• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

How Does Decisionmaking at GOARCH Assemblies Work?

Ariend

Elder
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
309
Reaction score
91
Points
28
Age
19
Location
America
Website
www.assemblyofbishops.org
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Please. The republican

there is no provision in the Constitution for such sedition. Texas is run in a rogue fashion by a very politically corrupt Republican Party that stoops to any crime to keep its tenuous hold on power as the state‘s populace shifts leftward.
I'm only referring to its anti-abortion laws, which in my mind somewhat makes up for whatever corruption it may be facing.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Something wrong with being against abortion?
This is kind of getting into Politics, so I am hesitant to answer. Abortion isn't the only moral issue for states, and I doubt that Texas is alone in its position on the issue.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
Something wrong with being against abortion?
Most religious people are more or less against abortion. It’s what you do with that feeling that matters. If you compassionately and personally extend help to frightened pregnant women who may be tempted to terminate their pregnancy, you make a very good case. But just punishing women and doctors with vigilantism to skirt the law is repugnant and not the least bit Christian. Reminds me of a certain novel by Margaret Atwood…
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
The nearby GOARCH parish dropped the Nicene in Greek (it's just in English now.). It stopped it in the last 10 years. I miss it being in Greek too.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
102
Points
63
When did the "EP" first become called the "EP?" Certainly it would have to be after the Schism with Rome, since Rome considered itself the "EP". The term "EP" could be interpreted to claim "Ecumenical jurisdiction" over the whole "Ecumene" of the "Church Catholic".
The title was around in the late 6th century. It was a point of contention between Pope St. Gregory and St. John the Faster.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
The title was around in the late 6th century. It was a point of contention between Pope St. Gregory and St. John the Faster.
Ecumenical refers to the Empire, not the entire world, in jurisdiction. When you understand that false claims of universality evaporate.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
102
Points
63
Ecumenical refers to the Empire, not the entire world, in jurisdiction. When you understand that false claims of universality evaporate.
I never said that it meant anything else. That was in fact part of the basis for the dispute. Pope St. Gregory interpreted ecumenical patriarch to mean universal patriarch, whereas in Constantinople, the title was understood as an imperial title.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
The nearby GOARCH parish dropped the Nicene in Greek (it's just in English now.). It stopped it in the last 10 years. I miss it being in Greek too.
It’s too lengthy to be recited In multiple languages. Unless you live in Boston there are few who really understand Greek and early none who understand it exclusive of English. My parish says the Lord’s Prayer in several languages representing the diversity of our community. Greek goes first, then Romanian, then Spanish, Arabic and Slavonic (recently added because of a few new Slavic congregants). Lastly English which we all share.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Ecumenical refers to the Empire, not the entire world, in jurisdiction. When you understand that false claims of universality evaporate.
Well, currently there is no empire based in Istanbul.... just a patriarchate based there claiming "universal jurisdiction" like the medieval Popes did over the East.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
Well, currently there is no empire based in Istanbul.... just a patriarchate based there claiming "universal jurisdiction" like the medieval Popes did over the East.
I am aware of how the Phanar tries to invent reasons we should defer to its competence as first among equals, through such adventures as the creation of competing jurisdictions in Estonia, Ukraine and a threatened one in Czechia but it’s a stretch to say that calling them by their official and non-controversial title Ecumenical will bring about some new disaster. As with bishops consecrated to underwater and long-dead sees (someone show me how Sourozh relates to Great Britain), there are innumerable item of our ecclesiastical culture that don’t make transparent sense but persist for traditional reasons.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Just the ones under him.
Its by freak occuance that there are no other one's.
I would be interested to see if someone has a rebuttal to Tzimis' repeated claims that currently all patriarchs would have to trace their apostolic succession through Constantinople. The way that he presents it, Byzantium had an apostolic see, like from St Andrew. Then at some point, all other patriarchs either
(A) were created and appointed directly from Constantinople, as in the MP, or else
(B) schismated from Orthodoxy or their synod perished, so Constantinople had to appoint them a patriarch using its own apostolic line. I don't know if Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, and Alexandria all fit in category B. In the case of Georgia, the Georgia Patriarchate is older than Constantinople.

