Is this true: Greek Orthodox Holy Synod recognizes Ukrainian Schismatics?

not exactly making a great case for themselves, I dare say.

David Neos said:

Ukrainian schismatics continue to concelebrate with Uniates and Roman Catholics

Click to expand...

This is the endgame plan of the ecumenist heretic Bart along with giving his own office added secular power. He is a neo-papalist.

it's not "Bart." even St Cyril was respectful towards the heretic Nestorius, calling him his beloved brother and concelebrant even in the letter where he calls out Nestorius' heresy.

so unless we think we are greater saints than St Cyril, we should still call our bishops by their actual titles, and not disrespectful nicknames.

ArmyMatt said:

it's not "Bart." even St Cyril was respectful towards the heretic Nestorius, calling him his beloved brother and concelebrant even in the letter where he calls out Nestorius' heresy.

so unless we think we are greater saints than St Cyril, we should still call our bishops by their actual titles, and not disrespectful nicknames.

Click to expand...

So Father, we don't call bishops heretics until they are condemned?

David Neos said:

So Father, we don't call bishops heretics until they are condemned?

Click to expand...

it's one thing to point out a heresy. it's a whole other to be disrespectful for its own sake.

plus, bishops determine heretics.

ArmyMatt said:

it's one thing to point out a heresy. it's a whole other to be disrespectful for its own sake.

plus, bishops determine heretics.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Origen condemned 300 years after his death? Did he became a heretic when he was condemned? Before that was he only referred as a man with heterodox views?

I've been calling out the person in Instanbul for 20 years. Too bad there aren't more like me in the GOA. It may have prevented the mess we are in and there would have been no Athenagoras award as he too would have been condemned by now.

David Neos said:

Wasn't Origen condemned 300 years after his death? Did he became a heretic when he was condemned? Before that was he only referred as a man with heterodox views?

Click to expand...

he was condemned during his lifetime. Constantinople II was just the final nail in the coffin.

buzuxi02 said:

I've been calling out the person in Instanbul for 20 years. Too bad there aren't more like me in the GOA. It may have prevented the mess we are in and there would have been no Athenagoras award as he too would have been condemned by now.

Click to expand...

"too bad there aren't more like me in the GOA..."

that sounds a lot like a Gospel we read before Lent...

ArmyMatt said:

it's one thing to point out a heresy. it's a whole other to be disrespectful for its own sake.

plus, bishops determine heretics.

Click to expand...

Fr. Matthew, what do you make of Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum?

While he was a layperson, in 429 he had the bravery to reprove Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople, publicly for his heresy, and was likely the one who posted the "Contestatio," which called upon the Faithful to reject the theology of Nestorius. The Church praised him, to the point that he would later enter into Holy Orders and become a Bishop.

Eusebius of Dorylaeum | bishop
biblicalcyclopedia.com/E/eusebius-of-dorylaeum.html
"The History of the Heresies and Their Refutation," Alphonsus De Liguori, Article IV: The Heresy of Eutyches, 44: The Beginning of Eutyches

If this is historically true, that only Bishops can accuse others of heresy, why did the Church not reprove him as a layperson for accusing the Bishop of Constantinople, one of the most influential and powerful Bishops at that time, of heresy?

Certainly it took the Bishops to determine that Nestorianism was a heresy. However, was Eusebius of Dorylaeum really in the wrong for accusing Nestorius of heresy as a layperson?

You might have answered this before, but I remember you reproving me as not even a layperson rather than answering it.

TheLostCoin said:

Fr. Matthew, what do you make of Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum?

While he was a layperson, in 429 he had the bravery to reprove Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople, publicly for his heresy, and was likely the one who posted the "Contestatio," which called upon the Faithful to reject the theology of Nestorius. The Church praised him, to the point that he would later enter into Holy Orders and become a Bishop.

Eusebius of Dorylaeum | bishop
biblicalcyclopedia.com/E/eusebius-of-dorylaeum.html
"The History of the Heresies and Their Refutation," Alphonsus De Liguori, Article IV: The Heresy of Eutyches, 44: The Beginning of Eutyches

If this is historically true, that only Bishops can accuse others of heresy, why did the Church not reprove him as a layperson for accusing the Bishop of Constantinople, one of the most influential and powerful Bishops at that time, of heresy?

Certainly it took the Bishops to determine that Nestorianism was a heresy. However, was Eusebius of Dorylaeum really in the wrong for accusing Nestorius of heresy as a layperson?

You might have answered this before, but I remember you reproving me as not even a layperson rather than answering it.

Click to expand...

St Cyril also wrote against Nestorius in 429, who was a bishop at the time. so I would ask if he was called on by a bishop to speak against the heretic.

but I doubt anyone called Nestorius, "Testy Nesty" or anything in their refutation of him.

ArmyMatt said:

St Cyril also wrote against Nestorius in 429, who was a bishop at the time. so I would ask if he was called on by a bishop to speak against the heretic.

but I doubt anyone called Nestorius, "Testy Nesty" or anything in their refutation of him.

Click to expand...

Fair point. Amen to your latter point. Not to mention, while it's a horribly offensive name, my juvenile aspects find that description of Nestorius pretty funny.

