"Ukraine never requested autocephaly"

[NJC]

“The canonical Ukrainian Church, led by [Metropolitan] Onuphry, did not ask for such independence to be granted,” the popular Greek theologian continued.

http://orthochristian.com/118528.html?fbclid=IwAR2SWUd9nN-ks6RBkPscpeegFyI8cpUjtmCmNv6bf7DXYFJIqQyszgMH-6U


Context: I am Oriental Orthodox, but have always had a soft spot for MP/ROCOR and i sympathise with them in this tragic drama playing out between the MP and Constantinople in Ukraine.

However, one thing that continues to rile me is this claim that "Ukraine never requested autocephaly/independence" which i hear over and over again from the MP. The existence of 2 large schismatic bodies full of millions of formerly MP Orthodox Christians and even one former Metropolitan who was a candidate for the Patriarch of Moscow would suggest a large body of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine outside of the canonical Church because of their opposition to Moscow.

Why couldn't Moscow recognize this tragedy - as millions of Ukrainian Orthodox Christians outside of the canonical church is a tragedy - and grant them autocephaly decades ago?

The truth is that "Ukraine (under Mtr. Ornuphry) did not request autocephaly", because the vast majority of those demanding it have previously left that jurisdiction. Which left the door open for Bartholemew. 30 years of schism and the MP still claims "no one requested autocephaly'?

I just wish the MP had some foresight 30 years ago, they could have avoided this mess and prevented this terrible tragedy. I really feel for Ukrainians, they are the victim in all of this, not the MP. They have endured centuries of humiliation, and the 20th century was the worst under the USSR. Every other country around them has autocephaly, why is it such a crime for them to have it?

Rant over.

 

[Dominika]

For some months I've been taking all the news and translations and choices of the texts (especially regarding the Ukrainian topic) from orthochristian with pinch of salt.

The truth is that "Ukraine (under Mtr. Ornuphry) did not request autocephaly", because the vast majority of those demanding it have previously left that jurisdiction. Which left the door open for Bartholemew. 30 years of schism and the MP still claims "no one requested autocephaly'?

Yes.

I just wish the MP had some foresight 30 years ago, they could have avoided this mess and prevented this terrible tragedy.

I suppose it would be greater tragedy for the MP as many parishes and believers were in Ukraine, no in Russia, after decades of communism. And since it was time of re-born of the MP such decision would have been very diffulct, maybe even dangerous. But I agree, it should have been resolved much earlier.

 

[StanislavU]

UOC did request autocephaly. Like all Russian propagandists, that website lies outright.

 

[Iconodule]

OrthoChristian.com is basically a tabloid. I would never take anything they say at face value without checking it in 2-3 other places.

 

[RaphaCam]

I believe the UOC did request for autocephaly and Moscow seriously considered it right before KP entering into schism. Afterwards, it got too tricky.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

Those outside the Church cannot make demands of the Church. They can repent and return to the Church. After an appropriate penance, they may voice their desire but they must respect the Church's decision.

 

[Iconodule]

Those outside the Church cannot make demands of the Church.

They were not outside the church when they requested autocephaly in 1991.

 

[StanislavU]

I believe the UOC did request for autocephaly and Moscow seriously considered it right before KP entering into schism. Afterwards, it got too tricky.

MP pretended to seriously consider it, then pushed KP into schism and 'forgot' about the whole issue.

I cannot believe people don't see that MP acts in bad faith in Ukrainian affair.

 

[RaphaCam]

The MP is not heretic so nothing will ever justify the path the schismatics drew for themselves. Explain, yes. Justify, no.

 

[StanislavU]

The MP is not heretic so nothing will ever justify the path the schismatics drew for themselves. Explain, yes. Justify, no.

Well, thankfully,  EP resolved that schism, so this question is moot. Lasted less than Moscow's own uncanonical autocephaly, too.

 

[Iconodule]

The MP is not heretic so nothing will ever justify the path the schismatics drew for themselves. Explain, yes. Justify, no.

