MP-EP updates?

[prodromos]

EP reversed these before he accepted "schismatics" into his jurisdiction.

I'd be interested in seeing which Canons you believe give him that authority.

 

[StanU]

I'd be interested in seeing which Canons you believe give him that authority.

Here: The Ecumenical Throne’s Exclusive Prerogative Regarding Litigious Disputes - Theological and Other Studies - The Ecumenical Patriarchate
Let me save you some time: my position in all related matters is that of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Including where Filaret disagrees with the EP.
More substantially, I'd be interested in seeing how people with no vested interest surmise that Ukraine has less of a right to an autocephalous Church than say Albania. Because if you believe media accounts, even Patr. Kirill ended up arguing to Patr. Bartholomew that "Ukraine is not a real country anyway". That's indefensible.

 

[StanU]

The real issue is that the largest church in Ukraine was the one under the MP and not the schismatics terrorist group that the EP just gave autocephaly too.

This is slander, right there. Explain or apologize.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Here: The Ecumenical Throne’s Exclusive Prerogative Regarding Litigious Disputes - Theological and Other Studies - The Ecumenical Patriarchate
Let me save you some time: my position in all related matters is that of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Including where Filaret disagrees with the EP.
More substantially, I'd be interested in seeing how people with no vested interest surmise that Ukraine has less of a right to an autocephalous Church than say Albania. Because if you believe media accounts, even Patr. Kirill ended up arguing to Patr. Bartholomew that "Ukraine is not a real country anyway". That's indefensible.

it doesn't say the EP can hear appeals that originate outside of the Church.

 

[StanU]

it doesn't say the EP can hear appeals that originate outside of the Church.

That is an absurd interpretation, as I already mentioned. The whole question is whether MP declaring someone "outside of the Church" was correct.

Say, wasn't your own jurisdiction long considered a "schism"?

 

[prodromos]

Here: The Ecumenical Throne’s Exclusive Prerogative Regarding Litigious Disputes - Theological and Other Studies - The Ecumenical Patriarchate

From my understanding, the canon permits the EP to organise another council of bishops in the disputed area to make a decision. It does not give the EP the authority to overrule the decisions of another jurisdiction's bishops. The linked article conveniently ignores this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That is an absurd interpretation, as I already mentioned. The whole question is whether MP declaring someone "outside of the Church" was correct.

Say, wasn't your own jurisdiction long considered a "schism"?

except Constantinople agreed that they were anathema until recently. when the schismatics petitioned, they were not yet restored.

as far as my jurisdiction, by some yes, but I don't think by all.

 

[StanU]

From my understanding, the canon permits the EP to organise another council of bishops in the disputed area to make a decision. It does not give the EP the authority to overrule the decisions of another jurisdiction's bishops. The linked article conveniently ignores this.

Which canon?
I'm not a canon lawyer, and will take a word of Bishop Kyrillos of Abydos over anonymous poster, if I may.

 

[StanU]

except Constantinople agreed that they were anathema until recently. when the schismatics petitioned, they were not yet restored.

as far as my jurisdiction, by some yes, but I don't think by all.

Which presumes Constantinople has a prerogative to agree or disagree, no?

Again, more substantively, I would imagine having a large number of "anathemas" join the Church would be a "good thing, not a bad thing". Conversely, wielding anathemas for reasons in large part related to serving a secular master, a "bad thing, not a good thing"? Even now, MP schismed from EP, not the other way around.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Which presumes Constantinople has a prerogative to agree or disagree, no?

Again, more substantively, I would imagine having a large number of "anathemas" join the Church would be a "good thing, not a bad thing". Conversely, wielding anathemas for reasons in large part related to serving a secular master, a "bad thing, not a good thing"? Even now, MP schismed from EP, not the other way around.

except that canon V of Nicaea says that if a cleric is deposed, he can only be restored by the Synod which deposed him.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Which presumes Constantinople has a prerogative to agree or disagree, no?

Again, more substantively, I would imagine having a large number of "anathemas" join the Church would be a "good thing, not a bad thing". Conversely, wielding anathemas for reasons in large part related to serving a secular master, a "bad thing, not a good thing"? Even now, MP schismed from EP, not the other way around.

So the solution to the arian crisis would have been to let Arius back into the Church without repenting? There is a legitimate church of Ukraine, one that has been attacked and you are willfully ignoring if you think otherwise.

Why do you think every other main Patriarch has backed Kiril? This isn't about Russia bad West good, this is about canonical law and how Bartholomew should have approached the situation. Allowing unrepentant schismatics back into the Church, creating a second church of Ukraine, and dissolving the Western Europe archdiocese under Russia is hardly an act of honest intention.

 

[StanU]

except that canon V of Nicaea says that if a cleric is deposed, he can only be restored by the Synod which deposed him.

Again, consult above-linked article.

 

[☦Marius☦]

This is slander, right there. Explain or apologize.

Explain what I've heard from legitimate Ukrainian Orthodox? Remember the Cathedral of St. Peter and Paul? One can easily look up news about the situation in Ukraine and see the news stories of MP priests being harassed and attacked in the streets. ]

What about the ones wielding flags with the Ikon not made by hands with the Caption "Kill all Russians"

Truly the Christ likeness of the Church of Ukraine is shown in its fruits.

