LOL.
Rather, you should search the history of the canonical praxis of the Orthodox Church before you assErt yours.
the part you want to adopt and impose on the Orthodox Church.
St. Chrysostom wasn't
Also, the EP hinting that they'll revisit the question of autocephaly for Macedonia and Montenegro simply to stick it to the Serbs for siding with the MP over Ukraine. Nasty, vindictive threats that bring a Cold War mentality to Orthodoxy.
Then, they could become Protestants.
You mean Barbarians who adopted the hellenic culture.
It was adopted once authoritarianism went out the door.
The EP is without an emperor, so in absence of one adjustments are made.
The Ucrainicans already have. The Phanar's fake authorization of that makes quite a heretical mess of papalism and Protestantism the Orthodox should cast out the sooner the better.
No, St. John Chrysostom descended from Hellas, but as a Roman, Hellenic culture meant pagan culture to him.
No, Orthodox canonical praxis always stood as the rule. As Old Rome found out, authoritarianism could only be adopted by its pontiff only once he walked out the doors of Orthodoxy.
When you learn to show respect to a nation of individuals, and refer to them correctly, perhaps then I might actually read and consider your posts... as for now you just seem like an unhappy little boy.
In fairness, Isa is referring to a minor nationalist sect, sadly backed by the Phanar, not to an entire nation.
Who are these "Ucrainicans"? (a quick google search yielded nothing)
So prior to the current controversy, there were two positions: the Ecumenical Patriarchate held that the Church as a whole, either in council or in comparable mechanisms, grants autocephaly and it can't be done unilaterally. See, for example, here and here. Russia, on the other hand, held that a mother church (not in the sense of 'the church that historically evangelized an area', but rather in the more precise canonical sense of the church on whose holy synod a given group of bishops sit) could grant autocephaly more or less unilaterally, pending wider recognition, as was the case with the OCA. They both agreed, in preparation for the 2016 Council of Crete, to a document that made it a decision for the entire Church, coordinated by both the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the mother church. They disagreed, however, about the manner in which a tomos of autocephaly should be signed: Constantinople wanted its signature at the top alone, while Moscow insisted that the signature of Constantinople and the mother church be side by side. This sounds petty, but Constantinople has a history of trying to use interpretations of symbolic gestures to make substantial ecclesiological claims, so most of the other churches are careful about this sort of thing now. In the event, the document was scrapped due to lack of agreement well before it was announced that four churches would not participate at Crete. Constantinople, however, used this lack of agreement as a chance to drastically revise its own understanding of how autocephaly should be granted.
In the case of Bulgaria, the Bulgarian bishops who unilaterally proclaimed their own autocephaly had been canonical bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which condemned them in a council where the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch also agreed (and that of Jerusalem, oddly, did not). This condemnation was not, however universally recognized, and the Bulgarians received tacit support from Russia and the Romanians. In the case of the current 'autocephalous' Orthodox Church of Ukraine, there are three sources of bishops: 1) those who had been part of the Kiev Patriarchate, whose leadership was anathematized and excommunicated by Moscow--- an act, crucially, recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople: see here and here. 2) the so-called Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, whose bishops have extremely dubious apostolic succession. 3) Two bishops, of which one was an auxiliary, from the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. So, there are two major differences between the Bulgarian and Ukrainian situations: 1) While in Bulgaria all the bishops were originally canonical and only a tiny minority rejected autocephaly to stay with Constantinople, in Ukraine the vast majority of canonical bishops rejected autocephally granted by a third-party church. 2) The existence of the bishops in the new Ukrainian church whose very ordinations are of dubious validity. Additionally, it is difficult to understand how the Patriarchate of Constantinople can renege on having twice recognized Moscow's "exclusive competence" to excommunicate and anathematize Filaret, the leader of the Kiev Patriarchate.
This is just Isa's joking way to refer to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, implying that they are analogous to Anglicans as a nationalistically-motivated movement.
Exactly, except I would say "being used" by the Phanar. To the detriment of an entire nation not belonging to it.
To date, the OCU is a success. The churches are filled. How are the churches you visit? I know mine is hardly what I would call "full"... so, I find it a blessing for the faithful in Ukraine, that they can avail of a parish that uses the language of the people, and prays for their wellbeing.
Plus it wasn't started as an ecclesiastical Frankenstein project by regularizing universally reknown schismatics in the canonical territory of another Patrarchate.
So are the mega churches and the mosques. The question is WHOSE success they represent. "Broad the road and wide the gate...."