Well, thankfully,  EP resolved that schism, so this question is moot. Lasted less than Moscow's own uncanonical autocephaly, too.

Are you an adherent of the Council of Florence?

 

[StanislavU]

The MP is not heretic so nothing will ever justify the path the schismatics drew for themselves. Explain, yes. Justify, no.

Well, thankfully,  EP resolved that schism, so this question is moot. Lasted less than Moscow's own uncanonical autocephaly, too.

Are you an adherent of the Council of Florence?

Nope. And neither was the EP for most of that uncanonical Moscow autocephaly period. That was resolved by EP. Just like now in Ukraine.

 

[Iconodule]

The MP is not heretic so nothing will ever justify the path the schismatics drew for themselves. Explain, yes. Justify, no.

Well, thankfully,  EP resolved that schism, so this question is moot. Lasted less than Moscow's own uncanonical autocephaly, too.

Are you an adherent of the Council of Florence?

Nope. And neither was the EP for most of that uncanonical Moscow autocephaly period. That was resolved by EP. Just like now in Ukraine.

Unless you are an adherent of the Florence union then your claim that Moscow's autocephaly was uncanonical is incoherent. Anything to stick it to the Russkies, though.

 

[StanislavU]

Unless you are an adherent of the Florence union then your claim that Moscow's autocephaly was uncanonical is incoherent. Anything to stick it to the Russkies, though.

I don't know your credentials on this, but according to Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev (former secretary to Patr. Alexi II, former Professor at Moscow Spiritual Academy, former "prime missionary of the Russian Orthodox Church"), that autocephaly didn't fully adhere to canons. Which is, of course, moot point now, as the Tzar was able to strong-arm the EP into granting Patriarchate status. Fully canonically, no doubt.

 

[Iconodule]

There are no actual canons defining the process of attaining autocephaly, so I would be curious to see what Dcn Andrei's argument is. The question at the heart though is pretty simple: if your mother church falls into heresy, but you don't, what do you do?  You still have to go on existing as a church. Or was the Church of Russia supposed to just suspend operations until the EP came to its senses?

 

[StanislavU]

There are no actual canons defining the process of attaining autocephaly, so I would be curious to see what Dcn Andrei's argument is. The question at the heart though is pretty simple: if your mother church falls into heresy, but you don't, what do you do?  You still have to go on existing as a church. Or was the Church of Russia supposed to just suspend operations until the EP came to its senses?

You "temporarily suspend communication". As ROCOR did, at least on paper. Then you return to the fold and if desire autocephaly, ask the Mother Church and patiently wait until She feels like it. Isn't this the preferred procedure?  ;D But of course, keeping the incumbent EP in captivity until he signs a favorable decree is "vastly more efficient".  8)

Point is, in practice MP operates on "might is right" when it can, and rediscovers "strict adherence to (it's interpretation of) the Canons" when it can't. Always did.

BTW, Dn. Andrei is not a big fan of EP either, just points out that MP's argument is (also) flawed. He says that the right way would be for MP to grant autocephaly to Onufry structure; while pointing out that MP is spectacularly unlikely to do that (both because of internal culture and Kremlin dictates). I'm not sure I buy this 100%.

 

[Iconodule]

There are no actual canons defining the process of attaining autocephaly, so I would be curious to see what Dcn Andrei's argument is. The question at the heart though is pretty simple: if your mother church falls into heresy, but you don't, what do you do?  You still have to go on existing as a church. Or was the Church of Russia supposed to just suspend operations until the EP came to its senses?

You "temporarily suspend communication". As ROCOR did, at least on paper. Then you return to the fold and if desire autocephaly, ask the Mother Church and patiently wait until She feels like it. Isn't this the preferred procedure?  ;D

I'm guessing from your knowing wink that you are well aware that Bulgaria, Serbia, etc. won their autocephaly from Constantinople after much... uncanonical behavior. In fact if you want to find blame for the MP's grasping, bullying attitude toward Ukraine, you will find it in EP and imperial precedents and not some tyrannical gene in Russian DNA.

