Jump to content
Quora StumbleUpon Banana Lime Leaf vKontakte Sky Blueberry Slack Watermelon Chocolate Steam Black Facebook Tumblr
Quora StumbleUpon Banana Lime Leaf vKontakte Sky Blueberry Slack Watermelon Chocolate Steam Black Facebook Tumblr

Придружите се нашој ВИБЕР ГРУПИ на ЛИНКУ

Sign in to follow this  
Milan Nikolic

The Books of Knjige - Otac Milutin ( Trener Oca Duška )

Оцени ову тему

Recommended Posts

Придружите се разговору

Можете одговорити сада, а касније да се региструјете на Поуке.орг Ако имате налог, пријавите се сада да бисте објавили на свом налогу.

Guest
Имаш нешто да додаш? Одговори на ову тему

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Сличан садржај

    • Од Ромејац,
      Archimandrite Alypius (Svetlichny) on the history and symbolism of liturgical utensils.
      What Vessels and Diskoses Were Used for the Eucharist After the Edict of Constantine the Great?
      When Emperor Constantine the Great issued his edict that granted Christians equal rights with the pagans, Christian congregations were finally able to worship openly and to build their churches. New liturgical life started, and it required new liturgical items. Provincial prefects and the emperor himself made generous endowments to the churches, including vessels for the Eucharist. We find it mentioned in the biography of Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker.

      Eucharist Cup, late 5th century The chalices often had the conical shape of the emperor’s cups.
      Diskoses resembled plain plates. It was understandable because they would order the usual cups and plates, which rich people used at their feasts.

      Diskos. 6th century When the believers multiplied, a new custom to drink the Blood of Christ from a Eucharist jug was introduced in some provincial churches.
      Liturgical scholars suppose that the jugs were used by poor congregations as a substitute for cups.
      The wine that Christians brought to a church in jugs was used during the Eucharist as the full offering.
      The jugs were later made either of semi-precious gemstones with Christian symbols on them, or of precious metals, and less often from gilded copper.
      This tradition gained popularity in monasteries because a deacon would carry the Holy Gifts to hermits after a liturgy. A jug was really practical for that, while the sacred Bread was simply wrapped in a piece of clean cloth.
      It must be noted that traditionally, almost until the tenth century, the faithful would drink the Blood of Christ straight from the Chalice or from the aforementioned jug, while they received the most pure Body into their hands, later into pieces of cloth on their hands, and they would consume it on their own with awe, but first touching their eyes and foreheads with it.
      The tradition of giving the communion to the faithful on a spoon started spreading in the Eastern Churches since the 7thcentury. However, they would give only the Blood of Christ on a spoon (this tradition has survived up to now in the Coptic Church).
      They started dipping the Bread into the cup with the Blood and then distribute the particles of the Body soaked in Blood on a spoon. Roman Catholics would criticize this method in their arguments with the Orthodox. Thus, Cardinal Humbert wrote in his treatise Against the Greek Misconceptions, “Jesus didn’t put bread in a cup and didn’t tell the apostles, ‘Take ye and eat it with a spoon, for this is my Body’… The Lord didn’t offer soaked bread to any of his disciples aside from Judas the traitor to point at the one who was going to betray him.”
      Thus, the Latin Christians started to pay attention to the historicity of the Last Supper.
      When and Why Did The Tradition of Giving Communion on a Spoon Arise?
      Apparently, the tradition of giving communion on a spoon wasn’t related to new concepts of personal hygiene. On the contrary, it reflected a development of a more reverent attitude to the Eucharist and was more convenient when there were too many parishioners willing to take communion. They didn’t need to take the communion in two steps any longer: they received both elements at once.
      Additionally, in contrast with the Latin tradition, which emphasized the suffering and death of Christ, and therefore used unleavened bread for communion as a symbol of sorrow and death, the Eastern Church shaped her attitude to the liturgical elements through theology. The Churches of the East regarded the Liturgy as the re-enactment of the Resurrection, and therefore the liturgical bread was ‘live’ – it was leavened bread of joy. Naturally, this theology stipulated that the Body had to be mixed with Blood visibly for the faithful to symbolize the restoration of life, i.e., Resurrection. That was why the Body was dipped into the Chalice and then taken out of the Chalice with a spoon.
      The communion spoon wasn’t actually called ‘a spoon’ (κοχλιάριον); rather, it was called ‘tongs’ (λαβίδα), hinting at the burning coal given to Isaiah by an Angel with tongs (Is. 6:7).
      Interestingly enough, the first spoons for communion resembled real spoons and were quite big. Until the 18th century, though the spoons became smaller, they remained deep enough to distribute sufficiently large portions of the Wine and the Bread to the parishioners.

