"Patriarch" Philaret

StanU said:

Try to look from my perspective. Ortho forums (not just this one) are downright deferential to the Orientals, civil to Catholics, understanding to various "True Orthodox" and "Old Calendarist" outfits. It's just Ukrainian Autocephalists who are unredeemable schismatics, because they dared to disturb the "unity" of Russian church - and I know that this "unity" rests mostly on a notion that Ukrainian nation doesn't really have right to exist. "Elder Lavrentii" mythos seeps with this sentiment. If I, raisen Russophone, am fed up and "confrontational" over this stuff, imagine what people repeatedly told to "speak human language" in their own country feel.

Click to expand...

Look, I am a convert from Appalachia with a computer. My opinions matter little. The whole Ukraine thing was strange and seemed to be driven by outside parties. I do side with Kirill on the actions of Bartholomew. So what? Why would you let the opinion of a guy in Tennessee or Maine or even St. Petersburg (Russia OR Florida) get you so upset? None of us can do anything about the situation except pray. And I suggest to simply pray, "Lord have mercy."

Hermit76 said:

None of us can do anything about the situation except pray. And I suggest to simply pray, "Lord have mercy."

Click to expand...

Best suggestion for this topic, EVAH!!!!!

☦Marius☦ said:

All those people you listed are generally non-confrontational. I understand your anger towards Russia, but most of us like the historic Russian church whether or not the current regime is corrupt.

However this is a hot issue, you really expect their to not be opinions differing from yours? Most of the church had sided with Kiril on this particular issue after all.

No one here claims you are unredeamable.

Click to expand...

Well, it would be hard for you to claim *I* am unredeemable since I'm in UOCC and we're still in communion, right?

Let me tell you about historic Russian church. After the infamous grant "transferred" Metropolis of Kyiv to Moscow's jurisdiction, government-controlled Russian Church was in the business of "russifying Our Southern gubernias". Unlike current KGB-trained weasel-speak, they were very direct, up-PC, and very openly in business of eradicating every single thing the locals differed from bog-standard Russians. Can't blame them, I guess, given how that was their job, but sort of leaves a different taste in mouths of anyone who at least somewhat identify with the locals? The reason why Lypkivsky's UAOC of 1918 didn't have apostolic succession (and every other montley crew managed to grab one) was because not one of the bishops of the historic ROC in Kyiv Metropolia at the time was an ethnic Ukrainian. UAOC-1941 reached to Poland to get some bishops (and that's where UOC-USA and UOCC bishops stand - Polykarp Sikorsky line). Modern ROC's policy is, actually, well in the historic tradition on this point, except they learned how to do it in more hypocritical, deniable ways.

One can like the historic British culture, like Shakespeare and even Kipling, and still not instinctively side with the white sahibs in every Colonial affair. Case in point: Canada, residential schools.

Hermit76 said:

And I suggest to simply pray, "Lord have mercy."

Click to expand...

Great idea. It's better than that though, because we're proudly supportive of OCU at hierarchical level (Bp. Ilarion of Edmonton was one of EP's Exarchs and, rumor has it, EP-preferred candidate for OCU Primate), and asking for Ukraine's freedom is done in church every Sunday:
Prayer for Ukraine - Wikipedia
Wiki article is not terribly informative, sorry for that.

Ukraine is already independent...

StanU said:

Try to look from my perspective. Ortho forums (not just this one) are downright deferential to the Orientals, civil to Catholics, understanding to various "True Orthodox" and "Old Calendarist" outfits. It's just Ukrainian Autocephalists who are unredeemable schismatics, because they dared to disturb the "unity" of Russian church - and I know that this "unity" rests mostly on a notion that Ukrainian nation doesn't really have right to exist. "Elder Lavrentii" mythos seeps with this sentiment. If I, raisen Russophone, am fed up and "confrontational" over this stuff, imagine what people repeatedly told to "speak human language" in their own country feel.

Click to expand...

Not really, if any of those groups come in an aggressive way here people in this forum would not allow them, I believe that even this Forum is less tolerant of Old Calendarists. It depends on the tone.

Also, those groups aren't attempting to overthrow a canonical Church on its own territory. They aren't stealing our churches and beating up our priests and grandmas.

☦Marius☦ said:

See this is the main problem I have. This whole schism is from racism on both sides.

Click to expand...

See, this is exactly the "very fine people on both sides" statement. One side is still more wronged.

Double post.

Platina said:

Ukraine is already independent...

Click to expand...

Read the lyrics; it is not really dependent on independence per se.

Also, thanks for bringing up a major pro-autocephaly argument. Yes indeedi-o, Ukraine is already intependent, has been for 28 years.

Platina said:

Also, those groups aren't attempting to overthrow a canonical Church on its own territory. They aren't stealing our churches and beating up our priests and grandmas.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling I know which sources you use...

I would try to look up what they did to local councilman Vladimir Rybak in Slovyansk in 2014 and think whether it's smart or moral to play victim, when you are on the pro-Russian side in this debate.