 

[StanU]

So the solution to the arian crisis would have been to let Arius back into the Church without repenting? There is a legitimate church of Ukraine, one that has been attacked and you are willfully ignoring if you think otherwise.

The church that is being atacked is OCU in Crimea. Russian "court" kicked them out of their cathedral. ROCinU (which stubbornly calls itself "Ukrainian Orthodox Church") recently bragged about how their procession on the Baptism of Rus' day was the biggest in the land. Concurrently complaining about being "attacked" is dishonest.

Why do you think every other main Patriarch has backed Kiril? This isn't about Russia bad West good, this is about canonical law and how Bartholomew should have approached the situation. Allowing unrepentant schismatics back into the Church, creating a second church of Ukraine, and dissolving the Western Europe archdiocese under Russia is hardly an act of honest intention.

Fact is, no other "major Patriarch" followed Kirill into his schism. The only one close is Serbian, and they have their turf to protect in Macedonia (sorry, "South" Macedonia). *You* think every other main Patriarch has backed Kirill because, well, you probably get your news from Russian and Russia-ajacent sources. And they are known to lie.

 

[☦Marius☦]

The church that is being atacked is OCU in Crimea. Russian "court" kicked them out of their cathedral. ROCinU (which stubbornly calls itself "Ukrainian Orthodox Church") recently bragged about how their procession on the Baptism of Rus' day was the biggest in the land. Concurrently complaining about being "attacked" is dishonest.


Fact is, no other "major Patriarch" followed Kirill into his schism. The only one close is Serbian, and they have their turf to protect in Macedonia (sorry, "South" Macedonia). *You* think every other main Patriarch has backed Kirill because, well, you probably get your news from Russian and Russia-ajacent sources. And they are known to lie.

What? The MP isn't in Schism. I can't imagine the mental gymnastics. Antioch and Jerusalem are now "Russia-adjacent" sources? Just evidence of the mental corruption of schism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Again, consult above-linked article.

I read it. it doesn't provide any example of a Synod deposing someone and anathematizing him, Constantinople agreeing with that decision, then Constantinople changing their mind more than 20 years after the fact, and overriding the original decision of that Synod.

 

[StanU]

Explain what I've heard from legitimate Ukrainian Orthodox? Remember the Cathedral of St. Peter and Paul? One can easily look up news about the situation in Ukraine and see the news stories of MP priests being harassed and attacked in the streets. ]

What about the ones wielding flags with the Ikon not made by hands with the Caption "Kill all Russians"

Truly the Christ likeness of the Church of Ukraine is shown in its fruits.

Yeah, well, Ukraine has thousands of churches. Be specific. Which St. Peter and Paul's?

One cathedral sacked and stolen recently is OCU's St. Volodymyr and Olha in Simferopol, Crimea. And that was done by Russian authorities. Also, there is a pro-Russian terrorist paramilitary in Donetsk, "Russian Orthodox Army"; their banner is Christ Pantocrator. Ukraine doesn't do stunts like these. Also, OCU bishops are not known to curse people to death at distance, like Met. Pavel of Kyiv Caves Monastery (MP).

 

[☦Marius☦]

The church that is being atacked is OCU in Crimea. Russian "court" kicked them out of their cathedral. ROCinU (which stubbornly calls itself "Ukrainian Orthodox Church") recently bragged about how their procession on the Baptism of Rus' day was the biggest in the land. Concurrently complaining about being "attacked" is dishonest.


Fact is, no other "major Patriarch" followed Kirill into his schism. The only one close is Serbian, and they have their turf to protect in Macedonia (sorry, "South" Macedonia). *You* think every other main Patriarch has backed Kirill because, well, you probably get your news from Russian and Russia-ajacent sources. And they are known to lie.

"The 3 Patriarchs, John X of Antioch, Cyril of Moscow and Irenaeus of Belgrade, have today celebrated Grand Catholic Orthodox Divine Liturgy in Moscow, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, commemorating the Feast of St. Mark of Ephesus the Defender of Orthodoxy and Patriarch Cyril's 10th anniversary as the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. Divine Liturgy according to dyptichs was presided by the Patriarch of Antioch. For the first time in centuries, 3 Patriarchs at the Divine Liturgy did not commemorate Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew. Divine Liturgy was also celebrated by His Beatitude Orthodox Metropolitan Rastislav of Czech Lands and Slovakia and His Beatitude Tikhon Orthodox Metropolitan of Washington and all America and Canada. Also by His Beatitude Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Onuphry. Holy Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria, Georgia, Romania and Bulgaria also had their bishops present at the Divine Liturgy, as well as the Orthodox Church of Poland."

 

[StanU]

What? The MP isn't in Schism. I can't imagine the mental gymnastics. Antioch and Jerusalem are now "Russia-adjacent" sources? Just evidence of the mental corruption of schism.

MP was the one who broke communion, not EP. For blatantly political reasons, too.
Antioch is in Russia-occupied Syria; both Antioch and JP see major cash flows from Russia. Still, they didn't break communion with EP when Kirill did. "Mental corruption"?

 

[Not David]

Why is Russia in schism? So not being in communion with Constantinople means you are a schismatic? Just like with Rome?