• 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.)

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

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
198
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
I sometimes think about Orthodoxy in a few thousand years (unless the Parousia happens before that), when there could be people living on different planets. Would the tiny Phanar then have jurisdiction over Mars? I think there should be an autocephelaous Martian Orthodox Church, but the EP would probably want it under its jurisdiction.
Depends . The USA already staked there flag on Mars. That falls under the barbarian lands. Pretty large jurisdiction I must say.
To bad it wasn't Russian flag. Would have made things easier.
Truthfully they can have there sand and rock but the EP is content with this world.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
There already is a Romanian Orthodox bishop of Italy in Rome funny enough. Although I would think nobody wants to open the can of worms of appointing a bishop that immediately would become primus inter pares and first in rank in World Orthodoxy. At now the Pentarchy is pretty much obsolete anyway and seems to be merely a Boomer obsession.
Further obsession on the Pentarchy of the 1st millennium only serves the tendentious papal claims of the Phanar. It’s more outdated than their obsession over Russia having claimed 3rd Rome status half a millennium ago (and not since). At this point they only use it to adumbrate this notion of ‘fully autocephalous‘ churches vs. ‘junior/provisional autocephalous’ whose autocephaly could be revoked by fiat, uniquely accorded the Phanar. In pursuit of this false dichotomy and exalted, exaggerated primacy they even floated the notion of rescinding Moscow’s Tomos of autocephaly. This is particularly amusing since Moscow obtained it after about a century of functional autonomy after the fall of C’ple to Mehmet Yıldırım.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
Depends . The USA already staked there flag on Mars. That falls under the barbarian lands. Pretty large jurisdiction I must say.
To bad it wasn't Russian flag. Would have made things easier.
Truthfully they can have there sand and rock but the EP is content with this world.
There are no ‘barbarian lands’ and you constant recourse to this trope is tiresome. The context in which the canon was written defines its relevance, and that situation is long gone. There is no Christian Empire and no barbarian people. To continue to claim that IV c. politics and ethnic notions still prevail defines an ecclesiological intransigence peculiar to a nonfunctional Patriarchate in search of possible relevance in a world that changed half a millennium ago. As the kids say these days, ‘Cope’.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
198
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
There are no ‘barbarian lands’ and you constant recourse to this trope is tiresome. The context in which the canon was written defines its relevance, and that situation is long gone. There is no Christian Empire and no barbarian people. To continue to claim that IV c. politics and ethnic notions still prevail defines an ecclesiological intransigence peculiar to a nonfunctional Patriarchate in search of possible relevance in a world that changed half a millennium ago. As the kids say these days, ‘Cope’.
If we listen to you, we may as well rewrite all the canons to serve special interests.
Before you know it we'll look no different than protestants.
Lavrov is always pictured next to Kirill and is guiding his every move.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
340
Reaction score
131
Points
43
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
If we listen to you, we may as well rewrite all the canons to serve special interests.
Before you know it we'll look no different than protestants.
Lavrov is always pictured next to Kirill and is guiding his every move.
What about the part that says Old Rome has privileges? Should we keep using that one too?
 

melkite

Sr. Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
241
Reaction score
40
Points
28
Age
41
Location
Maryland
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Jurisdiction
Eparchy of Newton
Why do we not concede that the schism is never going to be healed and appoint an Orthodox bishop of Rome?
When I was a catechumen in the OCA, I asked the priest that same question. "Because we're waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy." I think that was a big part of my decision not to go through with becoming Orthodox. I was already questioning Orthodoxy's position on the papal claims, and that kind of confirmed for me that there was at least some truth to them that Orthodoxy wasn't willing to accept. Even though this was this priest's personal opinion, it showed he implicitly acknowledged a primacy in Rome that has more substance than just honor - even if Rome makes more of it than is there.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
If we listen to you, we may as well rewrite all the canons to serve special interests.
Before you know it we'll look no different than protestants.
Lavrov is always pictured next to Kirill and is guiding his every move.
I see you are addicted to the slippery slope fallacy. It’s very clear that not all canons are relevant and useful. Do you avoid Jewish doctors?
As to ‘special interests’ that would perfectly describe the party making Special Pleading their mainstay: the Phanar, whose precarity in Istanbul renders so much of their activity tendentious and abusive of the canons.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,523
Reaction score
393
Points
83
Location
Detroit
Website
uocofusa.org
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
There is a family from Ukraine at my church and they speak fluent English. If you're an immigrant you should be learning the language of the country you live in. If Americans went to live in Ukraine it would be ridiculous for them to expect priests to serve in English, they should learn Ukrainian.
I don't disagree. Most of the immigrants in my parish do speak English in various degrees.

