Russia and Ukraine - why?

In an interview with Met. Hilarion the BBC stated/asked

"Judging from what we saw in the transcript of the talk of Patriarchs Bartholomew and Kirill, two discourses have clashed – a conditionally liberal one on the part of Constantinople and a conditionally conservative one on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Does not it seem to you that with time there may emerge two families of Orthodox Churches?"

It seems as if the whole point of this is for the deepstate to cut Mt. Athos from Russia and then continue to strangle Greece with secularism and debauchery as has already happened in the West. Then later perhaps try to pull Greece into Rome.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

The question is WHO has the right to grant it...

Click to expand...

Traditionally if not granted by a Council (I believe either Crete or Cyprus or both were) than initially by the Mother Church; i.e. Constantinople to Serbia. Then it was recognized by the rest once they got the memo.

I'm of the strong opinion that His All-Holiness has been listening to too much Western media calling him an Orthodox pope and not enough of St John Maximovich's writing about the "Decline of the EP".

We only have enough room for one pope in this Church and he's in Alexandria!

E.C. said:

Traditionally if not granted by a Council (I believe either Crete or Cyprus or both were) than initially by the Mother Church; i.e. Constantinople to Serbia. Then it was recognized by the rest once they got the memo.

I'm of the strong opinion that His All-Holiness has been listening to too much Western media calling him an Orthodox pope and not enough of St John Maximovich's writing about the "Decline of the EP".

We only have enough room for one pope in this Church and he's in Alexandria!

Click to expand...

Another question, is "first among equals" relevant and does it still mean the same or does it really mean something different now...

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Another question, is "first among equals" relevant and does it still mean the same or does it really mean something different now...

Click to expand...

yes, it is relevant and yes, it means the same thing it has always meaned.

ArmyMatt said:

so it's the mother Church, who evangelized you, which grants it. so for Ukraine, it should be Russia since they are under Russia.

Click to expand...

In fact, there are several opinions on this; two most common would be either Constantinople or the Mother Church. Which is convenient, because for Kyiv, Mother Church is quite clearly Constantinople (Moscow was not founded for another 500 years since 988).

My (clearly biased, but ain't we all?) take is that EP was clearly in the right there, both on canons and pastorally. In fact, Moscow had 30 years to heal the schism on its own, but is unable to do so due to its own divided loyalties. This is quite a part from Hon. Patr. Filaret's many... many... manymany faults. EP even removed him from effective control in quite clever fashion.

ArmyMatt said:

yes, and the tomos was given to Moscow after Kiev was incorporated into that kingdom

Click to expand...

Yeah... except it wasn't. The details of the whole situation are way longer and murkier than that.

StanU said:

In fact, there are several opinions on this; two most common would be either Constantinople or the Mother Church. Which is convenient, because for Kyiv, Mother Church is quite clearly Constantinople (Moscow was not founded for another 500 years since 988).

My (clearly biased, but ain't we all?) take is that EP was clearly in the right there, both on canons and pastorally. In fact, Moscow had 30 years to heal the schism on its own, but is unable to do so due to its own divided loyalties. This is quite a part from Hon. Patr. Filaret's many... many... manymany faults. EP even removed him from effective control in quite clever fashion.

Click to expand...

except Moscow has published the documents showing that Ukraine was under them from Constantinople. in addition, Constantinople doesn't have any authority over schismatics who broke from another autocephalous Church.

StanU said:

Yeah... except it wasn't. The details of the whole situation are way longer and murkier than that.

Click to expand...

except that it was. plus, Constantinople never laid any claim over Ukraine until recently.

ArmyMatt said:

except Moscow has published the documents showing that Ukraine was under them from Constantinople. in addition, Constantinople doesn't have any authority over schismatics who broke from another autocephalous Church.

Click to expand...

Yes, they did. Letter of 1686 that they managed to buy from EP. The letter granted Patriarch of Moscow, out of oekonomia, the right to consecrate Metropolitan of Kyiv - on certain conditions. In 2018, EP (rightly) noted that Moscow didn't follow any of the conditions and revoked the letter - which is ballsy but, on paper, entirely correct.

EP published lengthy arguments on all these points in two separate documents, which I believe are linked at the GOArch's website. Read these before discussing further, perhaps?

StanU said:

Yes, they did. Letter of 1686 that they managed to buy from EP. The letter granted Patriarch of Moscow, out of oekonomia, the right to consecrate Metropolitan of Kyiv - on certain conditions. In 2018, EP (rightly) noted that Moscow didn't follow any of the conditions and revoked the letter - which is ballsy but, on paper, entirely correct.

