What's going on with the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Russian Patriarch Kirill?

[Averoff]

Constantinople appears to be pushing the prospects of one side in the Ukranian schism, while Russia backs the other side. Anybody know why Patriarch Bartholomew got involved in this? Really Byzantine in the original sense of the word.

Please use proper titles in accordance with forum rules. Thanks. —Ainnir

 

[Averoff]

Patriarch is not proper title?

 

[Asteriktos]

He considers himself "the spiritual leader" of all the Orthodox in the world, so it's kind of his jam... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Averoff]

Hey, I meant no disrespect. I thought Patriarch was a legitimate title. If it isn't, let me know.

 

[Katechon]

Because the Patriarchate of Constantinople is a CIA asset since Patriarch Athenagoras' times.

 

[Opus118]

Because the Patriarchate of Constantinople is a CIA asset since Patriarch Athenagoras' times.

OK, Archbishop Athenagoras as a US citizen tried to enlist in the US army the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. There is a picture of him and Wendell Willkie (the Republican that ran against FDR) at the draft board in the NY Times. Maybe he informed the OSS of things of interest during WWII where the atheistic USSR and hedonistic Nazi Germany initially worked together, and possibly post WWII with respect to the atheistic USSR government.

What I do not know is what you found out about H.A.H Patriarch Bartholomew.

Not to detract from the significance you found out (it is certainly relevant) the relationship between the KGB and past/current hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church are clear (look up The Mikhailov Files: Patriarch Kirill and the KGB). I will send a link if needed. I personally have no problem with this. This was a Church struggling to survive.

 

[Saxon]

OK, Archbishop Athenagoras as a US citizen tried to enlist in the US army the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. There is a picture of him and Wendell Willkie (the Republican that ran against FDR) at the draft board in the NY Times. Maybe he informed the OSS of things of interest during WWII where the atheistic USSR and hedonistic Nazi Germany initially worked together, and possibly post WWII with respect to the atheistic USSR government.

What I do not know is what you found out about H.A.H Patriarch Bartholomew.

Not to detract from the significance you found out (it is certainly relevant) the relationship between the KGB and past/current hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church are clear (look up The Mikhailov Files: Patriarch Kirill and the KGB). I will send a link if needed. I personally have no problem with this. This was a Church struggling to survive.

Pope John Paul II was also a CIA asset.

Anyway, sure, Moscow was compromised by the KGB, the Romanian Orthodox Church eventually cultivated a mutually-beneficial relationship with the Ceausescu regime, while the Serbs and Bulgarians found less conspicuous ways of "getting along" with their own Cold War-era overlords. And there are still plenty of hierarchs and clergy with "dirty hands" from this time in office. It was what they had to do to avoid oblivion back then. The difference is that the EP has let itself become the tool of US foreign policy in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and Near East. And you might be able to make the case that it isn't dissimilar to Cold War priorities - the EP exists in a country that despises any remnant of Hellenic Orthodox civilization and holds on by the skin of its teeth through monies funneled in from North America and Western Europe. Certainly some political influence flows from Washington to ensure more literal protection of the EP in return for destabilizing Russian interests in the region, with the churches perfectly situated to effect that. What Patriarch Bartholomew is presiding over is much more nefarious, given the implications for Orthodox believers in the regions concerned.

 

[Menas17]

The Synod of the Church of Russia is meeting in November (I think?) to decide whether or not they will formally anathematize Patriarch Bartholomew. If they do indeed decide to do this then it will be a game changer for world Orthodoxy since anathematizing is a huge deal...I mean a break in communion is one thing that is major but a formal anathema is another step.

 

[Ariend]

The Synod of the Church of Russia is meeting in November (I think?) to decide whether or not they will formally anathematize Patriarch Bartholomew. If they do indeed decide to do this then it will be a game changer for world Orthodoxy since anathematizing is a huge deal...I mean a break in communion is one thing that is major but a formal anathema is another step.

What would be the difference between a schism and an anathema for Russian Orthodox faithful? They already can't participate in sacraments in EP parishes/monasteries (except for Saint Panteleimon Monastery in Mount Athos). I don't know how much more harm it can do.

 

[Samn!]

What would be the difference between a schism and an anathema for Russian Orthodox faithful? They already can't participate in sacraments in EP parishes/monasteries (except for Saint Panteleimon Monastery in Mount Athos). I don't know how much more harm it can do.