Nonetheless, they prefer to pray in Ukrainian.

I was born in the United States, and am more than fluent in English... and yet, given the choice... I would pray in Ukrainian... I cannot explain it.

I am fine with Liturgy in English... but, there's something about it being in Ukrainian that hits a different chord with me.

Having said that... I am fine with any language, as long as there is Liturgy. I've been to Greek (understood very little), Romanian (understood even less), Serbian (I did a bit better with them), Antiochian (didn't understand at all, but, it was cool), etc. All were fine. I walked out of the church refreshed and re-energized independent of the language that entered my ears.
 

hurrrah

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
101
Reaction score
46
Points
28
Location
Russia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
ROC
It is generally recognized that Slavic languages are more flexible and expressive than English. I think the identity of the translator, his saintliness, also matters .
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
340
Reaction score
131
Points
43
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
I don't disagree. Most of the immigrants in my parish do speak English in various degrees.

Nonetheless, they prefer to pray in Ukrainian.

I was born in the United States, and am more than fluent in English... and yet, given the choice... I would pray in Ukrainian... I cannot explain it.

I am fine with Liturgy in English... but, there's something about it being in Ukrainian that hits a different chord with me.

Having said that... I am fine with any language, as long as there is Liturgy. I've been to Greek (understood very little), Romanian (understood even less), Serbian (I did a bit better with them), Antiochian (didn't understand at all, but, it was cool), etc. All were fine. I walked out of the church refreshed and re-energized independent of the language that entered my ears.
People can pray privately in whatever language they like. I'm saying i don't think it's right if they tried to get rid of the priest and force the language preference on everyone else.
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
276
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
I was born in the United States, and am more than fluent in English... and yet, given the choice... I would pray in Ukrainian... I cannot explain it.
And many people in Ukraine, for better or worse, think the same about Slavonic as opposed to Ukrainian.

Even though this was this priest's personal opinion, it showed he implicitly acknowledged a primacy in Rome that has more substance than just honor - even if Rome makes more of it than is there.
Within Orthodox (and Late Antique) canon law, where the Council of Carthage is in force, Rome's rights don't even extend to directly hearing appeals from North Africa. Likewise, historically Canon 28 of Chalcedon was read as limiting Constantinople's authority, because it explicitly denies the patriarch the right, normal in other patriarchates, to ordain (and so implicitly, to judge) the bishops below his metropolitans.
 

Katechon

Elder
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
403
Reaction score
166
Points
43
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
If we listen to you, we may as well rewrite all the canons to serve special interests.
Before you know it we'll look no different than protestants.
Lavrov is always pictured next to Kirill and is guiding his every move.
You don't know much about legal teleology, do you?
 