      A Communion Spoon. 17th century There was an alternative method of consuming the Gifts in the middle of the 12th century, when the communion spoons were a new thing: drinking from the Chalice using a special silver straw. This custom saw a widespread adoption in Africa and Spain. However, it didn’t stick, and the silver straws became rare as early as the 14th century. I heard that such communion straws appeared much earlier, possibly even as early as the 6th century, in particular in the Western Church.
      Hardly anyone knows that a wine strainer was considered a liturgical utensil in the 4th century, too. It was made of silver or other valuable stuff and used to pour wine into the Chalice.
      Treasure found in the Zion Monastery: chalices, censers, a tabernacle, and a wine strainer in the front row
      Christians used to bring their own wine and their own baked bread for the Liturgy. The wine wasn’t always high-quality and clean enough. That is why they needed a strainer to filter out possible admixtures.
      Jugs were used for the Eucharist along with the Chalice until the 14th century; a mural painting in Stavronikita Monastery on Mount Athos depicting the Eucharist allows us to see that monks at Mt. Athos might use a jug for communion up until the 16th century.
      Therefore, the communion spoon wasn’t universally widespread. Use of a jug implies that the Bread and the Wine were consumed separately.
      https://blog.obitel-minsk.com/2019/03/when-and-why-did-the-tradition-of-giving-communion-on-a-spoon-arise.html?fbclid=IwAR2DuaWuimMP57VWs0KAUuuo88XubuXKYoVQwlfzGeoibRDr0eU1tCmLGeI
    • Од Милан Ракић,
      IAKO DELUJE DA JE "LOV" NA JELIČIĆA OTVOREN – REŽIMSKI TABLOIDI SU 1. MARTA, KAO PO KOMANDI, KRENULI DA SE SLADOSTRASNO UTRKUJU KO ĆE VIŠE DA NAPIŠE O OVOM SLUČAJU, A POMENUTI TABLOIDI KAO MACA OKO VRUĆE KAŠE OBIGRAVAJU OKO JEDNE DRUGE KRIVIČNE PRIJAVE PROTIV JELIČIĆA – DA JE KAO PREDSEDNIK OPŠTINE DAO NALOG DA SE FALSIFIKUJU SLUŽBENE ISPRAVE KAKO BI SE SPREČILO RUŠENJE NELEGALNOG OBJEKTA NA VRHU KOPAONIKA: SVI PIŠU O SVEMU ŠTO JE JELIČIĆ IKAD URADIO, AMA O OVOME – JOK
      Iako je prvog marta predsednik opštine Brus Milutin Jeličić podneo ostavku, u utorak 5. marta tabloidi su javili da u Skupštinu opštine Brus ostavka još nije stigla, uz spekulisanje da bi naredno zasedanje na kome bi o njoj moglo da se raspravlja trebalo da bude održano tek za tri meseca.
      Zašto je Jeličić podneo ostavku? Gledajući izjave zvaničnika i čitajući pojedine medije, ne dobija se jasna slika. Kako piše u tekstu ostavke, Jeličić je odstupio sa mesta predsednika opštine da bi zaštitio predsednika Aleksandra Vučića:
      "Zbog hajke koja je orkestrirano organizovana u poslednjih godinu dana od opozicije i bukača i koja se koristi isključivo u političke svrhe i protiv predsednika Republike Srbije Aleksandra Vučića (...) podnosim ostavku na funkciju predsednika opštine Brus i vraćam mandat koji sam dobio za poverenika opštinskog odbora SNS u Brusu. Takođe, zamrzavam članstvo u mojoj stranci. Slučaj zbog kojeg sam na sudu desio se dok ja još nisam pristupio Srpskoj naprednoj stranci i tada to opoziciji nije bilo zanimljivo. Problemi su nastali onog trenutka kada sam se učlanio u SNS jer se ovaj slučaj iskoristio za direktan napad na predsednika države i urušavanje stranke kojoj pripadam."
      Ovako kaže Jeličić. Onaj Kome Je Uvek Bilo Najteže kaže da je Jeličić u pravu: "Oni su mene optuživali, i tu je Milutin Jeličić u pravu, oni nisu uopšte njega optuživali, nego mene. I tu kampanju vodili, tu nije slagao ništa, nego se vi pravite naivni ponekad", rekao je Vučić 2. marta na RTS-u.

