• 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.)

[PATRIARCH] DENISENKO DISCUSSES ISSUE OF RECOGNITION OF UKRAINIAN AUTOCEPHALY WI

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/98552.htm

I guess UOC-UsA is fine with their churches being taken over.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,314
Reaction score
192
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
mike said:
Alpo said:
WHY IS HEADLINE WRITTEN  WITH CAPS?
BECAUSE PRAVOSLAVIE.RU WRITES HEADLINES LIKE THAT AND MOR MIKE WAS TOO LAZY TO SHIFT-F3 IT IN MS WORD OR COPY IT FROM THE WEBSITE WRITTEN THE NORMAL WAY.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can discuss the topic.  :)
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Wasn't it part of the deal when the Phanar accepted the UOC-USA under its omophorion that they keep out of Ukraine's ecclesiastical controversies?
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
ialmisry said:
Wasn't it part of the deal when the Phanar accepted the UOC-USA under its omophorion that they keep out of Ukraine's ecclesiastical controversies?
That has not been a case for a few years already.

Also, interestingly no mention about that meeting on the UOC-UsA website.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wrong, but not surprising.
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
mike said:
Alpo said:
WHY IS HEADLINE WRITTEN  WITH CAPS?
BECAUSE PRAVOSLAVIE.RU WRITES HEADLINES LIKE THAT AND MOR MIKE WAS TOO LAZY TO SHIFT-F3 IT IN MS WORD OR COPY IT FROM THE WEBSITE WRITTEN THE NORMAL WAY.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can discuss the topic.  :)
:-*
 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
8,736
Reaction score
147
Points
63
Age
23
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
Svartzorn said:
CAN YOU PROVIDE ME WITH SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND SO I CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE?
Now this is a story all about how
Ukraine got twisted, turned upside down
And I'd like to take a minute
Just sit right there
I'll tell you how I became the Patriarch of Kyiv and All Ukraine

In Donetsk Oblast, born and raised
As Metropolitan of Ukraine was when I spent most of my days
Chillin out, maxin', relaxin' all cool
And all expecting to become Patriarch of Moscow
When a couple of hierarchs, who were up to no good
Consecrated Alexis II in the sobor
I got in one little fight and Moscow got scared
And I said 'I'm movin with my people as Patriarch of Kyiv!'


UOC-USA was an older schism that eventually went under the Ecumenical Patriarch, but I don't know how to put this in a Fresh Prince of Bel-Air parody.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,340
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Location
Detroit
Website
uocofusa.org
Just relax, folks. All is well.

There's nothing wrong in talking with each other.

How else will anything ever get accomplished?



 

IreneOlinyk

High Elder
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
902
Reaction score
4
Points
18
LizaSymonenko said:
Just relax, folks. All is well.

There's nothing wrong in talking with each other.

How else will anything ever get accomplished?
Also this is nothing new at all.  Metropolitan Yuri Kalistchuk UOCC (Canada -EP) has been travelling to Ukraine for years and on behalf of the EP has been speaking to the UOC-KP about coming under the EP.  Metropolitan Yuri has been interviewed on TV in Ukraine-so nothing has been secretitive at all.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
IreneOlinyk said:
LizaSymonenko said:
Just relax, folks. All is well.

There's nothing wrong in talking with each other.

How else will anything ever get accomplished?
Also this is nothing new at all.  Metropolitan Yuri Kalistchuk UOCC (Canada -EP) has been travelling to Ukraine for years and on behalf of the EP has been speaking to the UOC-KP about coming under the EP.  Metropolitan Yuri has been interviewed on TV in Ukraine-so nothing has been secretitive at all.
This breaks some of the oldest canons we have.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,340
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Location
Detroit
Website
uocofusa.org
Antonis said:
IreneOlinyk said:
LizaSymonenko said:
Just relax, folks. All is well.

There's nothing wrong in talking with each other.