EP published lengthy arguments on all these points in two separate documents, which I believe are linked at the GOArch's website. Read these before discussing further, perhaps?

Click to expand...

what conditions were not met?

ArmyMatt said:

except that it was. plus, Constantinople never laid any claim over Ukraine until recently.

Click to expand...

When EP recognized the Patriarch Job of Moscow in 1589, Kyiv was not part of that state. And to be a bore, Constantinople recognized autocephaly of Church of Poland (which historically was part of Metropolis of Kyiv) in 1924 - precisely on the grounds that symonic letter of 1686 was invalid, so...

Moscow kept its jurisdiction over Kyiv for one simple reason - because Moscow secular state had control over the territory. It's not really true anymore. And oh BTW, Patriarchate of Moscow is fully in bed with Kremlin, and the latter leads a clandestine war on Ukraine that claimed about 13,000 lives to date - making ROC's standing in Ukraine particularly tricky. How would you interpret that?

ArmyMatt said:

what conditions were not met?

Click to expand...

Ah, that's the fun part. One of them stated that Met. of Kyiv continues to commemorate EP on Liturgy, as his canonical Heas. To my knowledge, Met. Onufrii still doesn't do that.

In general, Russians have difficulty following treaties when they feel that they have an upper hand. In quite similar fashion, much-touted Treaty of Pereyaslav (joining lands of Ukraine to the Russian Empire) was watered down the moment ink dried, and completely abandoned soon after that. So when later they try to back their position with these old treaties, it can be quite awkward.

Bottom line: there are 2 canonical Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, now (ironically, it does look like Patr. Filaret wants to carve out his own fiefdom, again. One should not forget that the guy is 90 years old, after all).

StanU said:

When EP recognized the Patriarch Job of Moscow in 1589, Kyiv was not part of that state. And to be a bore, Constantinople recognized autocephaly of Church of Poland (which historically was part of Metropolis of Kyiv) in 1924 - precisely on the grounds that symonic letter of 1686 was invalid, so...

Moscow kept its jurisdiction over Kyiv for one simple reason - because Moscow secular state had control over the territory. It's not really true anymore. And oh BTW, Patriarchate of Moscow is fully in bed with Kremlin, and the latter leads a clandestine war on Ukraine that claimed about 13,000 lives to date - making ROC's standing in Ukraine particularly tricky. How would you interpret that?

Click to expand...

bad domestic and international policy, but what else is new. I am not here to defend Russian politics.

StanU said:

Ah, that's the fun part. One of them stated that Met. of Kyiv continues to commemorate EP on Liturgy, as his canonical Heas. To my knowledge, Met. Onufrii still doesn't do that.

In general, Russians have difficulty following treaties when they feel that they have an upper hand. In quite similar fashion, much-touted Treaty of Pereyaslav (joining lands of Ukraine to the Russian Empire) was watered down the moment ink dried, and completely abandoned soon after that. So when later they try to back their position with these old treaties, it can be quite awkward.

Bottom line: there are 2 canonical Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, now (ironically, it does look like Patr. Filaret wants to carve out his own fiefdom, again. One should not forget that the guy is 90 years old, after all).

Click to expand...

if your first point is true, why wasn't that brought up when Constantinople sent delegates to Met Onufry's enthronement? or his predecessor? in fact, can you show any evidence that any bishop brought this up prior to this whole situation?

as to your bottom line, no. there is only one canonical Church in Ukraine according to canon v of Nicaea.

StanU said:

My (clearly biased, but ain't we all?) take is that EP was clearly in the right there, both on canons and pastorally. In fact, Moscow had 30 years to heal the schism on its own, but is unable to do so due to its own divided loyalties

Click to expand...

There was no schism to heal. Constantinople created a schism which did not exist one second before they created it. The Phanar betrayed the Orthodox Church and the saints in heaven by embracing graceless actors whose vestments are nothing but Halloween costumes bought off E-bay.

The general principle is that if the Orthodox Church accepts a situation for centuries, it becomes the de facto rule, and appealing to claims from canons made centuries ago is a kind of legalism which ignores what canons are, which is tools, many for a specific situation, place or time, and not all are to be applied everywhere to all for all eternity.

