www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Move to Kyev Announced?

Oh. So are they a special brand of autocephalites? The Russian Orthodox don't like us uniates and filaretites very much, do they?

<And Patriarch Husar is actually disobeying the RC view that Catholics may only have ecumenical relations with canonical Orthodox churches.

Ultimately, blood is thicker than water.>

================

So once again Ukrainian nationalism, politics, and ethnic hatred takes precedence over everyone and everything. Even if it means disobedience to the one who is recognized by you as the 'Vicar of Christ', 'Supreme Pontiff', 'Universal Bishop over the entire chruch', and infallible to boot!

Hey, why even have religious Hierachy if one doesn't have to obey them when it comes to nationalism and blood lines. Which seems to take precedence over the canons, as well as moral and political issues.

Ever stop to think why the the Pope and the Vatican issued the edict regarding having ecumenical relations with only CANONICAL Orthodox? The examples given always leave out some very important facts. But we've already gone over the history of Denisenko before.

So I guess it doesn't matter that he was a KGB collaborator, who as a Bishop, should have been a celibate Monk, but had a wife and kids stashed away, who accepted his forced retirement and pledged before God with his hand on the Gospel to uphold the verdict given him and to not start a schism within the church, and then turned his back on it -

----------

Filaret's story is quite typical for the stormly post-soviet period. This prominent church leader, after the election of Alexis II instead of him as patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus by the local council of 1990 contrary to all expectations, began a harsh opposition against his former colleagues in the Holy Synod. Originally repenting and swearing on the Gospel not to conduct schismatic activity he almost immediately upon his return from Moscow organized, with the support of the former president and father of Ukrainian independence, Leonid Kravchuk (some reports indicated their had nieghboring dachas), an independent church structure, the Ukrainian Orthodox church (Kiev patriarchate). At this time all the financial means of the Kievan metropolia, the richest in the RPTs, was transferred to his hands. Filaret was immediately recognized at the legal head of the Orthodox of Ukraine by the Kievan leaders, who announced a new course in the "emancipation from the vestiges of the soviet empire."

The paradox in this is that of all church leaders of the soviet era, really it was Filaret who most actively cooperated with the old authorities. Nowhere was the least church activity so suppressed "from above" as in Ukraine. Numerous cases are known when by Filaret's will priests were forbidden to minister because of church restoration work that was not sanctioned by the metropolitan.

-----------

OrthoMan

Could this be a reflection that the ROCOR Hierarchs have developed in their attitude and realize that the Cold War is over and the Soviet Union is gone and it is time for a reconciliation in the Russian Church?

Dear Orthoman,

Yep, that's about the size of it!

Blood is thicker than even holy water . . .

Sorry, but you knew about us reprehensible Ukies before you got involved with us!

Ultimately, those canonical issues will be resolved. And Filaret won't be patriarch forever. He is not the first or only bishop of the MP to have collaborated with the KGB.

But I don't want to argue with you over it.

It could lead to another hissy-fit on my part . . .

Alex

Dear Brian,

Let's hope!

What I'm worried about is when the ROCOR finally does reunite with the MP, what will happen to the "unified Orthodox jurisdiction for North America" idea? Any ideas?

Alex

What I'm worried about is when the ROCOR finally does reunite with the MP, what will happen to the "unified Orthodox jurisdiction for North America" idea? Any ideas?

==========

It will be interesting. It may mean that the TOMOS granting autocephally to the OCA will have to be modified with the agreement between the MP & OCA. Because in it, the MP agreed not to accept any additional churches into its fold from other jurisdictions or create new churches. To only administer to those 20-40 churches who requested to remain under the MP at the time of the signing until they opted for entry into the OCA.

It could also mean that a special 'Russian' diocese will be created within the OCA like their current Albanian, Bulgarian, and Romanian diocese which will be administered by the former ROCOR Bishops to take care of the ROCOR people as well as the recent flood of immigrants. The OCA and MP have been discussing the creation of such a diocese for awhile now to administer to the immigrants. Prior to these talks I understand the MP was even willing to supply the OCA with priests as well as a Bishop to adminster to the immigrants. The OCA was not adverse to such a structure. A reunion with ROCOR would not make this necessary.