It would effectively require the MP to break communion with those churches that are currently in communion with both. Not to mention further opening up an ecclesiological can of worms.

 

[TheTrisagion]

When was the last time a Patriarch was anathematized?

 

[Saxon]

It would effectively require the MP to break communion with those churches that are currently in communion with both. Not to mention further opening up an ecclesiological can of worms.

Which I believe the MP, and ROCOR by extension, would be just fine with given their self-perception relative to other Orthodox jurisdictions.

 

[Menas17]

When was the last time a Patriarch was anathematized?

1054? If there is another time I can not think of it

 

[Menas17]

It would effectively require the MP to break communion with those churches that are currently in communion with both. Not to mention further opening up an ecclesiological can of worms.

Maybe we will get lucky and that wont officially happen. But, the erroneous ecclesiology of Constantinople must be stamped out before it gets much worse, right now they have been met with little actual opposition.

 

[Tzimis]

Hey, I meant no disrespect. I thought Patriarch was a legitimate title. If it isn't, let me know.

His Eminence Bartholomew, official title is Ecumenical Patriarch.

 

[Asteriktos]

1054? If there is another time I can not think of it

I guess the 17th century Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris, was anathematized (accused of being a Calvinist). I'm a bit confused as to whether this was ever removed, or if it is has remained in some kind of ecclesiastical grey area.

 

[Tzimis]

Maybe we will get lucky and that wont officially happen. But, the erroneous ecclesiology of Constantinople must be stamped out before it gets much worse, right now they have been met with little actual opposition.

So, It's ok with you that the newly formed Russian state, control the direction of the church?

 

[RaphaCam]

I guess the 17th century Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris, was anathematized (accused of being a Calvinist). I'm a bit confused as to whether this was ever removed, or if it is has remained in some kind of ecclesiastical grey area.

He was glorified by the Church of Alexandria, so...

 

[Samn!]

I guess the 17th century Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris, was anathematized (accused of being a Calvinist). I'm a bit confused as to whether this was ever removed, or if it is has remained in some kind of ecclesiastical grey area.

I believe only his Confession was condemned, deliberately without attributing it to him personally, in order to save everyone embarrassment.

 

[Samn!]

Maybe we will get lucky and that wont officially happen. But, the erroneous ecclesiology of Constantinople must be stamped out before it gets much worse, right now they have been met with little actual opposition.

They've been very quietly back-pedaling on the "primus sine paribus" thing in the past couple of years. The original essay the idea appeared in is now difficult to find on EP websites and the recent pamphlet by an Athonite monk supporting the EP position in Ukraine baldly claims that the EP has never claimed to be first without equals.

 

[Saxon]

They've been very quietly back-pedaling on the "primus sine paribus" thing in the past couple of years. The original essay the idea appeared in is now difficult to find on EP websites and the recent pamphlet by an Athonite monk supporting the EP position in Ukraine baldly claims that the EP has never claimed to be first without equals.

In practice, it's less EP supremacy and more Hellenic supremacy, with the EP as the head of an ethnophyletist bloc that believes Greeks own Orthodoxy. The fact that most of those jurisdictions are nearly broke, and half of them exist in countries which more or less hate them and Christians in general, isn't lost on them. By contrast, Moscow is wealthy and flourishing with state support, and has used those resources to supplant the EP as that figurehead of Orthodoxy worldwide. Patriarch Bartholomew and his ilk feel threatened by that, and I think that explains what we've seen in Ukraine, as well as pronouncements concerning the EP's "supremacy". You're seeing a branch of the church in the throes of irrelevance trying to re-assert itself.

 

[Tzimis]

In practice, it's less EP supremacy and more Hellenic supremacy, with the EP as the head of an ethnophyletist bloc that believes Greeks own Orthodoxy. The fact that most of those jurisdictions are nearly broke, and half of them exist in countries which more or less hate them and Christians in general, isn't lost on them. By contrast, Moscow is wealthy and flourishing with state support, and has used those resources to supplant the EP as that figurehead of Orthodoxy worldwide. Patriarch Bartholomew and his ilk feel threatened by that, and I think that explains what we've seen in Ukraine, as well as pronouncements concerning the EP's "supremacy". You're seeing a branch of the church in the throes of irrelevance trying to re-assert itself.