How else will anything ever get accomplished?
Also this is nothing new at all.  Metropolitan Yuri Kalistchuk UOCC (Canada -EP) has been travelling to Ukraine for years and on behalf of the EP has been speaking to the UOC-KP about coming under the EP.  Metropolitan Yuri has been interviewed on TV in Ukraine-so nothing has been secretitive at all.
This breaks some of the oldest canons we have.
We, as a Church, break Canons all the time.  They were written to fit a particular purpose required at a particular time.

There was a good reason, for example, that Christains were recommended not to utilyze the services of Jewish physicians. That reason is no longer as big a concern...and we now ALL have Jewish doctors.

This issue at hand is the salvation of millions of souls. Ukraine is an independent nation. It is in fact, the Mother of Orthodoxy in the region. However, the faithful, in order to remain "canonical" must go to pray in a Church owned and administrated by their earthly enemies, with whom their nation is currently at war with. Their other option is to attend the "schismatic" KP Church, which then leaves them to be judged as nationalistic and schismatic.

Let's not forget that there is a third option. Perhaps we would prefer that these millions of deeply devout individuals leave Orthodoxy all together. After all, there exist various denominations which would love to pick them up.

Would it not be better that they should remain within the Orthodox Church, and as such help them attain a canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church within Ukraine, independent of Moscow?


 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,340
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Location
Detroit
Website
uocofusa.org
mike said:
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/98552.htm

I guess UOC-UsA is fine with their churches being taken over.
By the way, helping Ukraine gain an independent Church, should not negatively impact the UOCofUSA, which ministers to people in the U.S. not in Ukraine.
 

wgw

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,816
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Cast adrift in a lifeboat of the SS Aurora
The main regrettable aspect of this is I feel as though the Orthodox have been in recent decades railroaded into a sort or capitulation to the idea of national autocephalous churches, which I think is undesirable compared to a model of national autonomous churches subordinated to regional autocephalous patriarchates, but the problem has been the sort of tainting of the historic patriarchates with the national character of their host countries, so that for the Ukrainian nationalist the idea of autonomy under Moscow becomes an intolerable reminder of Soviet and Czarist oppression.  This is certainly understandable, but if we extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion, I dont think the idea of 194 or so autocephalous churches, one for each sovereign temporal power, is very endearing.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,340
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Location
Detroit
Website
uocofusa.org
wgw said:
The main regrettable aspect of this is I feel as though the Orthodox have been in recent decades railroaded into a sort or capitulation to the idea of national autocephalous churches, which I think is undesirable compared to a model of national autonomous churches subordinated to regional autocephalous patriarchates, but the problem has been the sort of tainting of the historic patriarchates with the national character of their host countries, so that for the Ukrainian nationalist the idea of autonomy under Moscow becomes an intolerable reminder of Soviet and Czarist oppression.  This is certainly understandable, but if we extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion, I dont think the idea of 194 or so autocephalous churches, one for each sovereign temporal power, is very endearing.
What is less endearing, is losing millions of faithful to another Faith, or worse yet, to complete apathy and atheism. 

Which is preferable?  Permit people to pray independent from their national oppressors, or simply chase them out of Orthodoxy all together and compromise their very salvation?
 
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
2,354
Reaction score
3
Points
38
LizaSymonenko said:
wgw said:
The main regrettable aspect of this is I feel as though the Orthodox have been in recent decades railroaded into a sort or capitulation to the idea of national autocephalous churches, which I think is undesirable compared to a model of national autonomous churches subordinated to regional autocephalous patriarchates, but the problem has been the sort of tainting of the historic patriarchates with the national character of their host countries, so that for the Ukrainian nationalist the idea of autonomy under Moscow becomes an intolerable reminder of Soviet and Czarist oppression.  This is certainly understandable, but if we extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion, I dont think the idea of 194 or so autocephalous churches, one for each sovereign temporal power, is very endearing.
What is less endearing, is losing millions of faithful to another Faith, or worse yet, to complete apathy and atheism. 