PS. also, OCU IS a canonical Church on its own territory. A party that destroys a canonical Church on its own territory is Russian state in Crimea.

It's false to paint this as pro or anti-Russian. That is a tactic of Constantinople and the Ukrainian schismatics that is meant to divert from the canonical questions involved, but no one else is falling for it.

It's about siding with the canonical norms of Orthodoxy. I agree with the Albanian Church, with the Cypriot Church, with the Jerusalem Church, etc.

So you might as well call me pro-Greek except for Constantinople.

StanU said:

Read the lyrics; it is not really dependent on independence per se.

Also, thanks for bringing up a major pro-autocephaly argument. Yes indeedi-o, Ukraine is already intependent, has been for 28 years.

Click to expand...

Well, there is no one model in the Orthodox Church. Sometimes autocephaly is granted based on modern state borders, and sometimes it's about people in a local area. The Byzantine Empire had multiple autocephalous Churches within its boundaries.

And today, Constantinople has like 50 dioceses on the territory of Greece, so there's no model of one state-one Church going on there.

But anyways, I don't know of anyone who rejects the possibility of Ukraine having autocephaly in principle. I, for one, would warmly welcome an autocephalous Church led by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry. Many of the Churches that have strongly rejected what Constantinople has done have also expressly stated that they support autocephaly for Ukraine should the Ukrainian Church want it.

But the Ukrainian Church has declared multiple times that it is not interested in autocephaly.

Platina said:

Well, there is no one model in the Orthodox Church. Sometimes autocephaly is granted based on modern state borders, and sometimes it's about people in a local area. The Byzantine Empire had multiple autocephalous Churches within its boundaries.

And today, Constantinople has like 50 dioceses on the territory of Greece, so there's no model of one state-one Church going on there.

Click to expand...

Is that so? I'd love to delve into all these and see how none of this applies to Ukraine. For starters, a model of autocephaly following the temporal sovereignty was pioneered by note other than the Grand Principality of Moscow. So this is yet another argument advanced by Moscow that, if you look closer, turns out to be shockingly dishonest.
Ahyhoo, you undermine this argument by your next argument.

Platina said:

But anyways, I don't know of anyone who rejects the possibility of Ukraine having autocephaly in principle. I, for one, would warmly welcome an autocephalous Church led by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry. Many of the Churches that have strongly rejected what Constantinople has done have also expressly stated that they support autocephaly for Ukraine should the Ukrainian Church want it.

But the Ukrainian Church has declared multiple times that it is not interested in autocephaly.

Click to expand...

Frankly, even you must have known this is a bunch of propaganda. Ukrainian Orthodox Church declared, twice, that it IS interested in autocephaly. Moscow postponed the decision and, in the meantime, made appointments and set up incentives to make sure ROCinU will not press the issue, ever. If interested, look up an essay by Fr. Dr. Kirill Hovorun, former aide to Met. Volodymyr (Sabodan) (who might not have left the ROC jurisdiction for all I know) on just this topic. And oh BTW: even currently, ROC officially has it both ways. Very Byzantine.

Bonus question: who was the champion and first Metropolitan of the modern "UOC-MP"?

StanU said:

Is that so? I'd love to delve into all these and see how none of this applies to Ukraine. For starters, a model of autocephaly following the temporal sovereignty was pioneered by note other than the Grand Principality of Moscow. So this is yet another argument advanced by Moscow that, if you look closer, turns out to be shockingly dishonest.
Ahyhoo, you undermine this argument by your next argument.


Frankly, even you must have known this is a bunch of propaganda. Ukrainian Orthodox Church declared, twice, that it IS interested in autocephaly. Moscow postponed the decision and, in the meantime, made appointments and set up incentives to make sure ROCinU will not press the issue, ever. If interested, look up an essay by Fr. Dr. Kirill Hovorun, former aide to Met. Volodymyr (Sabodan) (who might not have left the ROC jurisdiction for all I know) on just this topic. And oh BTW: even currently, ROC officially has it both ways. Very Byzantine.

Bonus question: who was the champion and first Metropolitan of the modern "UOC-MP"?

Click to expand...

Hi, Stan,
I haven’t followed or read everything you’ve said, so if I’ve missed something, I apologize, but I have to say that if you are referring to any other organization other than that under Met. Onuphry, you are speaking of a schismatic group. We know that schismatic groups have requested autocephaly, and recognition as legitimate. It wasn’t granted, because they had schismed, and formed their own structure. Backing them means backing a schismatic group. That ought to be obvious, but I guess not...

As to your bonus question, it’s pretty easy to show that the former Met Philaret Denisenko was replaced and ultimately defrocked, so being the first doesn’t make him permanently legitimate.

So I guess the question is whether you are with the schismatics, or the canonical Church. Appealing to HH Pat Bartholomew doesn’t work as canonical; if a Patriarch goes rogue he’s still schismatic. No one is schism-proof by their position in the Church. The other question there is what the consensus of the Church worldwide is, and the answer is what Platina is saying now.