Third Rome never existed and never will. You can dream though.

 

[Samn!]

Third Rome never existed and never will. You can dream though.

There's not a Second Rome anywhere, either.... we should heed St Paul's words about "myths and endless genealogies."

 

[Tzimis]

There's not a Second Rome anywhere, either.... we should heed St Paul's words about "myths and endless genealogies."

Your right!

 

[Saxon]

Third Rome never existed and never will. You can dream though.

Yeah I'm not an advocate of Russian messianism, either. I'm fed up with Orthodox ethnocentrism/phyletism in all its forms.

 

[Shanghaiski]

I guess the 17th century Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris, was anathematized (accused of being a Calvinist). I'm a bit confused as to whether this was ever removed, or if it is has remained in some kind of ecclesiastical grey area.

St. Cyril was not anathematized. Rather, he anathematized Roman Catholicism and Calvinism.

 

[Shanghaiski]

Yeah I'm not an advocate of Russian messianism, either. I'm fed up with Orthodox ethnocentrism/phyletism in all its forms.

At least as regards the folks who are NOT under the schismatics in Kiev, the issue is not ethnocentrism/phyletism, but about ecclesiology, particularly around the following issues mainly involving Constantinople:

1. The vestiges of the Ottoman milet system, which are outside of Orthodox canon law
2. The prerogatives Constantinople has taken to itself since the 1920s, which involve a re-interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon, among other things & Constantinople's failure to act according to its traditional prerogatives as regards the Antioch-Jerusalem schism & more
3. The historical revisionism of Constantinople - even as regards the present Ecumenical Patriarch reversing his own positions
4. The structure of how the Ecumenical Patriarch is governed internally and the question of all its global affiliates
5. Orthodox ecclesiology regarding the boundaries, essence, and mission of the Church versus Constantinople's century of ecumenism (which has infected every other Local Church to some degree)
6. The Crete council disaster, which failed because Constantinople did not help to heal the already-existing schisms and pushed agendas antithetical to Orthodox ecclesiological dogma - and which council the present Ecumenical Patriarch regarded as his personal legacy, for the thwarting of which he now wants some kind of vengeance

The problem is that not every Local Church independent of Constantinople is either prepared or desirous to discuss the above issues because that would mean addressing their own departures from tradition (like Romania's strange ethnic ecclesiology) or Antioch's or Moscow's involvement in ecumenism, or the unilateral granting of autocephaly to the OCA.

Added to this, and perhaps driving this, is Constantinople's disastrous decline as a patriarchate, having lost virtually all of its flock at home. It now seeks some kind of relevance.

But probably the thing that makes this situation persist is the fact that both Constantinople and Moscow are tone-deaf. Constantinople views every opposition to it as being motivated by Russia, and vice versa. Neither will recognize that each Local Church does things for its own reasons. Constantinople and Moscow are stuck in a weird Cold War time warp of bi-polarism, which itself is completely untraditional and does not accord with Church history.

I don't think there will be an end to any of this soon. There are shockingly few people involved in the decision-making processes for Constantinople and Moscow.

 

[Katechon]

But probably the thing that makes this situation persist is the fact that both Constantinople and Moscow are tone-deaf. Constantinople views every opposition to it as being motivated by Russia, and vice versa. Neither will recognize that each Local Church does things for its own reasons. Constantinople and Moscow are stuck in a weird Cold War time warp of bi-polarism, which itself is completely untraditional and does not accord with Church history.

That's a pretty disingenuous misinterpretation given the Phanars uncanonical shenanigans in the Ukraine and the points you yourself listed above.

 

[Shanghaiski]

If we cannot acknowledge the errors Moscow has made in handling the situation, then we're pretty much at an impasse. It's clear, though, that the Local Churches who support the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onuphry are not doing so because they are Russian agents or controlled by Russia or the Moscow Patriarchate.

 

[Xavier]

I hope and pray the leaders of the Churches all get together in a general Council and sort their differences out. All must be one, as Christ prayed for.

 

[Katechon]

If we cannot acknowledge the errors Moscow has made in handling the situation, then we're pretty much at an impasse. It's clear, though, that the Local Churches who support the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onuphry are not doing so because they are Russian agents or controlled by Russia or the Moscow Patriarchate.

It would help your case if you'd actually be able to provide an example of what Moscow did wrong in Constantinople invading their canonical territory, instead of just making spineless assertions about "both being wrong".