Which is preferable?  Permit people to pray independent from their national oppressors, or simply chase them out of Orthodoxy all together and compromise their very salvation?
That my fear, that maybe Ukrainians might look at Orthodoxy as "Russian" and may find a independent Eastern Catholic Church attractive, or one of the Protestant sects, after all, I was hearing about there being a decent number of Lutherans in Ukraine, that is very surpising to me, or the Ukrainans might just see religion as part of the problem of their nation conflict, and embrace Atheism/Nihilism. What could the Ecumenical Patriarchate do? Wasn't there talkcof him looking into granting autocephalacy to a Ukrainan Church, that might not be a wise choice, as Moscow could retaliate elsewhere. It a mess!
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,340
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Location
Detroit
Website
uocofusa.org
It is a mess....and believe me the vultures are circling waiting to pick off our Orthodox brethren.

Many people will not see a major difference between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics.  After all, the churches are built in the same architectural styles, the melodies, hymns, services, and even the priestly vestments, are pretty much the same. 

The major difference is recognizing the pope and in doing so, all the incorrect dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.  However, most people won't realize that implication.

To them it sounds Orthodox, smells Orthodox and looks Orthodox...so, why not go to them...and pray in your own language and not bow down to the ones who are killing your own people along the borders. 

...and while it is complicated, truly the best thing to save millions of souls would be to allow them to have their own independent Church...which in no way would injure, hinder or weaken the Church.

 

wgw

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,816
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Cast adrift in a lifeboat of the SS Aurora
LizaSymonenko said:
wgw said:
The main regrettable aspect of this is I feel as though the Orthodox have been in recent decades railroaded into a sort or capitulation to the idea of national autocephalous churches, which I think is undesirable compared to a model of national autonomous churches subordinated to regional autocephalous patriarchates, but the problem has been the sort of tainting of the historic patriarchates with the national character of their host countries, so that for the Ukrainian nationalist the idea of autonomy under Moscow becomes an intolerable reminder of Soviet and Czarist oppression.  This is certainly understandable, but if we extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion, I dont think the idea of 194 or so autocephalous churches, one for each sovereign temporal power, is very endearing.
What is less endearing, is losing millions of faithful to another Faith, or worse yet, to complete apathy and atheism. 

Which is preferable?  Permit people to pray independent from their national oppressors, or simply chase them out of Orthodoxy all together and compromise their very salvation?
Obvioisly Ukrainian autocephaly is preferrable to a mass apostasy scenario, but still, I think you can see why continuing down such a path is suboptimal.  If every single political entity develops an autocephalous church, the result would be unmanageability (this by the way is one of my criticisms of Anglicanism; I think the Anglican national church concept is extremely destructive).

Ideally the Moscow Patriarchate would not be perceived as a Russian entity per se but rather as a regional East Slavic Orthodox entity that people could accept as a patriarchate regardless of nationality.

Also consider this: what should happen when sovereign nation states are consolidated?  Should these national churches remain as vestiges of fallen states or of an ancien regime, or should they be consolidated?  Consolidation is itself quite tricky as the experience of the Russian Empire in trying and ultimatrly failing to absorb the Church of Georgia would testify. 
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
LizaSymonenko said:
However, the faithful, in order to remain "canonical" must go to pray in a Church owned and administrated by their earthly enemies, with whom their nation is currently at war with.
You are misleading people.
 

