1 members (Erik Jedvardsson),
1,165
guests, and
84
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 638
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 638 |
What exactly does "Orthoman" want from us here, signing off the way he does--"Have fun trying to figure out what why, and who you are!"? Is it for us to embrace the Orthodoxy? Sure doesn't seem that way, since he's offering us only vinegar and not a drop of honey.
Or is it for himself to justify his own "Orthodoxy" because he knows that his grandparents' joining the Orthodoxy had nothing to do with the theological tenets of either the Orthodoxy or Catholicism?
"Acquire the Spirit of Peace, and thousands around you will be saved." -- Saint Seraphim of Sarov
schadenfreude \SHAHD-n-froy-duh\, noun: A malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 392 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 392 Likes: 1 |
Who knows. He seems to live in his own little fantasy world where everything Orthodox is perfect and everything Catholic is evil. If he read history without all those blinders on, the man would be in for a rude awakening. In Christ, Anthony Originally posted by Lemko Rusyn: What exactly does "Orthoman" want from us here, signing off the way he does--"Have fun trying to figure out what why, and who you are!"? Is it for us to embrace the Orthodoxy? Sure doesn't seem that way, since he's offering us only vinegar and not a drop of honey.
Or is it for himself to justify his own "Orthodoxy" because he knows that his grandparents' joining the Orthodoxy had nothing to do with the theological tenets of either the Orthodoxy or Catholicism?
"Acquire the Spirit of Peace, and thousands around you will be saved." -- Saint Seraphim of Sarov
schadenfreude \SHAHD-n-froy-duh\, noun: A malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29
John Member
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29 |
For purposes of assisting in the discussion I offer the following from Fr. Ron Roberson�s book �The Eastern Christian Churches�. It does confirm that the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) is irregular but it does not provide enough detail to explain why. Autocephalous Churches [ cnewa.org] There are fourteen Orthodox churches that are generally accepted as �autocephalous,� which in Greek means �self-headed.� An autocephalous church possesses the right to resolve all internal problems on its own authority and the ability to choose its own bishops, including the Patriarch, Archbishop or Metropolitan who heads the church. While each autocephalous church acts independently, they all remain in full sacramental and canonical communion with one another. Today these autocephalous Orthodox churches include the four ancient Eastern Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), and ten other Orthodox churches that have emerged over the centuries in Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, and the Czech and Slovak Republics. On its own initiative, the Patriarchate of Moscow has granted autocephalous status to most of its parishes in North America under the name of the Orthodox Church in America. But since the Patriarchate of Constantinople claims the exclusive right to grant autocephalous status, it and most other Orthodox churches do not recognize the autocephaly of the American church. Nine of these autocephalous churches are Patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia. The others are headed by an Archbishop or Metropolitan. Autonomous Churches [ cnewa.org] There are five Orthodox churches which, although functioning independently on a day-to-day basis, are canonically dependent on an autocephalous Orthodox church. In practice this means that the head of an autonomous church must be confirmed in office by the Holy Synod of its mother autocephalous church. The Orthodox churches of Finland and Estonia are dependent on the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and Mount Sinai is dependent on the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. In addition, the Moscow Patriarchate has granted autonomous status to its Orthodox daughter churches in Japan and China, but these actions have not been recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Churches of Irregular Status [ cnewa.org] The canonical status of each of the churches in this group is questioned in some way by Orthodoxy as a whole. This is not to put them all on the same level, as some are considered simply uncanonical, while others are in full schism and out of communion with the Orthodox Church. Churches of Irregular Status � Uk...chate and Ukrainian Autocephalous Church [ cnewa.org] Although the church in Kiev survived the Mongol destruction of the city in 1240, its Metropolitans soon began to reside in the new principality of Moscow. This situation continued until 1448, when Kiev, then under Polish-Lithuanian domination, was established as a distinct metropolitanate under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. Soon thereafter, in 1461, the bishops of Moscow ceased using the title of Kiev and began to style themselves