But of course, keeping the incumbent EP in captivity until he signs a favorable decree is "vastly more efficient".  8)

In fact this method has ecumenical pedigree- see Pope Vigilius and the second council of Constantinople.

Point is, in practice MP operates on "might is right" when it can, and rediscovers "strict adherence to (it's interpretation of) the Canons" when it can't. Always did.

No argument there. Substitute EP for MP and the statement is just as true.

 

[StanislavU]

No argument there. Substitute EP for MP and the statement is just as true.

Yes. In this case though, EP is on the right side of history. Just as when it relented and granted Tomoi on Bulgaria, Serbia, Poland etc. Moscow crying wolf on some procedural inaccuracies (lying in process) has no standing - as they would do the same and worse (actually, did) given the chance.

 

[Antonis]

I believe the UOC did request for autocephaly and Moscow seriously considered it right before KP entering into schism. Afterwards, it got too tricky.

MP pretended to seriously consider it, then pushed KP into schism and 'forgot' about the whole issue.

I cannot believe people don't see that MP acts in bad faith in Ukrainian affair.

With even a cursory knowledge of Filaret’s past, how can you post this seriously?

 

[StanislavU]

With even a cursory knowledge of Filaret’s past, how can you post this seriously?

Cursory knowledge of the former Locum Tenens of the Moscow Patriarchate's "past"? He is flesh from the flesh of the Soviet ROC episcopate; his supposed "sins" are not why he was pushed out. Again, I can't believe this is not obvious to some.

I believe the Church of Ukraine is bigger than the Patr. Emeritus Filaret; he was just an instrument of Providence. Just like Patr. Kirill's background in cigarette and alcohol smuggling and his lifestyle of a wealthy Russian corrupt official (eg., vanishing Rolex, or the "nanodust" lawsuit against the terminally ill neighbour - who happened to be an ordained ROC priest)  does not necessarily render the whole ROC evil.

 

[Antonis]

With even a cursory knowledge of Filaret’s past, how can you post this seriously?

Cursory knowledge of the former Locum Tenens of the Moscow Patriarchate's "past"? He is flesh from the flesh of the Soviet ROC episcopate; his supposed "sins" are not why he was pushed out. Again, I can't believe this is not obvious to some.

I believe the Church of Ukraine is bigger than the Patr. Emeritus Filaret; he was just an instrument of Providence. Just like Patr. Kirill's background in cigarette and alcohol smuggling and his lifestyle of a wealthy Russian corrupt official (eg., vanishing Rolex, or the "nanodust" lawsuit against the terminally ill neighbour - who happened to be an ordained ROC priest)  does not necessarily render the whole ROC evil.

Filaret was and is the defining personality of the KP. To claim he was “pushed” to schism for any reason other than what was quite clearly a bitter power grab is wrong. The fruit of that vine has been shown to be no different.

To the contrary, Patriarch Kirill is not the defining figure of the MP. In its most recent iteration, that would be St Tikhon and the Sobor that elected him. That is not to deny the Church’s unfortunate history of interaction with communism, nor is it to deny those faithful, among them clergy and bishops, who acted honorably despite it all.

 

[StanislavU]

Filaret was and is the defining personality of the KP. To claim he was “pushed” to schism for any reason other than what was quite clearly a bitter power grab is wrong. The fruit of that vine has been shown to be no different.

Filaret is, above all, old and frail. Even in his prime... and highly energetic prime was it... he would not be able to "define" a 6,000-parish church on his own. St. Vladimir's served as a makeshift hoispital and sanctuary during 2013-14 protests - if that was his doing, the fruit of this vine is not all bad.

To the contrary, Patriarch Kirill is not the defining figure of the MP. In its most recent iteration, that would be St Tikhon and the Sobor that elected him. That is not to deny the Church’s unfortunate history of interaction with communism, nor is it to deny those faithful, among them clergy and bishops, who acted honorably despite it all.