Orest

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
1,567
Reaction score
1
Points
36
wgw said:
The main regrettable aspect of this is I feel as though the Orthodox have been in recent decades railroaded into a sort or capitulation to the idea of national autocephalous churches, which I think is undesirable compared to a model of national autonomous churches subordinated to regional autocephalous patriarchates, but the problem has been the sort of tainting of the historic patriarchates with the national character of their host countries, so that for the Ukrainian nationalist the idea of autonomy under Moscow becomes an intolerable reminder of Soviet and Czarist oppression.  This is certainly understandable, but if we extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion, I dont think the idea of 194 or so autocephalous churches, one for each sovereign temporal power, is very endearing.
The Mother Church of the Ukrainian Orthodox is the EP.  Moscow took over Eastern Ukraine without the permission of the EP.  After the fall of the Russian Empire, the EP as the Mother Church granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox living in Volyna which became part of Poland and the rest of the Orthodox such as Belarusians who found themselves incorporated into the new Polish state.  The EP also granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia.  And the EP looked after the Orthodox in Estonia and Finland former parts of the Russian Empire. 
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Age
75
Location
South Carolina
wgw said:
LizaSymonenko said:
wgw said:
The main regrettable aspect of this is I feel as though the Orthodox have been in recent decades railroaded into a sort or capitulation to the idea of national autocephalous churches, which I think is undesirable compared to a model of national autonomous churches subordinated to regional autocephalous patriarchates, but the problem has been the sort of tainting of the historic patriarchates with the national character of their host countries, so that for the Ukrainian nationalist the idea of autonomy under Moscow becomes an intolerable reminder of Soviet and Czarist oppression.  This is certainly understandable, but if we extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion, I dont think the idea of 194 or so autocephalous churches, one for each sovereign temporal power, is very endearing.
What is less endearing, is losing millions of faithful to another Faith, or worse yet, to complete apathy and atheism. 

Which is preferable?  Permit people to pray independent from their national oppressors, or simply chase them out of Orthodoxy all together and compromise their very salvation?
Obvioisly Ukrainian autocephaly is preferrable to a mass apostasy scenario, but still, I think you can see why continuing down such a path is suboptimal.  If every single political entity develops an autocephalous church, the result would be unmanageability (this by the way is one of my criticisms of Anglicanism; I think the Anglican national church concept is extremely destructive).

Ideally the Moscow Patriarchate would not be perceived as a Russian entity per se but rather as a regional East Slavic Orthodox entity that people could accept as a patriarchate regardless of nationality.

Also consider this: what should happen when sovereign nation states are consolidated?  Should these national churches remain as vestiges of fallen states or of an ancien regime, or should they be consolidated?  Consolidation is itself quite tricky as the experience of the Russian Empire in trying and ultimatrly failing to absorb the Church of Georgia would testify.
This discussion shows the relative importance of the several elements that make up the Holy Tradition. I think all of us would agree that within our Holy Tradition there is a hierarchy of authority (in descending order): Holy Bible as interpreted by the Church, the Apostolic Fathers, the ecumenical councils, later fathers, etc... The problem with the argument for regional churches (as opposed to national churches) is twofold. First, our Lord did not say baptize and make disciples of all Roman administrative regions but "of all nations." Second, Saint Ignatius defined the Church as a bishop surrounded by his priests, deacons, laity; he said nothing of any political entity.
 

wgw

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,816
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Cast adrift in a lifeboat of the SS Aurora
Orest said:
wgw said:
The main regrettable aspect of this is I feel as though the Orthodox have been in recent decades railroaded into a sort or capitulation to the idea of national autocephalous churches, which I think is undesirable compared to a model of national autonomous churches subordinated to regional autocephalous patriarchates, but the problem has been the sort of tainting of the historic patriarchates with the national character of their host countries, so that for the Ukrainian nationalist the idea of autonomy under Moscow becomes an intolerable reminder of Soviet and Czarist oppression.  This is certainly understandable, but if we extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion, I dont think the idea of 194 or so autocephalous churches, one for each sovereign temporal power, is very endearing.
The Mother Church of the Ukrainian Orthodox is the EP.  Moscow took over Eastern Ukraine without the permission of the EP.  After the fall of the Russian Empire, the EP as the Mother Church granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox living in Volyna which became part of Poland and the rest of the Orthodox such as Belarusians who found themselves incorporated into the new Polish state.  The EP also granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia.  And the EP looked after the Orthodox in Estonia and Finland former parts of the Russian Empire.
The presence of the EP in Estonia and Finland has not been without some controversy.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LizaSymonenko said:
Antonis said:
IreneOlinyk said:
LizaSymonenko said:
Just relax, folks. All is well.

