Posted on 09/08/2009 10:35:22 AM PDT by Petrosius
Odessa, September 4, Interfax – If the Constantinople Patriarchate accepts schismatics under its omophorion, it will found itself outside canonical Church, member of the Moscow Patriarchate Synodal Commission, cleric of the Odessa Diocese Archpriest Andrey Novikov believes.
“If, Lord forbid, Constantinople choose to commune with Ukrainian schismatics, it will have no canonical authority as non-canonical interference in “alien diocese” is severely punished by certain canons,” Fr. Andrey says in his article conveyed to Interfax-Religion on Friday.
The priest states that the Constantinople Patriarchate “again after a short repose is ready to take anti-canonical actions and interfere into jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church,” Fr. Andrey believes that is how statements of some Constantinople representatives should be considered as they say about their readiness to accept schismatics from the Ukrainian autocephalous Orthodox Church in their jurisdiction.
However, the Moscow Patriarchate representative is convinced that such admission will be “illegal and of tiny canonical authority.” In the result, “schismatics will continue to be schismatics,” while clergy of the Constantinople Church “besides interference in alien field penalized by church law, will commit one more church and legal crime and grave sin against church unity as it will have prayer communication with excommunicated from the Church and, according to the canons, it is corrected with deposition and excommunication.”
Any commentary?
The pope could solve this.
I’m just saying...
Constantinople is a mess and they need support and relevance. Thanks to the Turks, that’s pretty tough. Russia wants to seize the opportunity to be the biggest guy on the block.
I’m Serbian Orthodox, so I don’t really care one way or the other. I think a lot of this is phony baloney anyway. Most of the patriarchates are guilty of Sergianism in one form or another. They should be focusing on their internal issues before picking at anyone.
They’ve already tried that, a la the Unions of Brest and Uzhorod. Nope. Didn’t work.
First I have heard of this. If, and its a big if, Constantinople did exactly what this fellow from the MP is saying, it would mean big trouble, canonically. I can’t say as Constantinople “...will found itself outside canonical Church” but it would almost absolutely mean a schism.
I suspect there is more to it than is being reported here.
Simple: Moscow patriarchate is a Kremlin puppet in all of its actions and proclamations. The “canonical” supremacy of Moscow over Ukrainian church was bought wis a cheap bribe centuries ago. The only legitimate reason against giving the Ukrainian Church autocefaly is the ever growing Kremlin’s ambition to restore the empire by gobbling up now independent countries, where Ukraine would be a crown jewel.
Having the Ukrainian Orthodox separated from the Russians would be wrong in my opinion because both share a common Christian origin via Kiev and such a separation would ignore their common origins in favor of current national rivalries tied up in issues that divide Ukrainians and Russians that are Western European/non-Orthodox Christian in origin.
You wrote:
“They’ve already tried that, a la the Unions of Brest and Uzhorod. Nope. Didn’t work.”
The Union of Brest worked. If it didn’t I would not be able to receive communion in a Byzantine or Ruthenian parish as I have done.
The point of the comment was that the Pope could "fix" jurisdictional conflicts in the Orthodox Church. If that had been the case, there would be no jurisdictional conflicts, as the Pope has already tried, and failed, to "fix" Orthodox ecclesiology.
I would also point out that this "fix" has often included the complete disregard of the agreements the Infallible Ones made to convince Orthodox believers to manacle themselves to Rome. Eastern Catholics were not supposed to be saying the filioque, teach purgatory, etc., yet this is not only common practice, but those who oppose it within the Eastern Churches are often treated as heretics.
I know, I used to be one. I got so sick of being told that I *had* to say the filioque and that I *had* to believe in purgatory, that I was required to ignore everything that made Orthodox theology Orthodox that I went back home to Orthodoxy. Looking like an Eastern Christian and believing as an Eastern Christian are two different animals.
Sure our ecclesiology is sloppy. It's conciliar. If we wanted an absolute human ruler we'd just become Latins and ignore the whole Eastern church farce.
You wrote:
“The point of the comment was that the Pope could “fix” jurisdictional conflicts in the Orthodox Church. If that had been the case, there would be no jurisdictional conflicts, as the Pope has already tried, and failed, to “fix” Orthodox ecclesiology.”
Really? Since the Orthodox churches started in 1054 as their own churches when exactly did the pope try and fail in regard to them? Also, when did he try to fix Orthodox ecclesiology? And why can’t the Orthodox get their own ecclesiology to work?
“I would also point out that this “fix” has often included the complete disregard of the agreements the Infallible Ones made to convince Orthodox believers to manacle themselves to Rome.”