      GDE SU BILE SNS DAME
      U tom intervjuu, Vučić je – naravno, ne pominjući da šta je taj "slučaj zbog kojeg je Jeličić na sudu" – rekao da su unutar SNS-a bile dve struje: jedna koja je htela "da se više ne popušta pred napadima na raznim televizijama za koje govore da su moje i naše, a u stvari po ceo dan vode kampanju protiv nas razni prevaranti i lažovi", i druga, "najveći deo žena iz SNS-a" i "četiri dame iz vrha SNS-a" koje su tražile "da ovaj čovek podnese ostavku dok se ne završi sudski postupak". Vučić se, prema sopstvenim rečima, priklonio ovoj drugoj struji (ko je, pobogu, bio u prvoj?) uz napomenu da Jeličić "dela koja mu se pripisuju nije počinio u vreme SNS-a, već kad je bio DOS-ovac".
      Javnosti je poznato šta su "dela koja se pripisuju" Jeličiću – višegodišnje seksualno uznemiravanje i nedozvoljene polne radnje prema bivšoj sekretarici Mariji Lukić, za koje je optužen pred Osnovnim sudom u Brusu (kao i prema drugim ženama, za šta, međutim, nije optužen). O tome kako ju je Jeličić proganjao i seksualno je uznemiravao Marija Lukić je govorila u emisiji "Život, priča" na TV Prvoj u sredu 27. februara, što građani Brusa nisu mogli da gledaju, jer je Jeličić izdejstvovao da se celom Brusu ukine kablovski signal tako što je isključena struja u Domu kulture u kome se nalazi emisiona tehnika lokalnog kablovskog operatera.
      Stoga – ponovo – zbog čega je Jeličić podneo ostavku? Ako je zbog toga što je informacija da je seksualno uznemiravao zaposlene žene u opštini izašla u javnost, onda je ostavku trebalo da podnese još pre godinu dana, kada je Marija Lukić prvi put o tome javno progovorila. Ako je zbog optužnice, onda je ostavku trebalo da podnese još u oktobru prošle godine, kada je Osnovno tužilaštvo u Kruševcu podiglo optužnicu protiv njega. Ako je pak zbog početka suđenja, onda je trebalo da podnese ostavku u novembru, kada je zakazano prvo ročište, ili u februaru 2019, kada je, napokon, to prvo ročište i održano (doduše, zatvoreno za novinare), nakon nekoliko odlaganja. Gde su bile "četiri dame iz vrha SNS-a" godinu dana? Gde je godinu dana bio Onaj Kome Je Najteže, šta je sa svim onim silnim najavljivanim "gvozdenim metlama" i "provetravanjima" SNS-a od kojih ništa nije bilo? Zlobnici bi rekli da je na kraju ispalo da je Jeličić podneo ostavku zbog toga što je cenzurisao jednu emisiju za opštinu Brus, a to je, izgleda, najveći no-no – zna ko je inače zadužen da ukida emisije i skida ih sa programa.