as Metropolitans of Moscow. Moscow later gathered strength and eventually gained control of Kiev. The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Kiev was consequently transferred from the jurisdiction of Constantinople to that of Moscow in 1686, an act which the Patriarchate of Constantinople has never recognized. The Orthodox in Ukraine remained part of the Russian Orthodox Church until Ukraine declared its independence in the chaotic situation following World War I and the Russian revolution. The government of this new republic passed a law allowing for the establishment of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1919. Meanwhile, a spontaneous movement in favor of ending ties with the Russian church was gaining ground among the Ukrainian Orthodox faithful. All this led to the proclamation of Ukrainian autocephaly at a church council in 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 through the laying-on-of-hands by the priests and laypeople present. Because of the highly unorthodox method it used to obtain a hierarchy, and because of its disregard for some established canonical principles, this church was never recognized by any other Orthodox church. Nevertheless, 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 members. Strong lay participation in this church�s administration caused it to become known as the �sobornopravna� or �conciliar� church. When Ukraine was absorbed into the Soviet Union, the new authorities at first viewed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in a positive way, but by the late 1920s, they saw it as a dangerous expression of Ukrainian nationalism. Under government pressure, it declared itself dissolved and integrated into the Moscow Patriarchate in 1930. However, during the German occupation of Ukraine during World War II, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was briefly re-established by bishops who had been validly ordained by Polish Orthodox bishops. Thus it has subsequently claimed to be within the traditional apostolic succession, a fact still disputed by some Orthodox churches. In any case, it was suppressed again when the Soviets regained control of the area. The situation remained unchanged until the advent of greater religious freedom in the last days of the Soviet Union. In these new conditions, a Ukrainian Orthodox council met in Kiev in June 1990 and elected the exiled Metropolitan Mstyslav of the United States as Patriarch. He returned to Ukraine in October 1990 to preside over the reemergence of this church in its homeland. The situation became more complicated after May 21, 1992, when the Moscow Patriarchate deposed Metropolitan Filaret of Kiev and reduced him to the lay state on June 11. He had been accused of trying to separate his church from Moscow. Filaret then joined forces with the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church and even took the title of locum tenens of Patriarch Mstyslav who had returned to the United States. Filaret enjoyed the support of the Ukrainian government in his efforts to form an autocephalous Orthodox church. All this happened, however, without the knowledge of Patriarch Mstyslav, who broke all ties with Filaret in November. This provoked a split within the autocephalous church between those loyal to Mstyslav and those linked to Filaret, who now call themselves �The Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate.� After the death of Patriarch Mstyslav on June 11, 1993, each of these groups elected its own head. On September 7, 1993, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church elected 77-year-old Rev. Volodymyr Jarema as Patriarch. He took the name Dimitry I. On October 21, 1993, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate elected Rev. Vasyl Romaniuk, 67, as Patriarch Volodymyr I. He died in 1995 and was succeeded by Filaret, who was enthroned as Patriarch on October 22, 1995. He was subsequently excommunicated by a Bishops� Council of the Moscow Patriarchate in February 1997. As a result, there are three separate Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church still linked to the Moscow Patriarchate (headed by Metropolitan Volodymyr Sabodan) has 8,016 parishes according to Ukrainian government statistics released in 1999. Its headquarters is at the Monastery of the Caves (Pecherska Lavra) in Kiev. Next is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate headed by Patriarch Filaret, which has 2,195 parishes. It is based at St. Volodymyr Church in Kiev. The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church is the smallest, with 1,024 parishes, mostly in western Ukraine. Patriarch Dimitry passed away in February 2000, but his church has not elected a new patriarch in the hope of achieving reconciliation with the other Orthodox churches in Ukraine. Even though the church linked to Moscow has the most parishes, all opinion polls conducted in Ukraine since 1992 have indicated that a majority of Orthodox believers supports the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has a significant presence in the diaspora, all of which is now under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