The list of autocephalies which 'owe' the Phanar a debt of gratitude grows longer every decade. My favorite story among them is how the EP recognized the Autocephaly of the Georgian Church in 1990. This was a late volley against the MP who, upon the event of the restoration of the Patriarchate in 1917, rescinded the unilateral (illegal) annexation of the Georgian Church which occurred during the XIX c. after the illegal military annexation of that country. The Phanar 'made it official' the year Bartholomew came to the Ecumenical Throne so that the Phanar could at last normalize relations with Georgia which they had until that point considered part of the Russian Church. All this despite the fact that the Georgian Catholicosate-Patriarchate was established as autocephalous by Antioch BEFORE THE ECUMENICAL THRONE WAS ESTABLISHED. So since 1990, the Phanar can pretend that they granted Georgia Autocephaly. This is how the Ecumenical mind works. No wonder they are so roundly reviled.
Based on what Fulk wrote, Georgia might have a line of apostolic succession that doesn't run through Constantinople, depending on whether that line remained distinct during the time when the Georgian Church belonged to the Russian Church.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
I would be interested to see if someone has a rebuttal to Tzimis' repeated claims that currently all patriarchs would have to trace their apostolic succession through Constantinople. The way that he presents it, Byzantium had an apostolic see, like from St Andrew. Then at some point, all other patriarchs either
(A) were created and appointed directly from Constantinople, as in the MP, or else
(B) schismated from Orthodoxy or their synod perished, so Constantinople had to appoint them a patriarch using its own apostolic line. I don't know if Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, and Alexandria all fit in category B. In the case of Georgia, the Georgia Patriarchate is older than Constantinople.



Based on what Fulk wrote, Georgia might have a line of apostolic succession that doesn't run through Constantinople, depending on whether that line remained distinct during the time when the Georgian Church belonged to the Russian Church.
Russian Orthodoxy has its roots in the mission activity done by South Slavs from the autochthonous Bulgarian Church, that existed outside the Roman Empire, previous to the establishment of Kievan Rus, after which Greek hierarchs took over all church leadership and suppressed the record of previous Bulgarian efforts. After the final collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire with the capture of Constantinople in 1427, there was absolutely no way Greek churchmen were able to operate in Russia. The lines of communication broke down and Muscovite church was de facto independent and autocephalous. This situation did not change significantly for over 100 years. There is also the Union of Florence-Ferrara when the Phanar ceased even to be Orthodox, preferring to be a Latin appanage. The grant of a Tomos was an opportunity for the strapped Phanar to receive some funds from wealthy independent Moscow who aptly found a way both patriarchates could be benefited since Moscow was already long used to running its own church affairs with no input from the new capital of the Turkish empire. In later centuries several Autocephalous churches were freed from Phanariot overlordship when the Ottoman Porte began its own eclipse, taking their autocephaly perforce from the EP again in no position to do anything about it. Their refusal to recognize Bulgarian independence was particularly harsh and showed some of the same slavophobic hellenosupremacism as we see today regarding Moscow and Ukraine. The Tomoi allotted to Eastern European churches of the former Soviet Bloc outline a progressive hollowing out of the concept of autocephaly to the point where it defines permanent servitude of the ‘Daughter’ church and enjoins ecclesiastical colonialization of any other church who recognize it. Each of these grants has occurred in such a way as to give less and take more, and compete with Moscow, as in setting up parallel a jurisdiction in Estonia.