      VRUĆA KAFA
      Iako deluje da je "lov" na Jeličića otvoren – režimski tabloidi su 1. marta, kao po komandi, krenuli da se sladostrasno utrkuju ko će više da napiše o ovom slučaju – koliko je poznato, on još uvek nije izbačen iz SNS-a, a pomenuti tabloidi (plus "Blic", koji je prvi počeo da piše o Jeličićevim žrtvama), kao maca oko vruće kaše obigravaju oko jedne druge krivične prijave protiv Jeličića – da je kao predsednik opštine dao nalog da se falsifikuju službene isprave kako bi se sprečilo rušenje nelegalnog objekta na vrhu Kopaonika: svi pišu o svemu što je Jeličić ikad uradio, ama o ovome – jok.
      Jeličić ima nepunih 57 godina i na čelu je Brusa, sa prekidima, skoro 20 godina. Bio je predsednik opštine u dva mandata (2000–2008), bio je narodni poslanik u dva mandata (2004–2007. i 2008–2012), sve kao kadar Nove Srbije Velimira Ilića, a na mesto predsednika opštine Brus ponovo je došao 2015, nakon raspada koalicije oko SNS-a.
      Kako je NIN pisao u maju 2001, Jeličić je prvi put postao predsednik opštine Brus tako što je, kao kadar Nove Srbije (i uprkos tome što je Nova Srbija bila deo DOS-a, pobednika republičkih izbora 2000), formirao opštinsku vlast sa SPS-om i JUL-om. Tada je predsednik opštinskog odbora DS-a izneo optužbu da mu je Jeličić pretio kako je "o svemu obavestio Velju Ilića" i da će "doći momci iz Čačka da mu polome kičmu".
      U tom tekstu NIN-a navodi se i da su odbornici iz redova DOS-a pisali Vladi Srbije o novom predsedniku opštine: da se protiv njega vodi krivični postupak jer se "osnovano sumnja da je sredinom 1999. godine proizveo skoro 10.000 litara votke u svojim pogonima, a na njih stavio etikete i zatvarače baltik votke PIK ‘Takova’ iz Gornjeg Milanovca"; da je 1999. godine uslovno osuđivan zbog zloupotrebe službenog položaja; da je 1997. uništio kompletnu dokumentaciju o poslovanju svog preduzeća Panikop; da postoji zapisnik MUP-a Kragujevac, u kome piše da su lozovača i šljivovica, čiji je proizvođač firma Panikop, imale falsifikovane akcizne markice...
      Ovo za akcizne markice se ponavlja i 2003. godine: javnost saznaje da su dva policajca optužena da su primili mito od predsednika opštine Jeličića. Kako su pisali mediji, policajci su došli u Jeličićevu firmu Panikop, doneli njegov proizvod, flašu lozovače, pokazali mu da lozovača ima falsifikovanu akciznu markicu i tražili od njega 3000 evra da "zaborave" stvar. Prema istom izvoru, tada su policajci "poučili" Jeličića da rakiju izveze na Kosovo, da će oni da obezbede da roba prođe punkt u Merdaru bez evidencije i kontrole, te da je posrednik u ovom poslu "spustio" cenu mita na 1500 evra, koje je Jeličić isplatio u selu Ravni.

      MILIONI I KAMIONI
      Jedna od konstanti tokom ovih dvadesetak godina je neprestano Jeličićevo najavljivanje famoznih 150 miliona evra koje će uložiti investitor iz Nemačke. U februaru 2003. godine Jeličić prvi put najavljuje nemačkog investitora, koji će uložiti 150 miliona evra za izgradnju dva hotela sa četiri zvezdice, sistem gondolskih žičara, eksploataciju termomineralnih izvora... U martu iste godine mediji pišu da je potpisan i ugovor, da su partneri dve nemačke firme iz Minhena (MBB UMVELSISTEME i Valter Bau AG), a Jeličić najavljuje i velike infrastrukturne radove – rekonstrukciju puta od Pojata do Brusa, gradnju ćićevačke zaobilaznice, osposobljavanje i modernizaciju aerodroma u Rosuljama...
      Nakon izbora u decembru 2003, Jeličić postaje narodni poslanik u Skupštini Srbije na listi Nove Srbije, a samo nekoliko meseci kasnije, u martu 2004, javnost saznaje da za "posao stoleća" zapravo nije bio potpisan ugovor nego predugovor, pa Jeličić ponovo izjavljuje da je "za turizam na Kopaoniku zainteresovana jedna velika nemačka kompanija", i već sve isto kao i prethodne godine.
      U februaru 2006. Jeličić kaže da će "uprkos pričama" gondola biti izgrađena i da za nju postoji projektna dokumentacija, a u decembru 2007. da će u projekte izgradnje turističkih centara na Kopaoniku biti uloženo "oko 150 miliona evra" i da su "već pronađeni domaći i strani investitori", da bi 11 godina kasnije, u maju 2018, na TV Kopernikusu izjavio da u Turističkom centru Brzeće "očekujemo izgradnju gondole, gde će Bela reka 1 i 2, naše najveće i najduže staze na Kopaoniku, jednom progledati, a time će i 10.000 turista koji se nalaze u Brzeću moći da koriste te ski usluge".