It's really a hoot, Lemko, because he levels those snips like --"Have fun trying to figure out what why, and who you are!"? when he completely sidesteps the jurisdictional morasse surrounding the Church of Moscow (and much of Orthodoxy for that matter). He still has not answered "why and who he is" at all. And I thought that was his final post (as he said it was :rolleyes: ...) Even his discussion of the UOC-MP. Are they autonomous? Who are they? Part of the MP? Or an indepedent Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Their name says they are part of the MP. Which MP? Alexei or ROCOR? And he would paint us as confused? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cabc3/cabc3e98a67e93807587ac6bef2c0b214dd19e2d" alt="confused confused" We have addressed all of his allegations. We have asked for forgiveness. He has now, instead of addressing the jurisdictional and other issues placed on him, switched to minutia of definitions of autonomy. Even this is a dead end considering the "confusion" of the situation of the UOC-MP. His style of debate is purely polemical and like a pretzel, always twisting away from the center. It always has been here. Consider the source. Review his posts here if there is any doubt. May God have mercy on us all.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29
John Member
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29 |
Just had an e-mail response from a friend who lives and breathes this stuff. The actual status of the UOC-MP is unclear, even to the ROC-MP and the UOC-MP. The MP did grant it autonomy but it appears that it was not complete autonomy and apparently not the same type of autonomy that the Church of Finland (for example) enjoys. The UOC-MP is still firmly within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate and its Metropolitan Archbishop is indeed a member of the Synod of Bishops of the MP. This does provide evidence that the situation is not yet one of complete autonomy and needs to be further addressed by the ROC-MP and the UOC-MP. I don�t think it would be fair to draw conclusions beyond that. The jurisdictional issues do not reflect the orthodoxy of Orthodoxy. The amount of organization (or lack thereof) within the Byzantine Churches should not be used as a standard of Orthodoxy. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dcf02/dcf021dbde516b34f8cf7458572ec1c72e4a393a" alt="biggrin biggrin"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Dear Admin, your statement is puzzling. I don't recall that anyone has questioned the "Orthodoxy" in toto of Orthodoxy because of "organization".
I think everyone here will admit that the jurisdictional situation in not only the MP but much of Orthodoxy is quite confusing. Likewise for someone to accuse the Greek Catholics, Byzantine Christians in their own right, of being similarly confused without an honest mutual admission of their own ecclesial murkiness is simply not proper or fair as I believe you would agree.
Byzantine Christianity has always maintained a unique dynamic of ecclesial identity often intertwined with complex politics. This does not detract from their inheritance of Orthodoxy, whether in communion with Rome or not nor in communion with each other.
Forgive me for wishing to defend the position of my church from unfair allegations. As I recall this thread started out as a news article about the visit of an Orthodox hierarch as an invited guest of a Greek Catholic parish.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29
John Member
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29 |
Diak wrote: Dear Admin, your statement is puzzling. I don't recall that anyone has questioned the "Orthodoxy" in toto of Orthodoxy because of "organization". Diak, I never suggested that anyone has. The comment was meant as a polite, though admittedly cryptic, suggestion to Bob. Bob continues to apply standards to Byzantine/Greek Catholics that Orthodoxy itself does not live up to. The questions discussed here on the Forum are also discussed throughout the rest of Orthodoxy. The reasoning behind Bob�s comment ("Have fun trying to figure out what why, and who you are!") (which he directed at us Byzantine/Greek Catholics) is equally applicable to the UOC-MP situation if one consistently applies his reasoning. No one is accusing the UOC-MP of not being Orthodox because there is a continuing confusion about its status. Therefore it is illogical to accuse us of not knowing who we are because of different understandings of the relationship between Churches. There are enough legitimate issues keeping us divided without inventing more or holding others to standards one does not apply to oneself. Admin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Dear Admin, thank you for that clarification. That makes sense indeed. I suggest respectfully that since this thread has gone way out of bounds from its initial opening simply as news about the visit of an Orthodox hierarch invited to a Greek Catholic parish that it be closed as such.
|
|
|
|
|