The history of the EP in the last 600 years has been pretty bleak, and every loss it suffered led the Phanar to actions that hurt the greater commonwealth of Eastern Orthodox Churches. There are few bright spots in this story of decline into irrelevance and decadence.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
198
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
Russian Orthodoxy has its roots in the mission activity done by South Slavs from the autochthonous Bulgarian Church, that existed outside the Roman Empire, previous to the establishment of Kievan Rus, after which Greek hierarchs took over all church leadership and suppressed the record of previous Bulgarian efforts. After the final collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire with the capture of Constantinople in 1427, there was absolutely no way Greek churchmen were able to operate in Russia. The lines of communication broke down and Muscovite church was de facto independent and autocephalous. This situation did not change significantly for over 100 years. There is also the Union of Florence-Ferrara when the Phanar ceased even to be Orthodox, preferring to be a Latin appanage. The grant of a Tomos was an opportunity for the strapped Phanar to receive some funds from wealthy independent Moscow who aptly found a way both patriarchates could be benefited since Moscow was already long used to running its own church affairs with no input from the new capital of the Turkish empire. In later centuries several Autocephalous churches were freed from Phanariot overlordship when the Ottoman Porte began its own eclipse, taking their autocephaly perforce from the EP again in no position to do anything about it. Their refusal to recognize Bulgarian independence was particularly harsh and showed some of the same slavophobic hellenosupremacism as we see today regarding Moscow and Ukraine. The Tomoi allotted to Eastern European churches of the former Soviet Bloc outline a progressive hollowing out of the concept of autocephaly to the point where it defines permanent servitude of the ‘Daughter’ church and enjoins ecclesiastical colonialization of any other church who recognize it. Each of these grants has occurred in such a way as to give less and take more, and compete with Moscow, as in setting up parallel a jurisdiction in Estonia.

The history of the EP in the last 600 years has been pretty bleak, and every loss it suffered led the Phanar to actions that hurt the greater commonwealth of Eastern Orthodox Churches. There are few bright spots in this story of decline into irrelevance and decadence.
You must be making this up as you go.
I'm guessing you haven't heard of saint Cyril and Methodius.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Russian Orthodoxy has its roots in the mission activity done by South Slavs from the autochthonous Bulgarian Church, that existed outside the Roman Empire, previous to the establishment of Kievan Rus, after which Greek hierarchs took over all church leadership and suppressed the record of previous Bulgarian efforts. After the final collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire with the capture of Constantinople in 1427, there was absolutely no way Greek churchmen were able to operate in Russia. The lines of communication broke down and Muscovite church was de facto independent and autocephalous. This situation did not change significantly for over 100 years. There is also the Union of Florence-Ferrara when the Phanar ceased even to be Orthodox, preferring to be a Latin appanage. The grant of a Tomos was an opportunity for the strapped Phanar to receive some funds from wealthy independent Moscow who aptly found a way both patriarchates could be benefited since Moscow was already long used to running its own church affairs with no input from the new capital of the Turkish empire. In later centuries several Autocephalous churches were freed from Phanariot overlordship when the Ottoman Porte began its own eclipse, taking their autocephaly perforce from the EP again in no position to do anything about it. Their refusal to recognize Bulgarian independence was particularly harsh and showed some of the same slavophobic hellenosupremacism as we see today regarding Moscow and Ukraine. The Tomoi allotted to Eastern European churches of the former Soviet Bloc outline a progressive hollowing out of the concept of autocephaly to the point where it defines permanent servitude of the ‘Daughter’ church and enjoins ecclesiastical colonialization of any other church who recognize it. Each of these grants has occurred in such a way as to give less and take more, and compete with Moscow, as in setting up parallel a jurisdiction in Estonia.

The history of the EP in the last 600 years has been pretty bleak, and every loss it suffered led the Phanar to actions that hurt the greater commonwealth of Eastern Orthodox Churches. There are few bright spots in this story of decline into irrelevance and decadence.
Fulk,
Your point seems to be that the main issue is that EO churches like the MP and Antioch got autocephaly and freed from CP control due to practical events: the Council of Florence and the decline of the Ottoman empire, respectively.

I am asking to verify a factual claim by Tzimis as I laid out above, whether it's true that all EO churches' apostolic succession runs through Constantinople at some point, either because A. They were part of Constantinople's patriarchate and got independence, or B. There was some practical break in their line and Constantinople appointed a new Patriarch for them. eg. I recall hearing that at some point Constantinople appointed a Patriarch for Antioch.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
Fulk,
Your point seems to be that the main issue is that EO churches like the MP and Antioch got autocephaly and freed from CP control due to practical events: the Council of Florence and the decline of the Ottoman empire, respectively.

