis-unity...
This is the bottom line. A problem that should have been addressed by the end of the 19th century has festered since the 15th and is becoming a very big deal. By contrast, protestantism where you just start your own church and nobody kicks you out of the club is proving quite resilient.
DeleteEh whatever
ReplyDeleteOne and done
Screed along Orthobros
Ha! Handing you a virtual beer ;)
Delete"For many in Western Ukraine and elsewhere, the MP and the Kremlin are viewed as the abusive husband they finally got away from, and people are telling them to "go back." I...They thought that by going nuclear at the beginning, they would isolate the Ecumenical Patriarchate and snuff out the OCU in the beginning. They succeeded in neither. It is the MP who is increasingly isolated, awkwardly crossing off names on the Diptychs...The OCU is part of the Church now. Their Autocephaly is a separate matter, and what is taking shape there is an OCA situation, where their Tomos is not universally recognized. The laity (and some clerics) of Russia and elsewhere will grow weary of this, and recognition of them in some form (putting aside the Tomos and that argument) is inevitable. Bulgaria and the North American Ukrainians are the precedent, and provide the blueprint."
ReplyDeleteI think you are right here. The future of Orthodoxy just about everywhere is this loose federation of parallel 'jurisdictions'. Hard to imagine this working for very long at all (maybe 2 or three generations?) before it breaks down from the pressures of secularism. Will these bishops come together in "standing conferences" to affirm unity of Faith when one or more of them succumb to women's ordination, or 'blessing of {homosexual} civil unions', or something not yet seen?