Changing of Kiev's Jurisdiction in 1680s

[abacabb3]

I have always understood, until a few months ago, that Constantinople permnanetly transferred Kiev to Moscow's jursidiction. Recently, it is claimed by some that this transfer was always understood to be temporary, at least in Constantinople.

My question is, what is our evidence for each side? DO we know what the documents in the 1680s said? DO we know how they have been intepretted by both sides afterwards?

 

[ArmyMatt]

the strongest evidence is in how the Church has acted. you cannot recognize Met Onufry has being the territorial head of Ukraine, and then pull that plug from him when he did nothing to be deposed or removed or whatever.

 

[archer75]

the strongest evidence is in how the Church has acted. you cannot recognize Met Onufry has being the territorial head of Ukraine, and then pull that plug from him when he did nothing to be deposed or removed or whatever.

Has the plug been pulled from him?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Has the plug been pulled from him?

according to what Constantinople has said, yes. you can't enter another bishop's territory without their blessing.

so you can't say Met Onufry is the head of Ukraine, and then turn around and say he is not, especially when he was never under you to begin with and hasn't done anything to warrant such action.

fortunately, no one else has agreed with Constantinople.

 

[archer75]

according to what Constantinople has said, yes. you can't enter another bishop's territory without their blessing.

so you can't say Met Onufry is the head of Ukraine, and then turn around and say he is not, especially when he was never under you to begin with and hasn't done anything to warrant such action.

fortunately, no one else has agreed with Constantinople.

How did ROCOR's mission to the Soviet Union work, then?

 

[ArmyMatt]

How did ROCOR's mission to the Soviet Union work, then?

not sure, but that's irrelevant. you don't justify current bad behavior by looking to previous bad behavior.

 

[archer75]

not sure, but that's irrelevant. you don't justify current bad behavior by looking to previous bad behavior.

Not justifying, just asking, because if part of the issue is that unrepentant schismatics can't be received, and ROCOR was unrepentant for intruding on ROC territory (at least I never read that they as a jurisdiction repented), then the ROC received unrepentant schismatics 12 years ago. Not 100% certain, but if this is the case then it needs to be part of the discussion.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not justifying, just asking, because if part of the issue is that unrepentant schismatics can't be received, and ROCOR was unrepentant for intruding on ROC territory (at least I never read that they as a jurisdiction repented), then the ROC received unrepentant schismatics 12 years ago. Not 100% certain, but if this is the case then it needs to be part of the discussion.

except that both ROCOR and the MP mutually forgave and sought forgiveness.

 

[abacabb3]

I found the 1689 letter here: https://www.goarch.org/documents/32...HQrJrwZc9qny2n_FU6m_aKQlELovtgPHsYXOfVhZJpzHM

The EP's justification is that its contents cannot be interpreted to mean that Kiev was ever fully in Moscow's sphere of influence. Responses?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I found the 1689 letter here: https://www.goarch.org/documents/32058/4830467/The+Ecumenical+Throne+and+the+Church+of+Ukraine+(ENGLISH).pdf/8c509846-38e4-4610-a54e-30121eec77ef?fbclid=IwAR01VMUogbUMhQHQrJrwZc9qny2n_FU6m_aKQlELovtgPHsYXOfVhZJpzHM

The EP's justification is that its contents cannot be interpreted to mean that Kiev was ever fully in Moscow's sphere of influence. Responses?

where/when was that justification said prior to Filaret's petition?

 

[abacabb3]

where/when was that justification said prior to Filaret's petition?

that's a recent document

 

[archer75]

I found the 1689 letter here: https://www.goarch.org/documents/32058/4830467/The+Ecumenical+Throne+and+the+Church+of+Ukraine+(ENGLISH).pdf/8c509846-38e4-4610-a54e-30121eec77ef?fbclid=IwAR01VMUogbUMhQHQrJrwZc9qny2n_FU6m_aKQlELovtgPHsYXOfVhZJpzHM

The EP's justification is that its contents cannot be interpreted to mean that Kiev was ever fully in Moscow's sphere of influence. Responses?

Very informative reading.

 

[ArmyMatt]

that's a recent document

exactly, so why hasn't Constantinople EVER pointed this out until now?

 

[archer75]

exactly, so why hasn't Constantinople EVER pointed this out until now?

This is explained in the document, it seems.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This is explained in the document, it seems.

I have read the document. however, unless I missed something, why wasn't this brought up when Met Onufry was enthroned, and Constantinople was present?

 

[archer75]

I have read the document. however, unless I missed something, why wasn't this brought up when Met Onufry was enthroned, and Constantinople was present?

Oh, sorry. Good question. I suppose they were still getting their documents in order?

 

[abacabb3]

exactly, so why hasn't Constantinople EVER pointed this out until now?

Don't know. I am curious if we have documents subsequent to the 1686 document that allow for the Russian church to exercise jurisdiction in Ukraine and not to commemorate the EP first (a condition in the 1686 letter).

 

[archer75]

Don't know. I am curious if we have documents subsequent to the 1686 document that allow for the Russian church to exercise jurisdiction in Ukraine and not to commemorate the EP first (a condition in the 1686 letter).

Yeah, I'd like to read a similar document from the MP.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Oh, sorry. Good question. I suppose they were still getting their documents in order?

at the time they expressed full support of Met Onufry, and had no say in his being made the head of Kiev.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Don't know. I am curious if we have documents subsequent to the 1686 document that allow for the Russian church to exercise jurisdiction in Ukraine and not to commemorate the EP first (a condition in the 1686 letter).

I certainly hope something clear comes out. they do claim to have a ton of documentation, so we'll see.