Check this out guys :

Metropolitans Seraphim of Piraeus and Kythira say no vote happened, no recognition of OCU


Were we getting fake news / deceptive news ?



.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

Check this out guys :

Metropolitans Seraphim of Piraeus and Kythira say no vote happened, no recognition of OCU


Were we getting fake news / deceptive news ?



.

Click to expand...

They recognize them. As the article states the Athens bishop is to concelebrate on Oct 19. There is some big celebration happening this weekend in Thessaloniki for some events. Pat. Bart along with Epiphanios are attending DL. Maybe they wont officially add his name in the diptychs right away as an excuse.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

Check this out guys :

Metropolitans Seraphim of Piraeus and Kythira say no vote happened, no recognition of OCU


Were we getting fake news / deceptive news ?



.

Click to expand...

just pray for them. there has been a lot of early, inaccurate reporting on this.

Someone please explain this to me in very simple terms. There are so many players over there in Europe that it makes my head spin.

it's too complicated, and there might have been some false information.

TheLostCoin said:

In 2014, there was a pro-EU coup in Ukraine (Ukraine, as a country, is split between pro-Russian and pro-Western, and the pro-Western faction seized power after the pro-Russian president made a pro-Russian economic decision), which led to a civil war when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed a part of Eastern Ukraine.

This whole conflict became a problem of Ukrainian Nationalism and Russian Nationalism, which always existed but now was greatly exaggerated, and this bled into religion.

Canonically, Ukraine was and is under the territory of the Moscow Patriarch, and was recognized as such by the rest of the Church. In the 90s, a group broke communion with Moscow to have an autonomous, self-governing Church (obviously, Pro-Western and nationalistic) and this Church was seen as schismatic and unrecognized by any actual Orthodox Church.

Patriarch Bartholomew came in, claiming that Moscow never actually owned Ukraine, and recognized this schismatic group as canonical. Russia broke communion with Constantinople in response, believing it to be an infringement of their rights.

And behind the scenes, there’s clear evidence that the United States State Department has been involved with this whole process of recognition.

This whole process has led to a lot of violence, with the schismatics even violently seizing the Russian owned Churches, claiming they have a right to own it.

And now, the Church of Greece (a separate body from the Ecumenical Patriarch) has recognized the schismatic Church as canonical.

Click to expand...

Let me provide counterpoints (and inevitably derail this thread). First, if you try to get to the common denominator of what people deride as "Ukrainian Nationalism", it simply amounts to working to support Ukraine as a separate nation. There were some heros, villains, and in-betweens on this side. The opposing notion has many names; official Imperial Russian doctrine spoke of "Great, Small, and White Russias" (Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus) comprising a single indivisible Russian nation. Soviet propaganda used "brotherly nations" instead, and now Patr. Kirill uttered a new doctrine of "Russian World". In practical terms, it amounts to Ukrainians and Belorussians having to fold into Russian nation, forgetting their "nationalist" identities and abandoning their "backwards" or "unnecessary" languages. Various policies attempted to make this true on the ground; Belarus is almost thoroughly Russified at this point. These polities are de facto what we would now call "ethnic cleansing"; the fact that so many people on this forum (US citizens and ostensibly Christians) are sympathetic to Russia on this point is horrifying.

Now, canonically, the Metropolis of Kyiv was under EP (obviously, as it predates the emergence of Moscow as an outpost of Kyiv princes, let alone a center of a nation, by some centuries). In 17th century, Moscow gained control of most of the Ukrainian territory and illegally installed it's own Metropolitan in Kyiv. To solve this problem retroactively, Moscow went to Istanbul and paid bribes to a newly-elected EP (who was coaxed to accept a bribe by Ottoman Visier - so the new EP could repay a bribe to Visier paid to ensure EP's election). It obtained a letter "forgiving" Moscow for it's uncanonical actions and granting it the right to consecrate Kyiv Metropolitan, "due to political situation and travel difficulty". This is what Moscow immediately started to spin as having Kyiv as its integral part. So, last year EP revoked that letter and re-created his jurisdiction in Ukraine, subsequently giving it autocephaly. Most members of the new Church of Ukraine came from the former self-proclaimed jurisdictions, but EP did not "recognize this schismatic group as canonical". Very explicitly so, as evidenced by his position on former Patriarch Filaret.

On taking Russian churches: under Ukrainian law, parishes can vote to change jurisdictions. Every time a parish chooses to abandon ROCinU and join OCU, ROC starts crying "violence". In reality, ROCinU has plenty of hired goons of its own; whether or not any on parish transfers were enabled by violence on "nationalist" side is unclear (although in many cases, it clearly was not). ROCinU continues to operate and even build new parishes (in some cases, for no clear reasons other than being seen to build a new church).

David Neos said:

Ukrainian schismatics continue to concelebrate with Uniates and Roman Catholics

Click to expand...