Either way, there will be those within ROCOR that will not accept either agreement but go off on their own.

It will be interesting.

OrthoMan

Dear Father in Christ Bob,

Yes, and I think the new unified Church will be a powerhouse of spirituality of Orthodox Christianity that will truly light up the West!

Alex

As we have with the current Patriarch of Moscow, Alexis Ridiger, aka Agent Drozdov. Don't make sound as if Filaret is the only collaborator, Bob. This is ludicrous considering the skeletons in the closet of the current hierarchy of the MP.

Filaret has partially recovered his credibility in my book by openly breaking with the MP who is still led by KGB collaborators, and led by a former documented KGB agent.

Filaret had the courage to break with Drozdov and company. All in the MP higher echelons are likely guilty to some extent of collaboration, including Patriarch Filaret. But numerically nearly all of those still alive who fit this bill are still officially part of the MP.

Fr. Gleb Yakunin has made some interesting discoveries and comments about the personal and historical background of Drozdov before being (predictably) defrocked by the MP hierarchy. But I am not going to get into the same kind of personal ad hominem mud-slinging Bob is trying to throw here.

The issue is much more objective then he portrays.
Kyiv is the historic see of all Rus', and as such is absolutely deserving of autocephaly, if none other than historical reasons.

The real question here is precisely Kyivan autocephaly. Filaret requested it and was denied (predictably) by the MP. He at least had the courage to do so, various personal allegations aside.

History has borne out the inconsistency in the entire issue of "canonical" and "non-canonical". Again I will mention the Patriarchate of Bulgaria. Once non-canonical, then canonical. Basically nothing changed in their theological or liturgical practice. What was rationalized and condemned as "non-canonical" became years later similarly rationalized as "canonical".

As we are not Roman Catholic, Patriarch Lubomyr has every right to associate with the Orthodox hierarchs he wishes to. We do not dictate to the RCs which Orthodox hierarchs they should associate with. The pro-nuncio has mentioned nothing of this to Patriarch Lubomyr over the last few years, not even an informal warning, neither privately or publically as far as any press, religious or secular, have reported.

Again, the entire issue of canonical/non-canonical depends on which side of the river you are looking from. The MP just doesn't pass the laugh test on this issue considering they were a breakaway from Kyiv at one time.

And Ukrainian politics aside, look at the historical situation with the Bulgarian patriarchate and others when considering the merits of the non-canonical/canonical argument.

I would think very much less of Patriarch Lubomyr if he just followed everything by rote that the RCs came up with.

But wait - there are official relations between the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Vatican. Only "canonical" churches?

I think it is extremely ironic that any Orthodox as Bob here would comment on who our churches have ecumenical relations with. We would not presume anything of the sort with them. If local churches really means anything, as the Orthodox say it does, ecumenical relations should be the business of the local church. And if they are not part of the MP, why is it even an issue with those who are in the MP?

National churches are business as usual in Orthodoxy. It seems to be different when considering Ukraine, which both Russians and Ukrainians agree is not Russia. Autocephaly for an Orthodox country of that size should be obvious when considering some of the very small autocephalous churches extant in Orthodoxy.

Dear Diak,

One of these days I'm going to break down and take some formal theological courses.

That way I'll sound more intelligent on matters relating to canonicity, liturgiology and angelology.

God bless you!

Diak

Dear Orthodox-Catholic,

You said:
"In the year 1988, Rome also issued a public letter assuring the MP that it recognizes ONLY IT as the legitimate heir of St Vladimir's Christian legacy.

I remember the consternation that matter stirred in the Ukie community then. But I didn't keep any written record of it, perhaps one of our patriarchal organizations would have actual written sources establishing this."

The RCC curia did in fact assure the ROC of this on several occassions in 1988, perhaps because of the fact that the Holy Father had plans to hoast thousands of diaspora Ukrainian Catholics that summer at the Vatican as part of the year long celebrations marking the millenium of Christianity in Ukraine (Kyiv-Rus). The ROC claimed that only it had the right to cellebrate this event.