melkite

Sr. Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
241
Reaction score
40
Points
28
Age
41
Location
Maryland
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Jurisdiction
Eparchy of Newton
Within Orthodox (and Late Antique) canon law, where the Council of Carthage is in force, Rome's rights don't even extend to directly hearing appeals from North Africa. Likewise, historically Canon 28 of Chalcedon was read as limiting Constantinople's authority, because it explicitly denies the patriarch the right, normal in other patriarchates, to ordain (and so implicitly, to judge) the bishops below his metropolitans.
I can accept that the immediacy claimed by Rome of its primacy is at least imprudent, if not altogether invented. But Rome either is the court of final appeals, or it is not. If it is, then there must be some kind of authority there over the other bishops that even they are unable to annul. If they could, then Rome would never be able to claim the final say. So if Rome's rights don't extend to directly hearing appeals, does that also deny it the right to hear final appeals, specifically, after Carthage exhausted all of its own effort first and was unable to resolve an issue on its own? Isn't this the Orthodox understanding of the proper role of the bishop of Rome outside of his own diocese?
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
198
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
You don't know much about legal teleology, do you?
Probably not, but I certainly wouldnt debate moses about the contents of the tablets he brought down from Mt Sinai.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
340
Reaction score
131
Points
43
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
I can accept that the immediacy claimed by Rome of its primacy is at least imprudent, if not altogether invented. But Rome either is the court of final appeals, or it is not. If it is, then there must be some kind of authority there over the other bishops that even they are unable to annul. If they could, then Rome would never be able to claim the final say. So if Rome's rights don't extend to directly hearing appeals, does that also deny it the right to hear final appeals, specifically, after Carthage exhausted all of its own effort first and was unable to resolve an issue on its own? Isn't this the Orthodox understanding of the proper role of the bishop of Rome outside of his own diocese?
You're conflating the right to *hear* appeals with jurisdiction (court of final appeals), and as you admit, the claim to Rome's immediate jurisdiction is either imprudent or an innovation. This isn't a perfect example but think of it as the Church pentarchy was like a board of directors. Rome was the chairman. If other board members had a problem with each other, they could appeal to him *voluntarily* to resolve the situation without need for further disputation. However if the chairman claimed to make unilateral decisions for the board without permission, he would be fired by the CEO.

So in no way does Rome hearing appeals imply that Rome has infallible universal jurisdiction to make decrees on faith and morals above ecumenical councils. The final court of appeals is the ecumenical council because the judgement of the Fathers overrides the papacy. This is demonstrated many times in Church history. The existence of Canon 28 of Chalcedon itself as mentioned above is testimony to the fact. Although this canon was rejected by Rome, every bishop in the East at chalceon accepted it by default because of the testimony of the Fathers of Nicea - thus proving that the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon believed the rulings of ecumenical councils are superior to papal claims to approve or reject canon law and thus the claim that the papacy is the final court of appeal is rejected canonically.
 

melkite

Sr. Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
241
Reaction score
40
Points
28
Age
41
Location
Maryland
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Jurisdiction
Eparchy of Newton
You're conflating the right to *hear* appeals with jurisdiction (court of final appeals), and as you admit, the claim to Rome's immediate jurisdiction is either imprudent or an innovation. This isn't a perfect example but think of it as the Church pentarchy was like a board of directors. Rome was the chairman. If other board members had a problem with each other, they could appeal to him *voluntarily* to resolve the situation without need for further disputation. However if the chairman claimed to make unilateral decisions for the board without permission, he would be fired by the CEO.

So in no way does Rome hearing appeals imply that Rome has infallible universal jurisdiction to make decrees on faith and morals above ecumenical councils. The final court of appeals is the ecumenical council because the judgement of the Fathers overrides the papacy. This is demonstrated many times in Church history. The existence of Canon 28 of Chalcedon itself as mentioned above is testimony to the fact. Although this canon was rejected by Rome, every bishop in the East at chalceon accepted it by default because of the testimony of the Fathers of Nicea - thus proving that the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon believed the rulings of ecumenical councils are superior to papal claims to approve or reject canon law and thus the claim that the papacy is the final court of appeal is rejected canonically.
I've always heard Orthodox refer to Rome as the court of final appeals in reference to its role in the Church of the first millennium. If they were wrong in ascribing that to Rome, ok. My thinking was that if Rome has any capacity to make a final decision for the rest of the Church, that implies some kind of authority. Logic doesn't require it to be carried to infallibility or immediate, supreme jurisdiction. And if an ecumenical council can annul that decision, again ok. But short of an ecumenical council annulling a papal decision, does Orthodoxy recognize *any* right or ability to hear appeals that it doesn't recognize in any other see? If Rome does have any final authority, however minimal it may be in comparison to its modern claims, that represents substantive authority. Can another bishop annul a papal decision without the support of an ecumenical council in Orthodox ecclesiology (and by this, I mean a decision made in the context of acting as an appellate judge; not one that is merely interference in the ordinary administration of another diocese)? I don't know the answer to this question.