The only instance where Liturgy was concelebrated was with a Montenegrin priest, in a service with dozens of concelebrants. Met. Epipnahy officially apologized, in a letter to the Church of Serbia no less. Catholic priests present vested in churches during services were fairly common occurrence in ROC until recently. New Slovenian parish is a debunked hoax; foreign parishes OCU has are holdovers from UOC-KP and UAOC, and exist until hierarchs figure out what to do with them. Ironically, one of more high profile of these was a cathedral of. Met. Ioasaph of Bogorod and Oboyan in Russia, and a couple of churches under this hierarch. He solved this problem for OCU by following Patr. Hon. Filaret into his new schism.

In short, the article you link is full of lies. One has to wonder why Moscow has to resort to so much lying. Maybe because they don't have a legitimate case.

StanU said:

Let me provide counterpoints (and inevitably derail this thread). First, if you try to get to the common denominator of what people deride as "Ukrainian Nationalism", it simply amounts to working to support Ukraine as a separate nation. There were some heros, villains, and in-betweens on this side. The opposing notion has many names; official Imperial Russian doctrine spoke of "Great, Small, and White Russias" (Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus) comprising a single indivisible Russian nation. Soviet propaganda used "brotherly nations" instead, and now Patr. Kirill uttered a new doctrine of "Russian World". In practical terms, it amounts to Ukrainians and Belorussians having to fold into Russian nation, forgetting their "nationalist" identities and abandoning their "backwards" or "unnecessary" languages. Various policies attempted to make this true on the ground; Belarus is almost thoroughly Russified at this point. These polities are de facto what we would now call "ethnic cleansing"; the fact that so many people on this forum (US citizens and ostensibly Christians) are sympathetic to Russia on this point is horrifying.

Click to expand...

In my argument, I never actually argued that Russia was in the right in terms of nationalism; I tried to discuss that the issue is connected to both Russian nationalism and Ukrainian nationalism. I think when nationalism leads to any kind of belief in national supremacy (based on the nation alone) or violence towards others, it is a disgusting ideology that should be condemned. I don't think nationalism in the sense of "philism" (Anglophilism, Russophilism, Slavophilism, etc.) and pride in one's own country is bad, it gets bad when it leads to the aforementioned things.

Both Russia and Ukraine are both equally guilty in having nationalistic players.

While Russia viewing Belarus and Ukraine as nothing more than an extension of "Holy Rus" is pretty terrible in my opinion, the Ukrainians aren't innocent bystanders considering they commemorate Stepan Bandera, a Nazi who helped exterminate Jews, as a hero and liberating figure of Ukraine, and when Poroshenko had the policy of literally banning and criminalizing Russian, which is the spoken tongue for like 40% of the population of Ukraine.

That's also not to mention painting Churches with Nazi symbols and iconography.

Matfey Shaheen. Ukrainian schismatic “priest,” Uniates, consider Nazi SS Galicia fighters saints
False Patriarch Philaret blesses a Nationalist Mural with Nazi symbolism

Now, canonically, the Metropolis of Kyiv was under EP (obviously, as it predates the emergence of Moscow as an outpost of Kyiv princes, let alone a center of a nation, by some centuries). In 17th century, Moscow gained control of most of the Ukrainian territory and illegally installed it's own Metropolitan in Kyiv. To solve this problem retroactively, Moscow went to Istanbul and paid bribes to a newly-elected EP (who was coaxed to accept a bribe by Ottoman Visier - so the new EP could repay a bribe to Visier paid to ensure EP's election). It obtained a letter "forgiving" Moscow for it's uncanonical actions and granting it the right to consecrate Kyiv Metropolitan, "due to political situation and travel difficulty". This is what Moscow immediately started to spin as having Kyiv as its integral part. So, last year EP revoked that letter and re-created his jurisdiction in Ukraine, subsequently giving it autocephaly. Most members of the new Church of Ukraine came from the former self-proclaimed jurisdictions, but EP did not "recognize this schismatic group as canonical". Very explicitly so, as evidenced by his position on former Patriarch Filaret.

Click to expand...

Is there any actual proof of a "bribe" outside of propaganda?

And even then, you can't just accept a situation as canonical and stay silent for 400 years, and then have the audacity to revoke another Bishop's territory under the claims that it is actually yours, especially when you actually disagreed with people who made the claim that that Bishop's territory is uncanonical for 20 years, and changed your mind when it was politically expedient.

Patriarch Bartholomew recognized Filaret as a schismatic, and only recently changed his mind.

Following this logic, the Bishop of Jerusalem could technically claim Universal Jurisdiction, as all the Churches had their origin in the territory of Jerusalem at Pentecost.

Oh yeah, the Apostle James "let" the other Apostles form their own jurisdictions, and let Niceaea happen, but secretly, Jerusalem had the world as its territory

On taking Russian churches: under Ukrainian law, parishes can vote to change jurisdictions. Every time a parish chooses to abandon ROCinU and join OCU, ROC starts crying "violence". In reality, ROCinU has plenty of hired goons of its own; whether or not any on parish transfers were enabled by violence on "nationalist" side is unclear (although in many cases, it clearly was not). ROCinU continues to operate and even build new parishes (in some cases, for no clear reasons other than being seen to build a new church).

Click to expand...

I'm sure those votes were as democratic as Eastern Ukraine's vote to become a part of Russia.