StanU said:

Is that so? I'd love to delve into all these and see how none of this applies to Ukraine. For starters, a model of autocephaly following the temporal sovereignty was pioneered by note other than the Grand Principality of Moscow. So this is yet another argument advanced by Moscow that, if you look closer, turns out to be shockingly dishonest.
Ahyhoo, you undermine this argument by your next argument.

Click to expand...

You'll never understand what I'm saying if you insist on painting everything I say as pro-MP and then evaluating it from that POV.

Indeed, Georgia came under the Russian Church when it became part of the empire. That's something I don't agree with about Russian history. Places like Moldova came under the Russian Church for the same reasons, and now several places like Belarus and Latvia, etc remain with the Russian Church even after the fall of the Soviet Union.

And Constantinople has both models going on as well. They support one nation-one Church in terms of Ukraine, but not in terms of Greece.

So the point is there is no one clear cut answer. Quite frankly, this is something that really should be hammered out once and for all at a pan-Orthodox council.

Frankly, even you must have known this is a bunch of propaganda. Ukrainian Orthodox Church declared, twice, that it IS interested in autocephaly. Moscow postponed the decision and, in the meantime, made appointments and set up incentives to make sure ROCinU will not press the issue, ever. If interested, look up an essay by Fr. Dr. Kirill Hovorun, former aide to Met. Volodymyr (Sabodan) (who might not have left the ROC jurisdiction for all I know) on just this topic. And oh BTW: even currently, ROC officially has it both ways. Very Byzantine.

Click to expand...

Yes, they asked 30 yrs ago under Philaret, but as I'm sure you know, many of those hierarchs also withdrew their signatures.

And the UOC in modern times has said multiple times they don't want autocephaly.

Imagine if those who DO want autocephaly had just remained in the Church and worked towards their goal. They probably would have had a legitimate autocephaly long ago. But instead they decided to remain in schism for 30 years, and yes, even Constantinople considered them schismatics until practically yesterday, and force their way into the Church not via repentance but by playing on anti-Russian sentiments.

The Ukrainian vs. Russian and Greek vs. Russian stuff in the Church is an embarrassment and it needs to stop.

rusmeister said:

Hi, Stan,
I haven’t followed or read everything you’ve said, so if I’ve missed something, I apologize, but I have to say that if you are referring to any other organization other than that under Met. Onuphry, you are speaking of a schismatic group. We know that schismatic groups have requested autocephaly, and recognition as legitimate. It wasn’t granted, because they had schismed, and formed their own structure. Backing them means backing a schismatic group. That ought to be obvious, but I guess not...

Click to expand...

Boy oh boy, talk about being in a bubble...
Dude, I attend a UOCC now; maybe our sister jurisdiction UOC-USA is more familiar to you. What is the position of these Churches? Consistent for many decades: Ukraine is and always was an EP canonical territory, EP has all the right to intervene, should've done it sooner. Once he did, now-OCU ceased to be "schismatic", to our enormous joy. This not just ought, but IS obvious. To others, you might get a clue from the fact that we are under the EP, and in the past had links with both historic incarnations of UAOC.

BTW, they were always a parasynagogue at worst, Orthodox groups that are of irregular governance. You guys in North America should be more tuned to the concept, as just about each of Ortho jurisdictions here either was one or took one in.

rusmeister said:

As to your bonus question, it’s pretty easy to show that the former Met Philaret Denisenko was replaced and ultimately defrocked, so being the first doesn’t make him permanently legitimate.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The fact that the EP heard his appeal and chose to regularize renders him newly-legitimate, though he does his darnedest to lose that legitimacy again. I wasn't talking about that though.
ROCinU uses their identity as "the Ukrainian Orthodox Church" VERY extensively, as part of their assault on "schismatics". And they would not even have this name nor the status if Philaret didn't conceive and pushed for it. I believe they were even raised to the Exarchate on request and for Met. Filaret; ROC fought tooth and nail against any separate Ukrainian identity for centuries. So when Met. Onufrii's jurisdiction use that schtick where they are not part of the ROC and simultaneously they are, they really should thank Philaret - and somehow they don't.

rusmeister said:

So I guess the question is whether you are with the schismatics, or the canonical Church. Appealing to HH Pat Bartholomew doesn’t work as canonical; if a Patriarch goes rogue he’s still schismatic. No one is schism-proof by their position in the Church. The other question there is what the consensus of the Church worldwide is, and the answer is what Platina is saying now.

Click to expand...

Yeah sure, tell it to the ROCOR from 1918 to 2007. There is no Church worldwide consensus.

Gentlemen

I really think that this thread is just going round and round and round in circles . Perhaps we should just give it a rest ?

Meantime I suggest that we follow RobNJ's advice "Patriarch" Philaret

Господи помилуй!