There's nothing wrong in talking with each other.

How else will anything ever get accomplished?
Also this is nothing new at all.  Metropolitan Yuri Kalistchuk UOCC (Canada -EP) has been travelling to Ukraine for years and on behalf of the EP has been speaking to the UOC-KP about coming under the EP.  Metropolitan Yuri has been interviewed on TV in Ukraine-so nothing has been secretitive at all.
This breaks some of the oldest canons we have.
We, as a Church, break Canons all the time.  They were written to fit a particular purpose required at a particular time.

There was a good reason, for example, that Christains were recommended not to utilyze the services of Jewish physicians. That reason is no longer as big a concern...and we now ALL have Jewish doctors.

This issue at hand is the salvation of millions of souls. Ukraine is an independent nation. It is in fact, the Mother of Orthodoxy in the region. However, the faithful, in order to remain "canonical" must go to pray in a Church owned and administrated by their earthly enemies, with whom their nation is currently at war with. Their other option is to attend the "schismatic" KP Church, which then leaves them to be judged as nationalistic and schismatic.

Let's not forget that there is a third option. Perhaps we would prefer that these millions of deeply devout individuals leave Orthodoxy all together. After all, there exist various denominations which would love to pick them up.

Would it not be better that they should remain within the Orthodox Church, and as such help them attain a canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church within Ukraine, independent of Moscow?
There are thousands in the world without churches at all. It would be better if Ukrainians would crucify their ego and go to canonical churches. If they want greater autonomy, they can go about seeking that in canonical ways, knowing that they may or may not get what they want. And, if a hierarch doesn't get a promotion he wants, it is better to humbly accept it than crown himself and cleave millions from the Church.

Also, my doctor is an Orthodox Serb. ;)
 

wgw

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,816
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Cast adrift in a lifeboat of the SS Aurora
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
wgw said:
LizaSymonenko said:
wgw said:
The main regrettable aspect of this is I feel as though the Orthodox have been in recent decades railroaded into a sort or capitulation to the idea of national autocephalous churches, which I think is undesirable compared to a model of national autonomous churches subordinated to regional autocephalous patriarchates, but the problem has been the sort of tainting of the historic patriarchates with the national character of their host countries, so that for the Ukrainian nationalist the idea of autonomy under Moscow becomes an intolerable reminder of Soviet and Czarist oppression.  This is certainly understandable, but if we extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion, I dont think the idea of 194 or so autocephalous churches, one for each sovereign temporal power, is very endearing.
What is less endearing, is losing millions of faithful to another Faith, or worse yet, to complete apathy and atheism. 

Which is preferable?  Permit people to pray independent from their national oppressors, or simply chase them out of Orthodoxy all together and compromise their very salvation?
Obvioisly Ukrainian autocephaly is preferrable to a mass apostasy scenario, but still, I think you can see why continuing down such a path is suboptimal.  If every single political entity develops an autocephalous church, the result would be unmanageability (this by the way is one of my criticisms of Anglicanism; I think the Anglican national church concept is extremely destructive).

Ideally the Moscow Patriarchate would not be perceived as a Russian entity per se but rather as a regional East Slavic Orthodox entity that people could accept as a patriarchate regardless of nationality.