Infallible ones? Who are they? And how would the Orthodox be manacled? If it’s a chaining up, then why have the Orthodox sought it out on several occasions?
“Eastern Catholics were not supposed to be saying the filioque, teach purgatory, etc., yet this is not only common practice, but those who oppose it within the Eastern Churches are often treated as heretics.”
Where are the Eastern Catholics being treated as heretics? Show me where that is happening right now. Can you?
“I know, I used to be one. I got so sick of being told that I *had* to say the filioque and that I *had* to believe in purgatory, that I was required to ignore everything that made Orthodox theology Orthodox that I went back home to Orthodoxy.”
So the Orthodox now don’t believe in purgatory as some did just 300 some years ago? In 1640 Peter Mohila, the Metropolitan of Kiev, authored or co-authored an “Orthodox Confession of Faith” that clearly taught the doctrine of purgatory. I guess the Eastern Orthodox can’t be relied on much.
“Looking like an Eastern Christian and believing as an Eastern Christian are two different animals.”
Not according to the Eastern Christians I know.
“Sure our ecclesiology is sloppy. It’s conciliar. If we wanted an absolute human ruler we’d just become Latins and ignore the whole Eastern church farce.”
You chose the word “farce”, not me. Also, I don’t know of anyone - including the pope - believes that the pope is an absolute human ruler. This conversation would be easier, if you made sense.
We’re talking past each other.
“Since the Orthodox churches started in 1054 as their own churches when exactly did the pope try and fail in regard to them? Also, when did he try to fix Orthodox ecclesiology?”
Of course I reject your “started in 1054” statement, and even to say such a thing is silly. Read Jaroslav Pelikan’s second volume of the History of Christian Doctrine.
1. Several times, the Union of Brest and Uzhorod are two examples. Of course those could be seen as attempts to implement Florence.
2. These unions *changed* the ecclesiology in the churches that accepted the union. Rome agrees with me on this one. Rome is *not* conciliar (at least not within itself, a bizarre twist since Vatican II) and does not pretend to be so. Rome rejected the concept of conciliarity within its jurisdictions for full ordinary, universal and immediate jurisdiction over all local churches.
“Infallible ones? Who are they? And how would the Orthodox be manacled? If it’s a chaining up, then why have the Orthodox sought it out on several occasions?”
1. The popes. I shouldn’t have used sarcasm. Orthodox do not believe any individual can be infallible at any time. I found it strange and frustrating that the pope could enter into an agreement and then ignore the agreement. When my kids do that they get time out or push-ups, not declared infallible on matters of faith.
2. The Orthodox who manacled themselves were those who “united” themselves to Rome, or the Eastern Catholics.
3. To say that the Orthodox “sought out” these unions is only partially true and ignores the facts on the ground at the time. Most Eastern Catholics I know accept these facts and what Rome and the Hungarians were doing at the time and place of the unions, so I don’t know if I would need to go into that here.
“Where are the Eastern Catholics being treated as heretics? Show me where that is happening right now. Can you?”
You’ve missed the point of my post. Eastern Catholics who demand to live according to the Union of Brest as signed by Rome are often treated as heretics. If you send me a PM I would be happy to tell you my story.
The unions also guaranteed that Eastern Catholic priests would be allowed to be married, yet this practice was banned everywhere outside of Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine at the request of Roman Catholics. So much for multiple equal churches within the Catholic confession. If a married man tries to become a priest in the Unites States, he will be denied. Yet if a Lutheran becomes a Roman Catholic priest and he is married, it is allowed. This is the nonsense St. Alexis Toth opposed when reuniting himself to Orthodoxy.
“So the Orthodox now don’t believe in purgatory as some did just 300 some years ago? In 1640 Peter Mohila, the Metropolitan of Kiev, authored or co-authored an “Orthodox Confession of Faith” that clearly taught the doctrine of purgatory. I guess the Eastern Orthodox can’t be relied on much.”
First, I have to say that I don’t know if you are trying to be generous or offensive. In Eastern Orthodoxy, “change” is the one thing we avoid and having a post Vatican II Catholic state that Orthodoxy has changed is somewhat humorous. Indeed, Edward Gibbon complained the Orthodox “held in their lifeless hands the riches of their fathers.” He was frustrated at the lack of innovations. We don’t like change and don’t deal with it well.
On the point you made, you take it as axiomatic that Peter Mohila speaks for Orthodoxy, both historically and currently. This is false.