I struggle to see how St. Tikhon is the defining figure of the modern MP. If anything, that was Part. Sergiy (Stargorodsky). Patr. Kirill, the "Tobacco Metropolitan", is an archetype in himself.

https://risu.org.ua/ua/index/monitoring/religious_digest/69346/

 

[LizaSymonenko]

Unless you are an adherent of the Florence union then your claim that Moscow's autocephaly was uncanonical is incoherent. Anything to stick it to the Russkies, though.

Pot calling kettle black.  You who will say anything to stick it to the Ukrainians. 

 

[LizaSymonenko]

I believe the UOC did request for autocephaly and Moscow seriously considered it right before KP entering into schism. Afterwards, it got too tricky.

MP pretended to seriously consider it, then pushed KP into schism and 'forgot' about the whole issue.

I cannot believe people don't see that MP acts in bad faith in Ukrainian affair.

With even a cursory knowledge of Filaret’s past, how can you post this seriously?

I'm no supporter of P. Filaret.  However...keep in mind that P. Filaret's past and P. Kirill's are exactly the same.  They both come from the KGB.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

Are all Russians evil? Are Ukrainian Russophones evil? What is your idea of a peaceful outcome? Is forgiveness and reconciliation possible?

 

[NJC]

Those outside the Church cannot make demands of the Church. They can repent and return to the Church. After an appropriate penance, they may voice their desire but they must respect the Church's decision.

That is incredibly arrogant. One could hardly imagine Our Lord saying anything like this. Why is it so hard for the MP to instead go to the lost sheep of Ukraine, in humility and with love? You can't force millions of people in to schism, then declare that you won't do anything for them until they return to your "loving" embrace. All i am calling for is a bit of self-reflection on that part of the MP and all Russians and ask yourselves, what would it feel like if you were in their position?

What if Russia were still, after all these years, under the Ecumenical Patriarch? I bet it would be going in to schism to win it's own autocephaly. Russia is well known for not wanting to be under foreign rule, but then expect that of Ukraine.

 

[rakovsky]

Those outside the Church cannot make demands of the Church. They can repent and return to the Church. After an appropriate penance, they may voice their desire but they must respect the Church's decision.

That is incredibly arrogant. One could hardly imagine Our Lord saying anything like this.

Putting aside for the moment the Ukraine issue, we can certainly find Jesus and the apostles drawing fences between their own group and those outside it and those who reject it.

eg. Luke 11:23 "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters."

You can argue back that the statements need to be put in context or said mercifully, but anyway one can still find sayings that draw fences.

 

[StanislavU]

Are all Russians evil? Are Ukrainian Russophones evil? What is your idea of a peaceful outcome? Is forgiveness and reconciliation possible?

I'm a Ukrainian Russophone. Stop advocating on my behalf, and instead advocate for Russia to get its goons out of my country.

Forgiveness and reconciliation is certainly possible - with strong border and robust sovereignty (and not just for Russia) being basic prerequisites.

 

[StanislavU]

I'm no supporter of P. Filaret.  However...keep in mind that P. Filaret's past and P. Kirill's are exactly the same.  They both come from the KGB.

I'm not sure you could say they are "from the KGB" - but they both collaborated, that's for sure. The only difference is that Filaret acknowledged it.

It's unbelievable. Who could be more characteristic of the Soviet church than the highest-ranked bishop within it? Yet people use him to draw CONTRAST with his former firm. Really? I mean, St. Tikhon is supposed to represent today's ROC, and not a bunch of guys formed in the same nest as Filaret, subservient to the war-criminal regime???

 

[StanislavU]

Those outside the Church cannot make demands of the Church. They can repent and return to the Church. After an appropriate penance, they may voice their desire but they must respect the Church's decision.

That is incredibly arrogant. One could hardly imagine Our Lord saying anything like this.

Putting aside for the moment the Ukraine issue, we can certainly find Jesus and the apostles drawing fences between their own group and those outside it and those who reject it.

eg. Luke 11:23 "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters."

You can argue back that the statements need to be put in context or said mercifully, but anyway one can still find sayings that draw fences.