And that is how the majority of the worldwide Church, most local Churches, have understood these events, and reacted accordingly. It IS tragic that a leading figure should buy into that legalism, and the motives are obvious, and quite worldly.

plus, bottom line is that when someone is excommunicated and/or anathema, only the Synod that did the excommunication can restore the person. Moscow did the excommunication (which everyone including Constantinople agreed to), so Moscow does the restoration.

and usually this comes with at least some repentance which Filaret has shown none of.

ArmyMatt said:

plus, bottom line is that when someone is excommunicated and/or anathema, only the Synod that did the excommunication can restore the person. Moscow did the excommunication (which everyone including Constantinople agreed to), so Moscow does the restoration.

and usually this comes with at least some repentance which Filaret has shown none of.

Click to expand...

EP didn't do the restoration. EP declared initial anathema invalid, using it's prerogative according to Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Because, let's face it, decision of Moscow was chiefly because of politics - no matter how disagreeable Filaret is. He was just the man he always was for decades - but when he diligently did KGB's bidding at the WCC it was just hankey and dorey with MP. And besides, it's not about him anymore - in fact, he is on track to restore his own little sandbox outside the World Orthodoxy as we speak.

There is NO "general principle" that " if the Orthodox Church accepts a situation for centuries, it becomes the de facto rule". Besides, the "de facto rule" here is "might makes right", or to put it gentler, "borders of dioceses shall follow civil divisions". Moscow was quite on board with that when it suited them.

rusmeister said:

The general principle is that if the Orthodox Church accepts a situation for centuries, it becomes the de facto rule, and appealing to claims from canons made centuries ago is a kind of legalism which ignores what canons are, which is tools, many for a specific situation, place or time, and not all are to be applied everywhere to all for all eternity.

Click to expand...

Nope, there is no general principle like that. If anything, the principle at work here is you can do anything as long as you have civil authorities behind you. If we accept that as a "de facto rule", then I'm not sure what MP complains about now - except maybe the fact that their own jurisdiction WASN'T forcibly suppressed as they would have done (and as they did to KP churches in Crimea and the thug-controlled pieces of the East).

rusmeister said:

And that is how the majority of the worldwide Church, most local Churches, have understood these events, and reacted accordingly. It IS tragic that a leading figure should buy into that legalism, and the motives are obvious, and quite worldly.

Click to expand...

Motives are obvious but quite opposite of worldly. It's bringing millions back into the Church's fold, something Moscow could have done anytime in the past 28 years. Instead, they folded completely into Putin's war criminal regime, and risk making Orthodoxy irrelevant in Ukraine as "the state Church of the enemy".


https://ssuinsight.com/khaki-church-to-be-built-outside-moscow/

ArmyMatt said:

if your first point is true, why wasn't that brought up when Constantinople sent delegates to Met Onufry's enthronement? or his predecessor? in fact, can you show any evidence that any bishop brought this up prior to this whole situation?

Click to expand...

I love this "if" in the matter of historical record. Here you are:
"That the most holy Eparchy of Kyiv should be subjected to the most holy patriarchal throne of the great and God-saved city Moscovy, by which we mean that the Metropolitan of Kyiv should be ordained there, whenever such need arises, by His Beatitude the Patriarch of Moscovy as the one elected by those in that eparchy, namely the right reverend bishops, very reverend archimandrites, righteous abbots of the holy and venerable monasteries, righteous hieromonks, pious clergy, righteous monks, rulers and others, at the exhortation and with the permission of the most distinguished great Ataman there, which has prevailed as the custom in that region, in order to receive from him the said act in writing, while recognizing him as his elder and presiding (hierarch), since he has been ordained by him, rather than by the ecumenical patriarch, as mentioned above, on account of the immense distance and the battles transpiring between the two kingdoms. We adopted a manner of condescension in accordance with the very old custom and granted to him such permission for reasons of οἰκονομία. Nevertheless, whenever this Metropolitan of Kyiv celebrates the sacred, holy and bloodless sacrifice in this diocese, he should commemorate among the first the venerable name of the Ecumenical Patriarch as his source and authority, and as superior to all dioceses and eparchies everywhere, followed by the commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscovy as his elder, without any resistance or refusal whatsoever in this, but accepting it as a reasonable and right act. Whosoever conceives anything contradictory to this, or in any other way seeks to disobey or demonstrate opposition to the command of the Lord, will in return receive appropriate penalties by the Lord as despising the patriarchs, who are the living and breathing images of God."

Pressing the point at Onufry's enthronement would not have achieved anything. Part. Bartholomew's concern is first and foremost pastoral.