 

[Shanghaiski]

It would help your case if you'd actually be able to provide an example of what Moscow did wrong in Constantinople invading their canonical territory, instead of just making spineless assertions about "both being wrong".

Your accusations are based off your own prejudice, not anything I said. Perhaps if you would try to understand where people are coming from instead of assuming that you know, and then judging them, people would be more inclined to actually discuss something with you, instead of dismissing you entirely as not worth their time.

 

[Averoff]

His Eminence Bartholomew, official title is Ecumenical Patriarch.

I stand corrected. Please accept that I erred out of ignorance and not intent, I meant no disrespect.

 

[Saxon]

Thanks to social media, I was able to follow Patriarch Bartholomew's visit to Ukraine over the past week. It consisted of many meetings an events with the OCU, the Ukrainian Catholics, and the Ukrainian government - but no meetings with, or acknowledgements of, anyone from the UOC-MP. To my knowledge, the EP still recognizes the legitimacy of the UOC-MP even if they disagree on its place, so why the snub? More of Constantinople being unable to tolerate anyone who disagrees with their opinions?

 

[melkite]

Thanks to social media, I was able to follow Patriarch Bartholomew's visit to Ukraine over the past week. It consisted of many meetings an events with the OCU, the Ukrainian Catholics, and the Ukrainian government - but no meetings with, or acknowledgements of, anyone from the UOC-MP. To my knowledge, the EP still recognizes the legitimacy of the UOC-MP even if they disagree on its place, so why the snub? More of Constantinople being unable to tolerate anyone who disagrees with their opinions?

Patriarch Kirill excommunicated Patriarch Bartholomew, not the other way around, so wouldn't this be more an indication of the UOC-MP snubbing the EP? Particularly if the EP still recognizes their legitimacy?

Titles added. Please use proper titles when referring to members of the hierarchy, whether it be Orthodox or Roman Catholic.
Thanks. --Ainnir

 

[RaphaCam]

Patriarch Kirill excommunicated Patriarch Bartholomew, not the other way around, so wouldn't this be more an indication of the UOC-MP snubbing the EP? Particularly if the EP still recognizes their legitimacy?

Severing communion (not excommunication) wasn't the first punch.


Titles added. --Ainnir

 

[Saxon]

Kirill excommunicated Bartholomew, not the other way around, so wouldn't this be more an indication of the UOC-MP snubbing the EP? Particularly if the EP still recognizes their legitimacy?

They didn't excommunicate Patriarch Bartholomew. And large groups of faithful from the UOC-MP attempted to meet with him last Friday and Saturday to present a list of grievances, including outside the Ukrainian Parliament where a delegation was led by Bishop Nikolai, and he refused to meet with or acknowledge them in any way.

 

[Averoff]

It all makes me very sad. Christ did not interject politics into the Church, that was man's mistake. Unfortunately Ukrainian Orthodox leadership got pulled into international politics which never should have been allowed to happen. I have had great respect for and support of the Ecumenical Patriarch for many decades, I'm really confused why he is involved in this. He's in a precarious position in Turkey, but then again that office always has been in modern times. Keep world politics out of the Church, we need to come together in Christ and not look for reasons to separate each other.

 

[LizaSymonenko]

P. Kirill would have had to initiated the meetings. Per protocol, the MP clergy would not be permitted to "invite" Patriarch Bartholomew on their own for a meeting or gathering. However, since the MP has "excommunicated" the EP, he could not have extended an invitation.

Saxon, so who here exactly is unable to tolerate whom? I would say the MP.

I read this morning, that 49% of the MP faithful were happy that the EP was visiting, and participated in the events, with 14% being against the visit.
Let's hope it all works out soon, and love is restored between the Churches.

 

[LizaSymonenko]

They didn't excommunicate Patriarch Bartholomew.

Oh but, he has broken communion with the EP... so much so, that Russian Orthodox faithful have stopped attending services and events at Ukrainian Orthodox parishes. We used to have numerous Russians at our parish every Sunday, and their kids would attend our Summer Church camp... but, now, even after personally reaching out and inviting them, they refuse to come, siting that P. Kirill has forbidden them from stepping inside any EP parish.

Truly sad. Our kids were friends... and now they see us as some sort of unclean people with whom they cannot even converse.