EP not breaking with Moscow Patriarchate

link

EP not breaking with MP.

ArmyMatt said:

we'll have to see what other Patriarchs say.

Lord have mercy!

Click to expand...

As far as I know, this is the first official statement. From Their Holinesses Patriarchs Ireney of Serbia and John of Antioch.

AMM said:

Interesting... so it sounds like they aren't necessarily calling for a council at this point, just for EP to start talking to MP about this?

Click to expand...

They didn't break communion with anyone, just suggest / hope that it will be resolved. I assume that Moscow was counting on them to break with the EP.

dzheremi said:

This is interesting. I was wondering what would happen if the EP responded this way.

So what now? Is a council necessary to resolve this now, or is everyone just hoping that the EP will see how many other jurisdictions are siding with the MP (Alexandria, et al.) and rescind his previous recognition of the independent group in Ukraine?

Click to expand...

It seems a council would be nice, but I assume that the Patriarchs are wary after last time (in 2016, when not everyone attended). If we did manage to convene a council of all the autocephalous Churches (we weren't invited last time because our autocephaly is not universally recognized, but we helped with the council), or all the effectively autocephalous ones, one major danger is that a powerful jurisdiction just wouldn't like the decision reached and would either go into schism or just declare the council fake.

So, I don't know what everyone is hoping. I certainly can't speak for the Patriarchs involved. My guess is that a lot of people see this as a political spat and are hoping that by not exactly formally taking sides -- by breaking with the EP or the MP -- they can just wait for it to blow over.

Personally, I think that the most desired outcome of this for political folks in the Russian Federation -- so I'm not talking about clergy here, I'm saying what I think would be desirable for people not in the Church, but to whom the appearance of a "church of empire" is politically useful -- is roughly the following:

Serbia and Antioch and a few other Churches break with the EP. After a while, the MP issues an ultimatum - break with the EP or we break with you. The Churches that sided with the MP do the same. Schism. Then they can hold a council that will put Moscow in the place of the EP. Politically useful, and state and Church organs can say that "the Greeks" and "the Westerners" abandoned the Orthodox faith, that will become a standard thing to say, and they can claim that only they are Orthodox. Then this is useful politically -- "we" (i.e. - the former Soviet bloc and some friends) are the guardians of Orthodoxy, etc.

We'll have to see what the other Patriarchs say, of course. But regardless of statements and thinking this or that action by the EP is undesirable - if no one breaks with anyone, then Moscow is in the unenviable position of having removed itself, sort of, from the fullness of the Church. And how they would handle that, of course I don't know.

They could just let it alone for a few years, and eventually the Ukraine situation will be sorted out to the satisfaction of everyone but the MP. In which case we'd have a (likely autocephalous) Church in Ukraine that only the MP thinks is schismatic. And a generation later, no one will care and eventually that Church will be recognized first de facto, then officially.

AMM said:

Wasn't this a danger with the first 7 councils? I know Constantinople 381 had a relatively small group of bishops, since Ambrose was holding a council in Aquilea at the same time. A bunch of people initially declared Constantinople 381 to be non-ecumenical and pointless.

This happened with the Robber Synod and the Council of Chalcedon too. And Nicea 2 was rejected for 60 years before the Triumph of Orthodoxy.

If everyone is invited, doesn't that make it ecumenical?

Click to expand...

You are right that this is always a possibility. But with the rather extreme politics in play these days (not that there weren't politics in the 4th century), I bet people are anxious.

Who is "everyone" these days? The OCA are canonical, no question. But do we get invited? Some jurisdictions lump us under the Russians, some don't. Plus Ukraine, plus this and that...which doesn't mean we can't have a council. It just means "inviting everyone" might not be so clear.

buzuxi02 said:

Not according to the MP and ROCOR documents, which I agree with. In fact it should have been done a decade ago.

Click to expand...

I have to ask - what are these documents that say that HAH is not a bishop?

buzuxi02 said:

There exists no mechanism for his removal. Only the synod of Constantinople can remove him but they are in lock step.


MP Synod statement:
Statement by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church concerning the encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Church | The Russian Orthodox Church

Rocor statement which (includes accusation of heresy). But here is one pertinent excerpt:

..."For the sake of the clear understanding of the present situation amongst the faithful, we hereby make explicit that the just anathematisation by the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of schismatics that persist in their errors, cannot be and has not been overturned by the unilateral action of the Church of Constantinople. In the eyes of God, and in accordance with the Holy Canons and the teachings of the Orthodox Church, these individuals remain under their just condemnation, and are considered in schism; that is, fallen away from Holy Orthodoxy. Moreover, we remind the faithful of the Holy Canons which clearly express the principle that those who intercommune with the justly deposed, themselves enter into schism from the Orthodox Church (cf. Antioch, 2). Therefore any who, following the lawless decision of the Church of Constantinople, enter into communion with these schismatic individuals, do thereby depart from Orthodox canonical unity into schism, and the mortal peril it represents to the soul...."
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - Official Website

Click to expand...

Well, a literal reading of this document means the Church no longer exists at all, so I can't take this at its face value. If HAH is in communion with schismatics and he has fallen away and is himself in schism, then the OCA and all the other canonical Churches except the MP have themselves fallen away, because they have communion with him...and the MP has fallen away because it is in communion with them.

I must say I am still a little surprised how often these days people declare Orthodox hierarchs to no longer be hierarchs.