First, remember that no single person in Orthodoxy speaks infallibly, including some of our most revered saints. We reject things written by saints if the Church does not accept it through the witness of the other saints and the liturgical life of the Church. Peter Mohila is not recognized as a saint by most of Orthodoxy, and those who recognize him as such reject a great deal of his teaching. Once again, see the time and place. Orthodoxy has rejected the teaching of purgatory long before Peter Mohila (see, for instance, St. John Chrysostom Homily 9). Even at Florence, Purgatory was a huge issue debated by East and West. Once again, you can read Pelikan’s history of Christian Doctrine, or Lossky’s Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church for a long list of the very public arguments between the popes and other bishops of the pentarchy on this issue.
““Looking like an Eastern Christian and believing as an Eastern Christian are two different animals.”
Not according to the Eastern Christians I know.”
That would make sense to some Eastern Catholics. Dump Eastern theology for Latin theology, but use the Orthodox liturgy. That’s like dressing a man in a dress and calling him a woman. It’s common these days, but still nonsense.
““Sure our ecclesiology is sloppy. It’s conciliar. If we wanted an absolute human ruler we’d just become Latins and ignore the whole Eastern church farce.”
You chose the word “farce”, not me. Also, I don’t know of anyone - including the pope - believes that the pope is an absolute human ruler. This conversation would be easier, if you made sense.”
What I’m pointing out here is that we have a lot of ecclesiological arguments within Orthodoxy. The Orthodox bishops, one by one, discuss what they believe is right and act thus. It’s long, public and often ugly, but it’s conciliar. No one man has jurisdiction of the church, save Christ himself. This is not the case in the Latin Church.
The “Eastern church farce” I am referring to is the claim by Rome that it consists of some multiple sui juris churches, including Eastern Catholic ones. It is a farce in that a Latin bishop claims supreme jurisdiction over them all and forces its Latin views on them. There is truly only one jurisdiction on Catholicism and it is Roman. If they were sui juris, how could the Latin bishops deny the Eastern Catholics married priests?
You wrote:
“Read Jaroslav Pelikan’s second volume of the History of Christian Doctrine.”
Already did - 15 years ago.
“1. The popes. I shouldn’t have used sarcasm. Orthodox do not believe any individual can be infallible at any time.”
Then you are always in error. Why bother trying to defend your point if you must be in error?
I am posting on FreeRepublic. That is an infallible statement. I was just infallible. See that?
“I found it strange and frustrating that the pope could enter into an agreement and then ignore the agreement.”
What pope? When? Where?
“When my kids do that they get time out or push-ups, not declared infallible on matters of faith.”
Your kids were not elected by the cardinals of the Church. Your kids have no office created by Christ. If you think you can compare the office of the papacy to your kids poor behavior, then you have a basic reasoning problem.
“2. The Orthodox who manacled themselves were those who “united” themselves to Rome, or the Eastern Catholics.”
WHO? Stop making empty assertions and actually state a fact.
“3. To say that the Orthodox “sought out” these unions is only partially true and ignores the facts on the ground at the time. Most Eastern Catholics I know accept these facts and what Rome and the Hungarians were doing at the time and place of the unions, so I don’t know if I would need to go into that here.”
In the 15th century you find the Orthodox coming West to seek reunion. Who was seeking out whom there?
“You’ve missed the point of my post. Eastern Catholics who demand to live according to the Union of Brest as signed by Rome are often treated as heretics.”
Who? Name names. Come on. Be real.
“The unions also guaranteed that Eastern Catholic priests would be allowed to be married, yet this practice was banned everywhere outside of Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine at the request of Roman Catholics.”
There was a reason for that. Also, it did not stop seminarians from being married. It stopped them from MARRYING in the West. At the Byzantine parish I attended, there was a married priest - and he was married in the 1930s or 40s.
“So much for multiple equal churches within the Catholic confession. If a married man tries to become a priest in the Unites States, he will be denied.”
By some Eastern Catholic bishops, yes. Note that - Eastern Catholic bishops.
“Yet if a Lutheran becomes a Roman Catholic priest and he is married, it is allowed. This is the nonsense St. Alexis Toth opposed when reuniting himself to Orthodoxy.”
That was more than 80 year ago. I asked about NOW. As I expected, you have failed miserably.
“First, I have to say that I don’t know if you are trying to be generous or offensive.”
Just honest and correct. Try it sometime.
” In Eastern Orthodoxy, “change” is the one thing we avoid and having a post Vatican II Catholic state that Orthodoxy has changed is somewhat humorous.”
I’m not post Vatican II.