Regardless, for me, it still leaves the question of why the Orthodox don't just replace the bishop of Rome with their own. Someone previously mentioned a Romanian bishop in Rome, but no one in the Orthodox church recognizes him as the first among equals, right? So that's not a real replacement. Orthodoxy didn't have an issue replacing the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria after the Chalcedonian schism, so why not Rome? There are only two feasible reasons I can think of, if it is accurate that you are "waiting for him to return to Orthodoxy": One is that the remaining Orthodox sees don't actually have any authority to replace him. This would imply that Rome has some kind of authority over them, and if they accede to this, it is because they recognize that authority, at least implicitly; Two is that Rome as head was a nuisance to them and they have no desire to fill it. "Good riddance!" It's easier to let a sleeping dog lie when you don't like the dog. Judging by the actions of Constantinople and Moscow at various points in history, it's clear they didn't like Rome having authority which they wanted to claim for themselves.

Either way, the Roman see appears to have not ever been filled by Orthodoxy because it recognizes some kind of additional authority there that it wishes not to admit belonging uniquely to Rome. And this is even if conceding that such an authority may be much less than what Rome claims for itself.
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
276
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
Canonically, as put forth in the canons of the Council of Sardica, Rome only had the right to appoint bishops geographically adjacent to a case to look into things and hear an appeal. Likewise, the Council of Carthage rules out any appeal by presbyters or deacons to authorities beyond their local synods. It's very, very hard to identify any clear-cut system of appeals in the first millennium. Rather, appeals were largely ad-hoc ways of altering a consensus by bringing in outside voices, rather than the operation of a clearly-structured, pyramidal system. We can see this in evidence, for example, in St John Chrysostom's simultaneous appeal to Rome, Milan and Aquileia.

As for there not being an Orthodox bishop of Rome, there being a large enough population in Rome to warrant a bishop is a very, very new phenomenon and the obvious ecumenical problems giving a bishop such a title would entail (especially given that most Orthodox parishes in Italy meet in properties owned by local Catholic dioceses) far outweigh whatever symbolic resonances it would have. There being a bishop "of Rome" is no more essential to the Church than there being a bishop "of Ephesus" or "of Ouagadougou".
 
Last edited:

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
It is generally recognized that Slavic languages are more flexible and expressive than English. I think the identity of the translator, his saintliness, also matters .
I find this statement impossible to prove. All languages suit their speakers and are capable of conveying all that is necessary for discourse on any given topic, providing sufficient experience with it exists in that language community. Loan words suffice to fill the gap. In the OCA, for example we use Theotokos without confusion.
I’m sure you are aware of the Trilingual Heresy to which Frankish clergy resorted in their efforts to quash the Moravian missionary work of Ss. Kyrill and Methodius. Pope Leo, I think slapped that nonsense down perforce. And we are talking about the creation of a Slavic liturgical language. They claimed only Hebrew, Latin and Greek were altogether θεοπρεπει.
 

hurrrah

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
101
Reaction score
46
Points
28
Location
Russia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
ROC
What I bought, I sell for. I have repeatedly met such statements, both from professional translators and from foreigners who have learned Russian. It is natural that faith can and should be taught in a person's native language; moreover, true enlightenment does not come from intricate words, but from the Spirit. But this does not negate the difference between languages in expressive capabilities.
 

Katechon

Elder
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
403
Reaction score
166
Points
43
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
What I bought, I sell for. I have repeatedly met such statements, both from professional translators and from foreigners who have learned Russian. It is natural that faith can and should be taught in a person's native language; moreover, true enlightenment does not come from intricate words, but from the Spirit. But this does not negate the difference between languages in expressive capabilities.
That reads pretty silly to me. Slavs in general weren't a particularly cultured kind of people before being illumined in the waters of the Dnepr, quite the opposite actually. I guess as the faith permeates every aspect of the soul and the culture of a people the language develops into finding expressions for the transformative power of God's grace. It works the same in the other direction though: German is deemed pretty expressive in a lot of different ways, yet the semantics of religious and philosophical terminology are usually pretty one-sided and heretical in their implications.
 