Also consider this: what should happen when sovereign nation states are consolidated?  Should these national churches remain as vestiges of fallen states or of an ancien regime, or should they be consolidated?  Consolidation is itself quite tricky as the experience of the Russian Empire in trying and ultimatrly failing to absorb the Church of Georgia would testify.
This discussion shows the relative importance of the several elements that make up the Holy Tradition. I think all of us would agree that within our Holy Tradition there is a hierarchy of authority (in descending order): Holy Bible as interpreted by the Church, the Apostolic Fathers, the ecumenical councils, later fathers, etc... The problem with the argument for regional churches (as opposed to national churches) is twofold. First, our Lord did not say baptize and make disciples of all Roman administrative regions but "of all nations." Second, Saint Ignatius defined the Church as a bishop surrounded by his priests, deacons, laity; he said nothing of any political entity.
From the St. Ignatius argument one cannot readily infer any directions regarding the organization of hierarchs, but we know that at least since the second century, there was a hierarchy. 

Now regarding the directions of our Lord, forgive me, but I see no instruction therein to have autocephalous national churches.  Make disciples of all the nations obviously refers to the goyyim, or gentiles, referred to in Hebrew with a word that translates as "nations," and is an instruction to not limit the faith to the Jews.

Now that being said, while there is certainly no explicit instruction to have national autocephalous churches, there is also no prohibition thereof, and indeed two major portions of the OO communion are the old national churches of Ethiopia and Armenia.  However the idea of the need for national autocephaly I think led to an arguably premature independence for the Eritrean Orthodox, the patriarchy of which haw since been appropriated by their national regime, so I think this should serve as a cautionary tale about the kind of problems that can occur (yes, the monasteries are fighting back, but all that provides is a sort of provisional government in exile).
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
wgw said:
Orest said:
wgw said:
The main regrettable aspect of this is I feel as though the Orthodox have been in recent decades railroaded into a sort or capitulation to the idea of national autocephalous churches, which I think is undesirable compared to a model of national autonomous churches subordinated to regional autocephalous patriarchates, but the problem has been the sort of tainting of the historic patriarchates with the national character of their host countries, so that for the Ukrainian nationalist the idea of autonomy under Moscow becomes an intolerable reminder of Soviet and Czarist oppression.  This is certainly understandable, but if we extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion, I dont think the idea of 194 or so autocephalous churches, one for each sovereign temporal power, is very endearing.
The Mother Church of the Ukrainian Orthodox is the EP.  Moscow took over Eastern Ukraine without the permission of the EP.  After the fall of the Russian Empire, the EP as the Mother Church granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox living in Volyna which became part of Poland and the rest of the Orthodox such as Belarusians who found themselves incorporated into the new Polish state.  The EP also granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia.  And the EP looked after the Orthodox in Estonia and Finland former parts of the Russian Empire.
The presence of the EP in Estonia and Finland has not been without some controversy.
Yes. In the case of the former, where there was once one church, there are now two: one led by a Greek bishop with empty churches and one led by an Estonian bishop with full churches.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,314
Reaction score
192
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Orest said:
The Mother Church of the Ukrainian Orthodox is the EP.  Moscow took over Eastern Ukraine without the permission of the EP.  After the fall of the Russian Empire, the EP as the Mother Church granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox living in Volyna which became part of Poland and the rest of the Orthodox such as Belarusians who found themselves incorporated into the new Polish state.  The EP also granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia.  And the EP looked after the Orthodox in Estonia and Finland former parts of the Russian Empire.
"...the Patriarchate (of Alexandria) and all the Orthodox Churches of the world are close to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church."

http://www.romfea.gr/patriarxeia-ts/patriarxeio-alexandreias/9112-patriarxis-alejandreias-o-oukranias-onoufrios-einai-agios-anthropos

https://youtu.be/_g4AbSuaPYc
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Orest said:
The Mother Church of the Ukrainian Orthodox is the EP.  Moscow took over Eastern Ukraine without the permission of the EP.
Once again:

Iconodule said:
Orest said:
ICXCNIKA said:
rakovsky said:
Putting aside politics for the moment, consider that currently there is already a canonical church in Ukraine - the UOC-MP. That church is currently recognized by the EP, and even if the EP recognizes the UOP-KP as a new church, it will still be recognizing the UOC-MP. So it will end up recognizing two Ukrainian churches in Ukraine.