      TEFLON PREDSEDNIK
      I kao što SNS nije bio gadljiv na silne krivične prijave koje je tokom svoje karijere Jeličić podobijao, tako nisu bile gadljive ni druge stranke koje su pre SNS-a bivale na vlasti. U oktobru 2004, Jeličić na lokalnim izborima u Brusu osvaja 70 odsto glasova, a u februaru 2006. opštinski odbornici iz DS-a ponovo teško optužuju Milutina Jeličića. On je, tvrde, zaposlio 70 ljudi u opštinskoj administraciji i javnim preduzećima, troši velike pare na službena putovanja, troši milione iz opštinskog budžeta "na fantomske projekte", progoni političke neistomišljenike, a radna mesta i druge privilegije deli svojim rođacima i najbližim prijateljima, ima pozamašan kriminalni dosije a sudstvo ne reaguje, da se svi radovi u Brusu izvode bez tendera...
      Početkom 2007. Jeličić ucenjuje Velimira Ilića i kaže da će, ukoliko ne dobije poslanički mandat, napustiti Novu Srbiju: "Velja mi je rekao da je razgovarao sa Vojislavom Koštunicom i da je zauzet stav da niko od gradonačelnika i predsednika opština ne može da dobije mandat, pošto je Republički odbor za sprečavanje sukoba interesa saopštio da su ove dve funkcije nespojive. Nemam ništa protiv toga da se držim zakona i Ustava, ali i zakon i Ustav treba da važe za sve, a očigledno je da ne važe, jer su druge stranke dodelile mandate gradonačelnicima i predsednicima opština", priča tada Jeličić "sa puno gorčine", kako piše "Politika".
      Nekoliko dana kasnije, iz DSS-a odgovaraju: Velimir Ilić svakog izgurao za predsednika opštine "ako se ima u vidu koliko je Ministarstvo za kapitalne investicije uložilo novca u opštinu Brus i koliko je Velimir Ilić svog ugleda i dragocenog vremena izdvojio da bi jednog crnoberzijanca ispromovisao za prvog čoveka u Brusu. (...) Tvrdnja Jeličića da želi poslanički mandat zbog interesa Brusa čista je demagogija, jer je on duboko zagazio u kriminalne vode i mandat mu je potreban da bi ga imunitet zaštitio od krivičnog gonjenja, pa je sasvim razumljivo što je Velimiru Iliću nudio ostavku na mesto predsednika kako bi se poslaničkim imunitetom zaštitio od robije", saopštio je tada DSS.
      Par dana kasnije direktor JKP "Rasina" Vukajlović optužuje Jeličića da je falsifikovao službenu ispravu u kojoj on, direktor, navodno podnosi neopozivu ostavku. Vukajlović tada na konferenciji priča da je na osnovu "nepostojećeg klizišta" privatna firma "Velika Morava" dobila 31 miliona dinara: "Ovakvom lažnom odlukom izbegnut je javni tender i onemogućeno JKP ‘Rasina’ da te radove izvede za 3.605.957 dinara", rekao je Vukajlović.
      Nekoliko meseci kasnije Vukajlović – i dalje kao direktor JKP "Rasine" – u avgustu 2007. podnosi krivičnu prijavu protiv Jeličića, nakon što su "Rasina" i opštinska komunalna inspekcija utvrdile da Jeličićeva privatna firma Panikop krade vodu, odnosno nelegalno troši vodu sa gradskog vodovoda, čime je JKP "Rasina" oštećena za 6,95 miliona dinara. "To su političke igre, koje nemaju veze sa stvarnošću", izjavljuje Jeličić. Inače, Jeličić je tek u novembru 2018. preneo upravljačka prava kompanije Panikop iako je to bio dužan da uradi još 2010, kada je na snagu stupio Zakon o Agenciji za borbu protiv korupcije. I Agencija je podnela krivičnu prijavu protiv njega u maju 2018, jer nije prijavio sve podatke o imovini.
      Na izborima u maju 2008. godine Jeličić ponovo postaje poslanik na listi DSS – Nova Srbija. U novembru 2009. mediji objavljuju da Jeličić ima najskuplji automobil od svih narodnih poslanika – BMW X5. Jeličić odgovara da je oduvek vozio skupe automobile, da je rata koju plaća 540 evra, da je i pre ulaska u politiku imao privatnu firmu, da je pare pošteno zaradio, da je tužilac odbio krivičnu prijavu po kojoj je on oštetio opštinski budžet za 40 miliona dinara i da su ga gonili "iz političkih razloga".