I am asking to verify a factual claim by Tzimis as I laid out above, whether it's true that all EO churches' apostolic succession runs through Constantinople at some point, either because A. They were part of Constantinople's patriarchate and got independence, or B. There was some practical break in their line and Constantinople appointed a new Patriarch for them. eg. I recall hearing that at some point Constantinople appointed a Patriarch for Antioch.
If C'ple had at some point appointed someone to Patriarchate, it would not change the Dyptichs nor their meaning, nor imply some permanent role in appointments. Any suggestion that is does is entirely novel and contrary to the consensus of the canons and witness of church history. The Orthodox Church does not rely on the EP for any meaningful leadership and it's been abundantly clear for generations if not centuries that the EP is incapable of unifying anything except the Greek homogeneia. To the contrary, the role of the EP these days is to divide the churches through various means, and when called upon to exercise a unifying or adjudicating role, falls down on the job. This is why Antioch boycotted Crete in 2016, because the Phanar responded not at all to Antioch's request to help it sort out the problem with ecclesiastical incursion by Jerusalem in Qatar.
 

Brother Michael

Jr. Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2021
Messages
44
Reaction score
19
Points
8
Location
Encinitas, CA
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Metropolis of San Francisco
A lot of us are following this topic very prayerfully and quite some sadness for all parties involved. I don’t think it helps to see analogies to American politics.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
A lot of us are following this topic very prayerfully and quite some sadness for all parties involved. I don’t think it helps to see analogies to American politics.
Please explain. Reference is obscure to me.
 

Stinky

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
712
Points
113
Location
US
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Near/far
A lot of us are following this topic very prayerfully and quite some sadness for all parties involved. I don’t think it helps to see analogies to American politics.
Please add to the discussion.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Please explain. Reference is obscure to me.
At a very basic level, one difference is that whereas by nature political parties compete for votes, the Churches should try to achieve orthodoxy and communion, ie. common union. In politics, US political parties actually do agree on lots of things and aim to have the best politics for the nation, but there is still an inherent competition for votes. In fact, the competition can be healthy and motivate the parties to have more appealing policies and actions. In the Church model, we are looking for cooperation and common understanding and agreement. InterChurch relations are not a zero sum game.
 

Brother Michael

Jr. Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2021
Messages
44
Reaction score
19
Points
8
Location
Encinitas, CA
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Metropolis of San Francisco
Please add to the discussion.
It is like two beloved and respected uncles who have a disagreement and are having quite an argument about it. There is nothing rational that you can say. For saying anything will hurt the other. All you can do is pray that it ends soon. Particularly, you remember the good times together and that they truly love each other.

You know that Jesus and the Theotokos must be crying with real tears.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
It is like two beloved and respected uncles who have a disagreement and are having quite an argument about it. There is nothing rational that you can say. For saying anything will hurt the other. All you can do is pray that it ends soon. Particularly, you remember the good times together and that they truly love each other.

You know that Jesus and the Theotokos must be crying with real tears.
It is sad.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
How can we counter the possibility of a global split in Orthodoxy? First of all, hope in God, prayer to Him; sincere prayer, with sighing. Let this prayer even be brief, but daily and sincere. If we pray this way for unity, then it will be hard for us to slander our opponents without looking back. This is very important right now. We can criticize their false doctrines, errors, and destructive actions, but we mustn’t cross over to personally insulting hierarchs and humiliating concepts that are sacred for the Greek world, if they’re not heretical, of course. Unfortunately, not all apologists on our side or theirs adhere to these obvious rules of polemics. Sometimes it comes to personal insults and outright rudeness. It can’t bring peace; it’s the devil blowing this wind, especially as offensive words and careless statements mean much more for those of Eastern cultures than for us “northern” peoples. There will be great shame over this when it all settles down later.
...
As for the Greek Church, according to the recent decision of the Holy Synod, “prayerful and Eucharistic communication with those bishops of the Greek Church who have entered or will enter into such communication with representatives of the Ukrainian non-canonical schismatic communities” is stopped. Pilgrimages to dioceses governed by the aforesaid bishops are also not blessed. The list of these hierarchs and dioceses will be complied and published—a very wise and measured decision from the Holy Synod.