Consider also that the EP gave a tomos to Ukrainian church to be under the MP as Isa said.

The implication if the EP newly-recognizes the UOP-KP over the UOC-MP's objections will be that the EP claims for itself the right to create new national churches under its wings anywhere it wants to even if it already recognizes a native church someplace. So the EP will be claiming the right to set up a new "Russian Church - EP" if it wants to in Russia. It could set up a new "Church of Serbia - Ecumenical Patriarch" if it wants to. It could recognize two autocephalous "Churches of Poland".

It is not a workable precedent.
Excellent point. I would just point out that it can work both ways. Should the EP interfere in the Ukraine and attempt to recognize schismatics as UOC-EP than there can be set up an Ecumenical Patriarchate-MP, Ecumenical Patriarchate-BP etc.
You just keep ignoring the fact that the EP considers itself to be the Mother Church of Ukraine so it is not interfering.
Two problems here: 1. The original Kiev see was moved to Moscow. The EP did not recognize this immediately, but eventually did in the 16th century. 2. Today's Kiev see was founded by the EP again in the 14th century, taking advantage of the political separation of Ukraine from Muscovy. This see was transferred to Moscow's jurisdiction with the EP's agreement in the 17th century.

Since both historic Kievan sees founded by the EP are now firmly under the jurisdiction of Moscow, by the EP's agreement, on what grounds does the EP claim to have any jurisdiction in Ukraine?
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,340
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Location
Detroit
Website
uocofusa.org
Really?

Since this isn't the Political section...I will bite my tongue....but, I would disagree with your statement.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
LizaSymonenko said:
Really?

Since this isn't the Political section...I will bite my tongue....but, I would disagree with your statement.
And I would say you purposely keep misleading other forum users.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Orest said:
wgw said:
The main regrettable aspect of this is I feel as though the Orthodox have been in recent decades railroaded into a sort or capitulation to the idea of national autocephalous churches, which I think is undesirable compared to a model of national autonomous churches subordinated to regional autocephalous patriarchates, but the problem has been the sort of tainting of the historic patriarchates with the national character of their host countries, so that for the Ukrainian nationalist the idea of autonomy under Moscow becomes an intolerable reminder of Soviet and Czarist oppression.  This is certainly understandable, but if we extrapolate the trend to its logical conclusion, I dont think the idea of 194 or so autocephalous churches, one for each sovereign temporal power, is very endearing.
The Mother Church of the Ukrainian Orthodox is the EP.  Moscow took over Eastern Ukraine without the permission of the EP.  After the fall of the Russian Empire, the EP as the Mother Church granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox living in Volyna which became part of Poland and the rest of the Orthodox such as Belarusians who found themselves incorporated into the new Polish state.  The EP also granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia.  And the EP looked after the Orthodox in Estonia and Finland former parts of the Russian Empire.
The Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' was translated to Moscow before there was a Ukraine, a Russia or a Belarussia, where, not following the EP in kissing the papal foot, the Metropolitan became the autocephalous, and then the Patriarchate of Moscow. His successor, the Estonian bred, baptised, consecrated and speaking Patriarch Alexei II of blessed memory, had no need of the Phanar "looking after" the Orthodoxy of his homeland. His predecessor, Patriarch Alexei I, granted autocephaly to Czechoslovakia and North America-the Phanar not having canonical jurisdiction over either, it couldn't grant autocephaly any more than it can grant it to Ukraine, as the abortive autocephaly of Poland shows.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
ialmisry said:
The Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' was translated to Moscow before there was a Ukraine, a Russia or a Belarussia, where, not following the EP in kissing the papal foot, the Metropolitan became the autocephalous, and then the Patriarchate of Moscow.
With, I should add, the EP's eventual agreement. So when the EP then founded another see in Kiev in the 14th century, it was doing so uncanonically. And yet even this see was transferred to the MP's jurisdiction with the EP's agreement. So there is zero grounds for any claim to the EP having jurisdiction over Ukraine- it relinquished its jurisdiction not once but twice
 