      PAPIRI U INTERESU MARODA
      Nakon izbora u maju 2012, Nova Srbija ostaje bez vlasti u Brusu, a u oktobru iste godine Milutin Jeličić je uhapšen zbog sumnje da je 2006. godine "zloupotrebio službeni položaj u vezi s izgradnjom kuća oštećenih klizištima" pod sumnjom da su on i još dvojica uhapšenih oštetili Ministarstvo za kapitalne investicije Republike Srbije za nešto više od 223 hiljade evra.
      U martu 2015. dolazi do promene vlasti u Brusu zbog raskola u lokalnom SNS-u. Jeličić ponovo dolazi na mesto prvog čoveka opštine, i nekoliko meseci kasnije analizira stanje na RTV Brus: "Nisam baš zadovoljan, moram da priznam, jer sam mislio da uradim više, s obzirom da se u međuvremenu i zakonska procedura iskomplikovala. Ti zakoni su se izmenili na štetu investitora jer mnogo više se traži papira i dozvola i saglasnosti, nego kad sam bio na vlasti pre 4 godine, odnosno pre 7 godina kad sam bio predsednik opštine. Jer, tada sam stvarno radio punom parom, a ti papiri, ono što se nije sredilo odmah, radilo se u hodu, tako da nisu bile tolike zabrane, nisu bili toliko veliki prekršaji da nešto odradiš a da nema dozvolu, a zna se, kad se radi u interesu naroda, u interesu građana naše opštine... Međutim, u međuvremenu zakoni su se iskomplikovali tako da sad bilo šta da krenete da radite, ako nemate dozvolu, ako nemate svako papirče, neko može da vam napiše krivičnu prijavu, i onda treba da odgovarate za nešto što nije baš u redu, ali šta da se radi, šta je tu je."
      U aprilu 2016. Jeličić osvaja 53,4 odsto glasova na lokalnim izborima u Brusu. U januaru 2017. Velimir Ilić – nezadovoljan što ga Vučić već sedam meseci "zavlači" za mesto direktora Koridora – izlazi u javnost sa poznatim fotografijama ministra Zlatibora Lončara u društvu pripadnika zemunskog klana, a u avgustu Jeličić napušta Novu Srbiju i ceo opštinski odbor NS-a iz Brusa prelazi kolektivno u SNS.
      Velimir Ilić je to prokomentarisao u internet-intervjuu datom za Balkan Info: "Samo ako si SNS, zaštićen si i svi tamo trče da se zaštite. Svi lopovi trče na jedno mesto da se zaštite. Mene zove predsednik Brusa i kaže ‘znaš šta, prop’o sam, najeb’o sam ako ne potpišem pristupnicu, uhapsiće me odma’, našli mi ovo, našli mi ono’. Pa što si krao, brate?"
      Radmilo MARKOVIĆ

    • Од Милан Ракић,
      Red Hot Chili Peppers održaće 15. marta koncert kod piramida u Gizi. Najavljeni spektakl ujedno će biti i njihov prvi koncert u Egiptu.