At the same time, it should be understood that stopping Eucharistic communion is a disciplinary measure and in no way refers to a lack of grace in the Sacraments celebrated by the aforesaid bishops and in their dioceses. I’m talking about this especially because there has recently been a wide discussion among Orthodox about whether there is grace in the Sacraments celebrated by the hierarchs who recognize the OCU, and whether it’s possible to “catch” schism by serving with Patriarch Bartholomew or praying at a service where Sergei Dumenko (Epiphany) is commemorated, or some other way…
Archbishop Theodosy (Snigiryov) of Boyarka, UOC-MP, https://orthochristian.com/125002.html
 
Last edited:

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,867
Reaction score
81
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Most religious people are more or less against abortion. It’s what you do with that feeling that matters. If you compassionately and personally extend help to frightened pregnant women who may be tempted to terminate their pregnancy, you make a very good case. But just punishing women and doctors with vigilantism to skirt the law is repugnant and not the least bit Christian. Reminds me of a certain novel by Margaret Atwood…
...who hasn't a clue about what she is talking about. And it seems she isn't the only one.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,867
Reaction score
81
Points
48
Location
Chicago
I would be interested to see if someone has a rebuttal to Tzimis' repeated claims that currently all patriarchs would have to trace their apostolic succession through Constantinople.
Where did he make such a goofy claim?
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Where did he make such a goofy claim?
I took Tzimis to be referring to instances when at some point another patriarchal see became vacant and the CP had to send them a patriarch. So for instance at one point the see of Antioch became vacant centuries ago, perhaps due to Islamic conquest and the CP appointed a patriarch for the then-vacant See of Anttime? Maybe thos new replacement was first ordained by a CP bishop. As a result, Tzimis would be implying that Antioch's line succession had to run through Constantinople. I also guess that he could be referring to ordination, and not just the issue of whether a local Church hierarchy selected or approved its patriarch.

I don't recall where he explained his claim the most clearly, and I don't even know if it is correct. For example, was the Patriarch of Georgia ever a bishop first ordained by the CP and not by Georgian clergy, and then were all following Georgian bishops ordained solely by the newly introduced CP line? In other words, were all churches' lines of succession derived from or through the CP due to various mishaps over tome?

Eg. He said:
I think its safe to say that all EO churches received there orthodoxy from the EP and if we treasure apostolic succession, as a result we have to respect where its foundation lay.
Lets say we have a multi generational family. grand father, father and son. Does the son or father neglect the grandfathers opinion?
No, If anything you will always go to the grandfather for his blessing. Is it a Primacy or the last word? Yes and no
Would you want that blessing? Most would say yes. Does it break the unit apart? Probably not
What it does, is make all of them look incompetent an weaker than before.
There is always a danger when over stepping boundaries. We see that with the Pope.
And:
I think the EP's argument is centered around the unbroken chain of apostolic succession and how it relates, moves through time, from its foundations in the Church of Constantinople. It's relevancy not so much as a ruling agent, but as a fatherly figure.
He said about Rome:
Christian Rome was always in the hands of Constantinople. Always in control of it since the onset. The Pope is an eastern plant to control the wests people from a far. That's why there was no emperor there for centuries.
The fracture began when the western pope decided to elect a new Emperor. Which eventually split the empire. As the west gained strength, the east was losing ground to the muslims. One could argue that the pope is a fictitious player in all this. Was planted by the east just to control the masses.
Turned on its owner and ushered in the German rule. They also renamed themselves as the holy roman empire.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
I took Tzimis to be referring to instances when at some point another patriarchal see became vacant and the CP had to send them a patriarch. So for instance at one point the see of Antioch became vacant centuries ago, perhaps due to Islamic conquest and the CP appointed a patriarch for the then-vacant See of Anttime? Maybe thos new replacement was first ordained by a CP bishop. As a result, Tzimis would be implying that Antioch's line succession had to run through Constantinople. I also guess that he could be referring to ordination, and not just the issue of whether a local Church hierarchy selected or approved its patriarch.

I don't recall where he explained his claim the most clearly, and I don't even know if it is correct. For example, was the Patriarch of Georgia ever a bishop first ordained by the CP and not by Georgian clergy, and then were all following Georgian bishops ordained solely by the newly introduced CP line? In other words, were all churches' lines of succession derived from or through the CP due to various mishaps over tome?

Eg. He said:

And:


He said about Rome:
So much tendentious mythology, like a doggerel version of historical poetry or a Phanariot pamphlet composed and distributed by the Order of St. Andrew. Not remotely true.
 
Top