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

Not David · Oct 29, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
actually, they do have different theology since they have a different understanding of ecclesiology.

Do all schismatics have different theology?

dzheremi · Oct 29, 2019

If you really don't have any doctrinal differences with the Eastern Orthodox Church, wouldn't you also affirm their ecclesiology? Or is ecclesiology completely separate from doctrine? I don't see how that could be. The Melkites (Roman Catholic Arab-Greek uniate church) tried to separate the two back in the 1990s with their Zoghby Initiative in which they claimed to believe in everything Eastern Orthodoxy teaches, while still remaining in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Shockingly, that went nowhere.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith · Oct 29, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
I think you should ask to purge the evil from people. if we purged evil people, no one would remain.

I understand what you mean but there are "some" people in this world who have gone past the point of no return and won't / can't be forgiven.

And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, It Will Not Be Forgiven.
• Luke 12:10

.

buzuxi02 · Oct 29, 2019

The Phanar as of recent has introduced the heresies of ethnophyletism and papism into their ecclesiology. This doesnt include other innovation such as caesaropapism to compliment the standard papism.

ArmyMatt · Oct 29, 2019

David Neos said:
Do all schismatics have different theology?

most do

ArmyMatt · Oct 29, 2019

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:
I understand what you mean but there are "some" people in this world who have gone past the point of no return and won't / can't be forgiven.

And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, It Will Not Be Forgiven.
• Luke 12:10

.

no, you only know who truly blasphemed the Spirit after death. for everyone this side of eternity, there is always hope.

StanU · Oct 29, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
actually, they do have different theology since they have a different understanding of ecclesiology.

Of course. Like the "Third Rome" theory, or Sergianism.

StanU · Oct 29, 2019

David Neos said:
Who says schism is about doctrine only?

Well, severing communion over the turf war also could be a schism, so...

ArmyMatt · Oct 29, 2019

StanU said:
Of course. Like the "Third Rome" theory, or Sergianism.

well, Third Rome was signed on Moscow's charter by Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople. dunno why you brought that up.

dunno what Sergianism has to do with this, aside from it being a heretical ecclesiology as well.

but neither of those actually counter my point.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith · Oct 31, 2019

So, Fr. Matt what should we pray about this particular situation ?

Should we ask God that new Patriarchal Bishops reverse these decisions on both sides when they are made Archbishops ?

.

ArmyMatt · Oct 31, 2019

pray that God's will be done.

StanU · Oct 31, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
pray that God's will be done.

Wow. I logged in to leave this exact comment.

StanU · Oct 31, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
well, Third Rome was signed on Moscow's charter by Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople. dunno why you brought that up.

dunno what Sergianism has to do with this, aside from it being a heretical ecclesiology as well.

but neither of those actually counter my point.

Yeah well, point is criticisms of ecclesiology go both ways; one may argue that the gist of the conflict is canonical rather than dogmatic anyway. And, of course, political.

For example, OCA's Tomos is based on reasoning pretty much everyone else rejects (and even MP doesn't take too seriously). Doesn't make any one side "schismatic", does it?

ArmyMatt · Oct 31, 2019

StanU said:
Yeah well, point is criticisms of ecclesiology go both ways; one may argue that the gist of the conflict is canonical rather than dogmatic anyway. And, of course, political.

For example, OCA's Tomos is based on reasoning pretty much everyone else rejects (and even MP doesn't take too seriously). Doesn't make any one side "schismatic", does it?

no, because the OCA has no history of everyone rejecting even their cannonicity (unlike the OCU), and there is no mass of bishops within the OCA that have no actual Apostlic succession (unlike one of the bodies that merged to form the OCU, and I am not talking about the former KP). that last one is theological.

AMM · Oct 31, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
no, because the OCA has no history of everyone rejecting even their cannonicity (unlike the OCU), and there is no mass of bishops within the OCA that have no actual Apostlic succession (unlike one of the bodies that merged to form the OCU, and I am not talking about the former KP). that last one is theological.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the OCA situation more akin to if the EP had granted autocephaly to Met Onuphry’s church, and the local churches said “no they’re still only autonomous, not autocephalous”?