Pretty full, but fuller and more is always nicer. Of course, they do not depend on seizing Churches and the State suppressing rivals for that.
No. Why would I?
So are the mega churches and the mosques. The question is WHOSE success they represent. "Broad the road and wide the gate...."
Pretty full, but fuller and more is always nicer. Of course, they do not depend on seizing Churches and the State suppressing rivals for that.
No. Why would I?
In fact, I would have preferred that the Patriarchate of Moscow had issued a similar Tomos as the OCA's to UOC long ago.
Oh? Like who?
Don't know about that.
Who is "they"?
Quite a bit of revisionism going on there.
He is not all you think, the ethnarch of the Phanar is so much more....
au contraire-throwing the whole of the canons, praxis and dogma of the Orthodox Church under the bus to serve an ethnophyletist agenda threatens any upholding the Church and Her canons, praxis and dogma.
It is not Christian to rejoice at schismatics trying to rip the Church apart with their pseudu-hiearchies, ersatz apostolic succession, and wanna be supreme pontiff. See what St. Ignatius warns about those who gather in separation for rival "eucharist"s.
One does not have to support the MP, blindly or otherwise, to oppose the Ucrainicans. The Ethnarch of the Phanar is not all you think, he is so much more....
Praying for and correcting the wayward demonstrates love for them, not confirming them in their heretical schismatic folly.
This is precisely how a certain kind of Ukrainian, primarily, but not exclusively, found in the diaspora and Galicia, is about Russia.
What's funny is that my priest is actually from the westernmost part of Ukraine and speaks Russian with a heavy Ukrainian dialect (and is fairly patriotic in this regard) and is as opposed as one can be against the pseudo church structure the Phanar has created in Ukraine. And contrary to what Ukrainian Cold War jurisdictions close to the CIA want to make people believe over in North America, the Phanar's project does not have any substantial popular support at all. Not in the Ukraine itself and neither in the diaspora. And the 300.000 people (among them a parishioner of mine) marching with Metropolitan Onuphry on this year's Baptism of Rus' celebration also give a different witness.
You're deliberately misconstruing the issues. The presence of self-ordained UAOC people in the OCU disqualifies the entire enterprise before one discusses the more complicated issue of the KP people. However, Archbishop Anastasios-- no one's idea of a Russophile-- has explained the serious canonical issues with admitting the KP clergy by Constantinople-- they refused to repent of their schism and return to the church that they left. Patriarch Bartholomew twice, in writing, recognized the Moscow Patriarchate's exclusive competency (his words) to issue and to lift anathemas on the KP clergy. He has no moral or canonical right to suddenly change his mind. The issue here isn't about the Ukrainian nation or about Russia, it's about the danger of letting fake bishops into the Church and the scandal of Patriarch Bartholomew's rank dishonesty and grubbing for power.
When I met a subject of the Vatican from L'viv who was strongly Russophile to the point of having no problem with classes at Kiev University being in Russian, it just solidified that Svaboda mentality was not at the core of Ukrainstvo.
I guess it all depends on what sacrifices people are willing to make. If none, they'll fall in line, if any, we'll see.
Doesn't every Slavic church use Church Slavonic in their services anyway? Or is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Epiphanius using Ukrainian in their services?
I did want to comment on this. At least in Kiev, it looks like support is predominatently for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onufriy; otherwise, would these hundreds of thousands of people have been able to process freely through the streets of the capital? As well as this, the Ecumenical Patriarch's goal was to unite all Ukrainian Orthodox churches into one autocephalous church, but a year later the bishop Filaret and his flock decided to leave Metropilitan Epiphanius's Ukrainian Orthodox Church to re-establish their own schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Aren't we all? But the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church, of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and of the (possibly schismatic) Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Epiphanius have been dragged into this mess.
It would be very messy in Mount Athos, but freedom of religion in the United States would allow the Athonite monasteries to leave the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and I believe they would do so. In Greece however, state authorities enforce the decisions of the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, meaning that the Greek government would force Mount Athos to remain under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, despite the fact a lot of Athonite monasteries on Athos would probably want to leave.
No... not all "Slavic" Churches use Church Slavonic.
The OCA was granted autocephaly by Moscow, her mother Patriarch, whereas the OCU was granted autocephaly unilaterally from a Patriarch that had no canonical jurisdiction over Ukraine.
If you go back and look at the actual history... he had every right to do so. The EP never relinquished Kyiv to the MP.