Russia's own history shows that desiring autocephaly is not a proper reason to erect fences. This is so blatantly in bad faith, and yet people keep ignoring it.

 

[ialmisry]

The MP is not heretic so nothing will ever justify the path the schismatics drew for themselves. Explain, yes. Justify, no.

Well, thankfully,  EP resolved that schism,

No, the Ethnarch of the Phanar just exacerbated it by joining the schism.

so this question is moot.

Not yet, but the Phanar is well on its way joining the Vatican outside the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

Lasted less than Moscow's own uncanonical autocephaly, too.

Since Moscow never had an "uncanonical autoephaly," that claim falls under impossibility.

 

[ialmisry]

The MP is not heretic so nothing will ever justify the path the schismatics drew for themselves. Explain, yes. Justify, no.

Well, thankfully,  EP resolved that schism, so this question is moot. Lasted less than Moscow's own uncanonical autocephaly, too.

Are you an adherent of the Council of Florence?

Nope. And neither was the EP for most of that uncanonical Moscow autocephaly period. That was resolved by EP. Just like now in Ukraine.

Wrong again. And Again.

It was "resolved" by the Patriarchs and Pope of the remaining Pentarchy.
And they resolved it, not exacerbated it like the Ethnarch of the Phanar has done with the Ucrainicans.

 

[StanislavU]

The MP is not heretic so nothing will ever justify the path the schismatics drew for themselves. Explain, yes. Justify, no.

Well, thankfully,  EP resolved that schism, so this question is moot. Lasted less than Moscow's own uncanonical autocephaly, too.

Are you an adherent of the Council of Florence?

Nope. And neither was the EP for most of that uncanonical Moscow autocephaly period. That was resolved by EP. Just like now in Ukraine.

Wrong again. And Again.

It was "resolved" by the Patriarchs and Pope of the remaining Pentarchy.
And they resolved it, not exacerbated it like the Ethnarch of the Phanar has done with the Ucrainicans.

I believe both calling hierarchs by invented mocking titles and misspelling nationalities is against the TOS on this forum.

 

[biro]

It is.

 

[LizaSymonenko]

The MP is not heretic so nothing will ever justify the path the schismatics drew for themselves. Explain, yes. Justify, no.

Well, thankfully,  EP resolved that schism, so this question is moot. Lasted less than Moscow's own uncanonical autocephaly, too.

Are you an adherent of the Council of Florence?

Nope. And neither was the EP for most of that uncanonical Moscow autocephaly period. That was resolved by EP. Just like now in Ukraine.

Wrong again. And Again.

It was "resolved" by the Patriarchs and Pope of the remaining Pentarchy.
And they resolved it, not exacerbated it like the Ethnarch of the Phanar has done with the Ucrainicans.

You have so many typos, that it is difficult to discern what your are trying to convey.  Try using a dictionary.

 

[biro]

Ucrainicans?

 

[rakovsky]

Ucrainicans?

Ucranicos is the Greek adjective for Ukrainian.

 

[biro]

Probably spelled with k's instead of c's.

Also, why would Almisry just suddenly start spelling in Greek? He doesn't even like Greeks.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Yeah, you guys won the argument.

 

[Iconodule]

The MP is not heretic so nothing will ever justify the path the schismatics drew for themselves. Explain, yes. Justify, no.

Well, thankfully,  EP resolved that schism, so this question is moot. Lasted less than Moscow's own uncanonical autocephaly, too.

Are you an adherent of the Council of Florence?

Nope. And neither was the EP for most of that uncanonical Moscow autocephaly period. That was resolved by EP. Just like now in Ukraine.

Wrong again. And Again.

It was "resolved" by the Patriarchs and Pope of the remaining Pentarchy.
And they resolved it, not exacerbated it like the Ethnarch of the Phanar has done with the Ucrainicans.

I believe both calling hierarchs by invented mocking titles and misspelling nationalities is against the TOS on this forum.

It is.

*Unwaning light intensifies*