During the cellebrations 8,000 people showed up for the youth rally alone at St-Sophia (UGCC church in Rome). The pope, our Patriarch, all our diaspora UGCC bishops, about 15 cardinals, and many other dignitaries were in attendance. At one point in the festivities our 60 member band from Montreal in unison with the 100 member choir from the United Kingdom decided to play/sing 'A prayer for our Patriarch'(Molytvu za Patriarha). The crowd sang with us and the holy father stood until we finished. I thought that the matter would end there, but instead the holy father then asked all the hierarchs (both rites) to join him in a short prayer over the crypt of our Patriarch-confessor Josyf Slipyj which was located at that time under St-Sophia. When the hierarhs emerged the celebrations then resumed. John Paul II didn't seem to have a problem with acknowledging our right to celebrate this historic event, our patriarch, or our church.

For that matter neither did the ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Part our youth group (100 people) travelled on to Turkey to meet with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch. Although I myself did not participate, by all accounts he was very welcoming and blessed the participants of that historic occassion.

<Filaret has partially recovered his credibility in my book by openly breaking with the MP who is still led by KGB collaborators, and led by a former documented KGB agent.

Filaret had the courage to break with Drozdov and company.>

Filaret did not leave the MP on his own as you imply. He was excommunicated and defrocked! Big difference Diak!

Patriarch asked forgiveness for his past associations. Can you show me where Denisenko did the same? Denisenko was also a KGB member but are we to overlook that because of his bloodline?

Patriarch Alexi does not have a family stashed around in the back ground, Denisenko does.

But we have already been through this before. And, according to you his Ukrainian blood absolves him of all past sins while Alexi's Russian blood doesn't.

It's all politics, nationalism, and ethnic hatred. Very little about Christ and the Gospel!
What a shame!

OrthoMan

Dear Hritzko,

Yes, I don't question Pope John Paul II's sincerity toward our Church!

At the time, I believe he said that more than one Church may celebrate its descent from St Volodymyr the Great and the Kyivan tradition of Christianity.

And it wouldn't be the first time the pope said one thing and the Vatican curia said another.

I'm only calling attention to the curialists and what they do in the name of the Vatican (and in the name of the pope).

Frankly, I would gladly take the Pope into our Church - and they can keep the Vatican!

Alex

Bob, you continue to wave this flag about hatred. I said nothing about absolving Filaret's past sins, I don't have the ecclesial status necessary for that. And I admitted that noone has clean hands in the MP hierarchy, from Drozdov/Patriarch Alexei on down. And where or when did Alexei ever publically renounce his ties with the Soviet regime? That is simply NOT the issue, and I will not let you sidetrack this discussion with your subjective and emotional arguments.

Filaret's desire for the historic autocephaly of the Church of Kyiv and his courage to act accordingly in conscience to a certain extent have changed my level of respect for him.

I would think much less of Filaret if he continued to blindly serve a Patriarchate that appears to have no ecclesial respect for its mother See. Very little about Christ and the Gospel? With the lack of respect and disdain for its Mother See I could say the same about the MP.

I said in two posts, all politics aside, this is about autochephaly. You once again have tried to sidestep the objective issue with subjective sui generis allegations of hate, hate, hate, politics, hate, etc. The objective issues of autocephaly have historical and ecclesial merit for the Church of Kyiv.

It really does comes down to autocephaly. Kyiv is the mother church of all Rus', and historically as such deserves autocephaly. The situation with Bulgaria as I mentioned above historically demonstrates there is no consistent historical approach in Orthodoxy to canonical/non-canonical churches.

National churches historically are the basis of Orthodoxy. Why not Ukraine? It is much larger than most autocephalous churches in the world.

And since Filaret is no longer part of the KP, again I ask why this is such an issue with you, Bob? It would be as if I were to make ridiculous emotional statements and allegations about the Anglicans, since I don't consider them to be part of my church anymore.

Whew!

It's a good thing I read closer . . .

All this talk of Alex-ei . . .

I was getting ready to ask for everyone's pardon again . . .

Alex

Diak:

I have no problem whatsoever with an autocephallous Ukrainian church as long as it's created according to the Church canons, led by a canonical hierach rather than a defrocked bishop, AND IS ORTHODOX IN MORE THAN NAME!

OrthoMan