Ariend

Elder
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
309
Reaction score
91
Points
28
Age
19
Location
America
Website
www.assemblyofbishops.org
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
The Slavic language spoken by the Rus' was much more pagan of a language than any major language spoken in a non-Orthodox country nowadays; and now we view its literary form as one of the big two liturgical languages of Orthodoxy, alongside Koine Greek. So let's not put too much stock into individual languages on theological bases.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
198
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
The Russians have a saying, “all heresy comes from the Germans”.
Russians are a cocky know it all bunch.
I was recently at a sporting clay shooting event, fundraiser. The Russian clay thrower, operator was trying to correct my shooting :rolleyes:. Next round he joined in and shoot like 2 clays out of 25. Mean while I shoot 24 out of 25. I hope that doesn't represent the whole country.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
"German" was a term for all Western Europeans in Russia.
Немец, ‘non-speaker’. Those who don’t speak ‘language’ which is Russian. Same as βάρβαροι, ‘those who say var-var’ among Greeks. Just an expression of xenophobia that both cultures use to define their boundaries and valorize their chauvinism.
 

Ariend

Elder
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
309
Reaction score
91
Points
28
Age
19
Location
America
Website
www.assemblyofbishops.org
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Russians are a cocky know it all bunch.
I was recently at a sporting clay shooting event, fundraiser. The Russian clay thrower, operator was trying to correct my shooting :rolleyes:. Next round he joined in and shoot like 2 clays out of 25. Mean while I shoot 24 out of 25. I hope that doesn't represent the whole country.
Racism?
 

hurrrah

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
101
Reaction score
46
Points
28
Location
Russia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
ROC
Constantinople appears to be pushing the prospects of one side in the Ukranian schism, while Russia backs the other side
About the sides. Perhaps it will be interesting:
St. Lawrence of Chernigov (1868-1950):
The priest told us that when there is a small freedom, churches and monasteries will be opened, and they will be repaired, at this time all false teachings will come out together with demons and God-fihgters (Catholics, Uniates, Ukrainians-self-saints and others) and will strongly oppose the Orthodox Russian Church, Its unity and conciliarity in Ukraine. This heretical group will be supported by the godless government, and therefore they will take away from the Orthodox church and beat the faithful. Then the Metropolitan of Kiev (unworthy of this title), together with his like-minded bishops and priests, will greatly shake the Russian Church. The whole world will be surprised at his iniquity and will be afraid. He will go to eternal perdition, just like Judas. But all these slanders of evil and false teaching will disappear in Russia, and there will be a Single Russian Orthodox Church.
 

FULK NERA

Elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
Points
43
Location
North America
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
Russian Synod Condemns Uncanonical Visit of Patr. Bartholomew to Ukraine
From orthochristian.com

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church met in Moscow yesterday and today under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia.
Among other things, the hierarchs evaluated and condemned the recent visit of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to Ukraine, which was undertaken without the invitation and blessing of the proper canonical authorities—Patriarch Kirill and His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine.
As the Synod notes in its
report, such an act is a “gross violation of the canons, in particular, the 3rd Canon of the Council of Sardica, and the 13th Canon of the Council of Antioch.”
The Synod “also noted the purely political nature of the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew, which reveals his dependence on external forces in relation to the Church.”
While the Russian Church remains ever grateful to Constantinople for bringing it the Orthodox faith, “the noble exploits of the ever-memorable Patriarchs of Constantinople in the past do not justify the current canonical crimes of Patriarch Bartholomew.”
By entering into communion with the schismatics in Ukraine, Pat. Bartholomew lost the trust of millions of Ukrainian Orthodox faithful, the Synod laments, and bears responsibility for undermining the unity of the Church.
The Russian Church has consistently responded to Constantinople’s ill-willed attacks on its canonical territory. After Pat. Bartholomew sent exarch bishops to Ukraine to prepare for the false “unification council” without the proper episcopal permission, the Synod authorized Pat. Kirill to cease commemoration of Pat. Bartholomew, but without breaking communion.
However, after Constantinople announced in October that it had
entered into communion with anathematized schismatics and that it intended to create a new church on the territory of the ancient Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Russian Synod fully broke communion with Constantinople, which had willfully become one with the Ukrainian schismatics.
 
Last edited:

Menas17

Sr. Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
112
Points
43
Location
SE
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antioch
One thing I haven’t seen addressed, at least not often, in regards to the current EP-MP schism are the actual clerics of the OCU themselves.

Most people seem to focus on the EP invading the canonical territory of the MP

What I’m more curious about is the actual validity of the clerics of the OCU and whether or not they are actually legitimately ordained. Also, whether or not the EP has the authority to…with the swipe of a pen…able to regularize clergy who had been formally anathematized by another autocephalous Church.