“Indeed, Edward Gibbon complained the Orthodox “held in their lifeless hands the riches of their fathers.” He was frustrated at the lack of innovations. We don’t like change and don’t deal with it well.”
From what I’ve seen you don’t deal with anything all that well.
“First, remember that no single person in Orthodoxy speaks infallibly, including some of our most revered saints.”
So, again, you stipulate taht every statement you make is in error. Since you are always in error, there’s no point to this conversation.
When you learn how to reason, get back to me.
“Your kids were not elected by the cardinals of the Church. Your kids have no office created by Christ. If you think you can compare the office of the papacy to your kids poor behavior, then you have a basic reasoning problem.”
And yet Pope Clement VIII signed an agreement in which Eastern Catholics were afforded rights (a few of which I have already listed, including the insertion of the filioque into the creed) that he and Pope Leo XIII, at the behest of Archbishop Ireland, (who chose to recall all Byzantine Catholic priests and force Eastern Catholics in the Americas to Roman Catholic churches) lie. So you’re right in that my children understand that lying is wrong while these cardinal-chosen popes don’t.
I never said a person couldn’t say something true, which is what you maintain papal infallibility equates to. I said that no one person is infallible in all things regarding theology: the Church is. The Church has one leader and that leader is Christ, not the pope.
My wife and I were condemned in a Ruthenian parish for refusing to insert the filioque into the creed. We sent a letter to Metropolitan Archbishop Basil, who provided no response. Being left with the choice of abandoning our Faith or maintaining union with Rome, and considering that we had an agreement with Rome to not insert the filioque, we left.
And yes, that was the only issue, the insertion of the filioque.
You wrote:
“And yet Pope Clement VIII signed an agreement in which Eastern Catholics were afforded rights (a few of which I have already listed, including the insertion of the filioque into the creed) that he and Pope Leo XIII, at the behest of Archbishop Ireland, (who chose to recall all Byzantine Catholic priests and force Eastern Catholics in the Americas to Roman Catholic churches) lie. So you’re right in that my children understand that lying is wrong while these cardinal-chosen popes don’t.”
Show me the proof that any of these men lied about the filioque to Eastern Catholics. When you fail - and you will - who will be the liar? What you will have to post is evidence that any of those men you mentioned actually knew he was saying something that was untrue and said it anyway. So, show me that Clement VIII lied about the filioque. Can you?
“I never said a person couldn’t say something true, which is what you maintain papal infallibility equates to.”
I did no such thing - EVER. You said infallibility. You did not say papal infallibility. I showed - through a simple point - that ANYONE can be infallible on a particular issue. Again, I am now posting on FreeRepublic. That is an infallible statement. Period. That is not papal infallibility, but if anyone can be infallible at some time then it is automatically possible that someone at the head of the Church can be infallible through the power of God.
“I said that no one person is infallible in all things regarding theology: the Church is.”
And that isn’t what papal infallibility is. So, now we see that you attack what you apparently imagine to be so rather than actually deal with the real papal infallibility as it is defined. That’s like saying, “I don’t like the US Constitution because it allows abortion.” In reality the US Constitution no where mentions abortion and the authors never intended it to do so. You’re not attacking papal infallibility. You’re attacking what you mistakenly believe papal infallibility to be.
“The Church has one leader and that leader is Christ, not the pope.”
Christ appointed Peter as head of the Church on earth. Every once in a while, even some modern Eastern Orthodox Christians say as much.
“My wife and I were condemned in a Ruthenian parish for refusing to insert the filioque into the creed.”
Maybe that happened, maybe it didn’t. Condemned by whom? If your bishop didn’t condemn you, then essentially no one did. If everyone in my parish - including the priest - condemned me but the bishop didn’t it wouldn’t matter to me if what I was doing wasn’t wrong. Here’s the creed said in Ruthenian parishes according to Ruthenians: http://www.patronagechurch.com/HTML/creed.htm
Please note who is in charge of this sui juris church: http://www.patronagechurch.com/Metropolia/Ruthenian_Metropolia.htm
“We sent a letter to Metropolitan Archbishop Basil, who provided no response. Being left with the choice of abandoning our Faith or maintaining union with Rome, and considering that we had an agreement with Rome to not insert the filioque, we left.”
Why didn’t you just keep saying the creed as they say it? Here it is again: http://www.patronagechurch.com/HTML/creed.htm
“And yes, that was the only issue, the insertion of the filioque.”
O-K-A-Y....
http://www.patronagechurch.com/HTML/creed.htm
I hope you wrote Metropolitan Basil about your actions. Maybe, however, he’ll ignore that letter too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.