IreneOlinyk

High Elder
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
902
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
The Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' was translated to Moscow before there was a Ukraine, a Russia or a Belarussia, where, not following the EP in kissing the papal foot, the Metropolitan became the autocephalous, and then the Patriarchate of Moscow.
With, I should add, the EP's eventual agreement. So when the EP then founded another see in Kiev in the 14th century, it was doing so uncanonically. And yet even this see was transferred to the MP's jurisdiction with the EP's agreement. So there is zero grounds for any claim to the EP having jurisdiction over Ukraine- it relinquished its jurisdiction not once but twice.
You are making sense.  The man who was maetropolitan of Kyiv moved to Novgorod and Moscow and even came back to Kyiv for a brief bit.  This as due to the Tartar invasions.  Do you have any documents to proove that the EP approved of the move to Moscow?  Churches continued to exist in what is now Ukraine and Belarus and the other hierarchs continued to live intheir eparchies.  In the Tomos granting autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Poland, the EP states that the annexation of Eastern Ukraine was not approved.  That is the basis for the granting of autocephay to Poland, Czechoslovakia and autonomy to Finland.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
IreneOlinyk said:
You are making sense.
Thanks.

The man who was maetropolitan of Kyiv moved to Novgorod and Moscow and even came back to Kyiv for a brief bit.
You've got that wrong. It was Metropolitan Maximus of Kyiv who moved to Vladimir (not Novgorod) and then his successor Peter moved to Moscow. He and his successors never moved the see back to Kyiv. Throughout this entire period the see was referred to as "Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus". Both Maximus (a Greek) and Peter had been duly recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, when Maximus moved to Vladimir, the EP founded another see in Kyiv with Metropolitan Niphont. Niphont and Maximus both died in the same year; the EP then consecrated Peter as the successor to both, and it was Peter who made the move to Moscow.

Do you have any documents to proove that the EP approved of the move to Moscow?
The EP continued approving the Metropolitans of Kiev with their see in Moscow after Peter, until the proclamation of autocephaly by Jonah. Peter's successor, Theognostus, was a Greek from Constantinople. So it would stand to reason that the EP did not have any objection to this move. It made sense because the political instability of Halych and Volynia. However, the EP would also take advantage of the instability to consecrate parallel lines in the latter territories. Both sees had the title "Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus" but clearly the one that relocated to Moscow is the more ancient. In any case all the EP eventually ceded all claims to Ukraine to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686, so any way you look at it, the EP has no business interfering in Ukraine today.
 

IreneOlinyk

High Elder
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
902
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Iconodule:  maybe I am expressing myself poorly.
Let me try again:
  Metropolitan Maxim of Kyiv moved first to Vladimir in either 1299 or 1300 around 1325 Metropolitan Peter moved to Moscow.  However, a new metropolitan of Kyiv -  Hrihory Ysamblak was consecrated Metropolitan of Kyiv in 1415 under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.  So the church in what is now Ukraine & Belarus was not under Moscow but had its own hierarchy under its mother Church of Constantinople. 
See Page: 72 of Metropolitan Ilarion, The Ukrainian Church.  Outlines of the History of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  Winnipeg, 1986. 
I have read some recent articles on the move by metropolitans Maxim & Peter by modern scholars discussing the problems of the move using primary sources such as ancient chronicles and so on.  Mention was made of travel and moving around until the final settlement in Moscow.  Also because of the Tartar attacks and Moscow's relationship with the Tartars, during this troubled period the Patriarch of Constantinople had more contact with what is now Ukraine & Belarus than with Moscow. 
I thought I saved the articles to my computer but cannot find them.  I know that I read them online and will try to do a goodgle search to find them again.  Another point is recently there has been some very good scholarship on Church history in this area and because -  with the fall of communism church history is being researched again and now scholars have access to libraries containing preimary sources. 
 
Top