If the OCU clerics are indeed schismatic, the concelebration of the Alexandrian/Greek/Cypriot/Constantinople hierarchs with them makes them schismatic as well. If the OCU is not currently schismatic and the EP did have the right to do what he did, then that changes thing.

Can someone explain this to me in layman’s
 

hurrrah

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
101
Reaction score
46
Points
28
Location
Russia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
ROC
Only the person who imposed the ban, can remove it, and in the event of his death or other serious obstacles, his successor. If your parish priest has imposed a penance on you - not to receive communion for six months, you have no right to go to another parish for Communion.
The canons do not act automatically. In order to recognize as schismatics (excommunicate) those who prayed with schismatics, a decision of the authorized authority (synod, council, church court) is needed.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
When I was a catechumen in the OCA, I asked the priest that same question. "Because we're waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy." I think that was a big part of my decision not to go through with becoming Orthodox. I was already questioning Orthodoxy's position on the papal claims, and that kind of confirmed for me that there was at least some truth to them that Orthodoxy wasn't willing to accept. Even though this was this priest's personal opinion, it showed he implicitly acknowledged a primacy in Rome that has more substance than just honor - even if Rome makes more of it than is there.
Whoa there. Just because the EOs do not want to appoint an EO bishop in Rome because they honor Rome as a Patriarchy does not entail that the EOs consider Rome to be the Primus Sine Pares Uber Alles like the Roman Popes and now P. Bartholomew hold themselves out to be.

For example, Pope Francis recently gave Lutherans communion in the Vatican. It doesn't prove that he believes that Luther was right about the Catholic Church all along.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
The Slavic language spoken by the Rus' was much more pagan of a language than any major language spoken in a non-Orthodox country nowadays; and now we view its literary form as one of the big two liturgical languages of Orthodoxy, alongside Koine Greek.
Both English and Slavic have pagan and Christian elements.

Wednesday in English is Woden's day. Easter seems like a pagan name. Halloween in pretty pagan. Days of the week seem pretty pagan in English.
Fir/pine trees in American/English Christmas are probably pagan in origin.
Ukrainians, I think, have Yanka Kupala holiday. It seems pretty pagan, but I guess the name could technically refer to the "John the Bather/Baptizer". Maybe that holiday is a general East Slavic thing. Czechs and Slovaks have an annoying Easter Monday folk observance. English/Americans and Russians/slavs probably have all kinds of pagan folk superstitions like fairies and "domovoy"s (house spirits/house imps). When I can't find certain items, part of my mind reflexively considers the possibility that a gremlin took it. There were gremlin-looking monkeys that messed with US aircraft in Asia in WW2, and I guess that they gave rise to the story/myth of gremlins.

Voskresenye in Slavic means Resurrection Day, and Subota is the Sabbath. Paskha real is a word for the holiday in Russian.
Breakfast seems Christian-based, because the person breaks their fast. More Latin and Greek terms, it seems, made their way into English than into Russian. English has terms like Deuterocanon and Ecclesiastic from Greek, whereas Russian just use slavic-based etymologies for these words - Vtorozakonie, Tzerkovnoye.
English uses "God bless you" when you sneeze. Russians say Spasibo for thanks, and "S Bogom" as a way to say Goodbye.
 
Last edited:

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Within Orthodox (and Late Antique) canon law, where the Council of Carthage is in force, Rome's rights don't even extend to directly hearing appeals from North Africa. Likewise, historically Canon 28 of Chalcedon was read as limiting Constantinople's authority, because it explicitly denies the patriarch the right, normal in other patriarchates, to ordain (and so implicitly, to judge) the bishops below his metropolitans.
I want to hear more from you, Samn, and Stinky, about why Canon 9 of Chalcedon does not give Constantinople universal appellate jurisdiction. On one hand, it sounds like it could give a clergyman the option to appeal there. But on the other, that interpretation sounds unreasonable based on several factors. For instance, that canon 9 lists the levels to which clergy can appeal, but never lists the patriarchal level, except the CP's level. The implication of this silence seems to be that the CP is only mentioned as an analogy for the patriarchal level.
 
Top