Changing of Kiev's Jurisdiction in 1680s

[abacabb3]

All of this is besides the point. If the 1686 document correctly interpreted merely gave Moscow to choose a Bishop of Kiev, but not actual jurisdiction, it is not as clean cut that Bartholomew is wrong. This is why I am curious if we have contemporary and subsequent documents that may offer an alternate interpretation to the 1686 letter than what the EP provides. Simply saying, "Why did no one cry about it for 300 years" does not help us interpret the document, even though those are my own sentiments exactly.

 

[abacabb3]

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

Russia that is, I am guessing.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Russia that is, I am guessing.

yes, Russia.

 

[abacabb3]

yes, Russia.

They invited the EP to study the matter and look into the archives, so I am sure they have a plethora of letters written to the Tsar and Bishops, and even subsequent EPs since the 1600s, explicitly endorsing the Russian view...which would explain why the EP has emphatically rejected discussion. Nonetheless, I would like to see what these letters are and what they say. The EP has shown us his hand at least and had it translated into English too!

 

[ArmyMatt]

They invited the EP to study the matter and look into the archives, so I am sure they have a plethora of letters written to the Tsar and Bishops, and even subsequent EPs since the 1600s, explicitly endorsing the Russian view...which would explain why the EP has emphatically rejected discussion. Nonetheless, I would like to see what these letters are and what they say. The EP has shown us his hand at least and had it translated into English too!

sure, they might be out there already. I don't know enough to say either way.

 

[abacabb3]

sure, they might be out there already. I don't know enough to say either way.

i was hoping someone here did

 

[ArmyMatt]

i was hoping someone here did

I am sure there is.