ArmyMatt · Oct 31, 2019

AMM said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the OCA situation more akin to if the EP had granted autocephaly to Met Onuphry’s church, and the local churches said “no they’re still only autonomous, not autocephalous”?

it'd be more akin to the EP granting autocephaly to the Greek Archdiocese of Australia.

buzuxi02 · Oct 31, 2019

AMM said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the OCA situation more akin to if the EP had granted autocephaly to Met Onuphry’s church, and the local churches said “no they’re still only autonomous, not autocephalous”?

Back then the OCA (aka Metropolia) petitioned the EP Athenagoras to recieve them. Athenagoras told them they broke off from Moscow and they have to go to them to reconcile, so they did.

StanU · Nov 1, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
no, because the OCA has no history of everyone rejecting even their cannonicity (unlike the OCU), and there is no mass of bishops within the OCA that have no actual Apostlic succession (unlike one of the bodies that merged to form the OCU, and I am not talking about the former KP). that last one is theological.

OCA did not have history of everyone rejecting their canonicity; OCA was formed Dec. 15, 2018. You confuse them with UOC-KP and UAOC. EP did admit clergy and laity from the two latter churches; receiving people from uncanonical jurisdictions, even in existing orders, was demonstrably done many, many, many times in the past. UOCUSA and UOCC are two examples.

Also, there's no "mass of bishops that have no actual Apostolic succession". Rather, Moscow makes this claim; OCA denies, and apparently EP studied this question since at least 2010 or earlier. It all boggles down to a question of whether one person was actually ordained or not (and whether bishops in question have alternative lines: which I understand most or all do), and not "doctrine". Besides, this is also trite, and easily fixable if needed (as was done, again, in all of UOCUSA, UOCC, and UAOC-Diaspora).

ArmyMatt · Nov 1, 2019

StanU said:
OCA did not have history of everyone rejecting their canonicity; OCA was formed Dec. 15, 2018. You confuse them with UOC-KP and UAOC. EP did admit clergy and laity from the two latter churches; receiving people from uncanonical jurisdictions, even in existing orders, was demonstrably done many, many, many times in the past. UOCUSA and UOCC are two examples.

Also, there's no "mass of bishops that have no actual Apostolic succession". Rather, Moscow makes this claim; OCA denies, and apparently EP studied this question since at least 2010 or earlier. It all boggles down to a question of whether one person was actually ordained or not (and whether bishops in question have alternative lines: which I understand most or all do), and not "doctrine". Besides, this is also trite, and easily fixable if needed (as was done, again, in all of UOCUSA, UOCC, and UAOC-Diaspora).

what? the OCA received her tomos in 1970...

and to my knowledge, the UAOC was started by a guy who was never actually consecrated a bishop by other bishops. he is the one I am talking about. in this case, I wasn't talking about the KP.

and yes, schismatics have been readmitted to the Church, but it's always been with open repentance of their schism.

All4Christ · Nov 1, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
what? the OCA received her tomos in 1970...

and to my knowledge, the UAOC was started by a guy who was never actually consecrated a bishop by other bishops. he is the one I am talking about. in this case, I wasn't talking about the KP.

and yes, schismatics have been readmitted to the Church, but it's always been with open repentance of their schism.

Correct. He was “consecrated” to be bishop by the laying of hands of the priests present and the laity present.

Vasyl Lypkivsky - Wikipedia
“The move for autonomy from Russia led to the assertion of Ukrainian autocephaly at the First All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Council on 23 October 1921. Since no Orthodox bishop would take part in this action, the council decided to ordain its leader, Archpriest Vasyl Lypkivsky, as Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine for the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Churchthrough the laying-on-of-hands by the priestsand laypeople present. Because of the extremely unorthodox method it used to obtain a hierarchy, and its disrespect for some established canonical principles, this church was never acknowledged by any other Orthodox church. However, by early 1924 the new church had 30 bishops and approximately 1,500 priests and deacons serving in nearly 1,100 parishes in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, with possibly as many as six million faithful.”

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

I'm back!

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Active Member

Regular Member

A Beggar

Regular Member

Veteran

Active Member

Regular Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Similar threads