      Za sve ljubitelje "oštrijeg" zvuka, "kalifornijske papričice" večeras časte izravnim prenosom koncerta koji će biti održan kraj piramida u Gizi.
      Ako niste onomad, pre 12 godina zaglavili u sremskom blatu kod Inđije, možete večeras od 19 sati po našem vremenu "zaglaviti" pred Vašim računarom i poslušati koncert Tonija i ekipe putem lajvstrima na JuTjubu...
       
    • Од Ромејац,
      The Orthodox Churches have no right to speak on the matter of the Ukrainian crisis other than to affirm the decisions and actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, according to Patriarch Bartholomew’s reply to the Albanian Church that was recently published in Greek and subsequently in Russian.
      In December, Pat. Bartholomew wrote to the primates of the Orthodox Churches throughout the world, calling on them to recognize the results of December 15’s “unification council” that created a new ecclesiastical structure in Ukraine. On January 14, the Albanian Church responded that while it cannot accept the Russian Church’s decision to break communion with Constantinople, it also has serious issues with Constantinople’s decision to accept the hierarchs and clergy o the Ukrainian schismatic groups whose ordinations are devoid of grace and the action of Holy Spirit. They also lament that the creation of a new “autocephalous” church did nothing to create unity in Ukraine, but conversely, has only deepened the divisions there and threatens a schism in the entire Orthodox world.
      As the Albanian Church’ statement was published in full, the Patriarchate of Constantinople also published its response to the Albanian Church in full.
      In the reply, Pat. Bartholomew laments that the “Mother Church and the Patriarch himself” are being “slandered” by those who benefit from misinterpreting Constantinople’s actions.
      This echoes statements he made in early January, that he would not change course on the Ukrainian issue no matter what the Local Churches say, as they need to learn to respect Constantinople more: “We pray that the sister Churches which unjustly oppose the decisions and initiatives of the first throne of the Constantinople Church would finally begin to think logically and fairly, with great respect and gratitude to the Church of our Ecumenical Patriarchate.”
      ‘Therefore,” the Patriarch writes to the Albanian Synod, “it is up to you to realize the truths that have been spoken, not to ratify them.” This echoes the Patriarch’s statement from October that, in the end, the Russian Church will have no choice but to obey its decisions.
      For Constantinople, it is a matter of having enough respect for the Patriarchate of Constantinople to simply accept whatever decisions and actions it makes, while the Synods, primates, and hierarchs from the various Local Churches have shown that they believe that these actions and decisions should be evaluated as to whether they are true to Orthodox ecclesiology and canon law.
      There seems to be contradictory statements and reasonings coming from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. During the recent town hall meeting put on by the Archons of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gaul took care to emphasize the supposed conciliarity of the Patriarchate’s actions, referring to the visits to each Local Church by a Constantinople delegation to discuss the matter. Here the Patriarch, however, openly states that conciliarity is unnecessary when Constantinople has already made a decision.
      As is typical for his statements on this matter, Pat. Bartholomew also states that the Patriarchate acts only out of love and the desire for good order, not out of self-interest or any other motive, including political. However, there have been voices throughout the Orthodox Church recognizing the opposite in the Patriarchate’s actions. For example, His Eminence Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro of the Serbian Church said of Pat. Bartholomew in December that “His love of power has led to great sorrow in Ukraine, to discord that is catastrophic for the future not only of Ukraine and all the Slavic peoples, but at the same time for all of Orthodoxy.”
      Moreover, the recent news that Constantinople is in fact receiving a number of buildings, premises, and other properties in exchange for the tomos of autocephaly invalidates the claim that the Patriarchate did not act out of any self-interest.
      Pat. Bartholomew also repeats his Patriarchate’s assertion that the canons of the Church grant universal jurisdiction to Constantinople, to hear appeals and intervene in situations in any Church’s territory—an assertion that has been heard more and more frequently in the context of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis. For example, in his letter to Alexander Drabinko, one of the two bishops who defected from the canonical Church, in which Pat. Bartholomew received him into his jurisdiction (without a canonical release from the Ukrainian Church) on the eve of the “unification council,” he wrote that Constantinople “indisputably has the responsibility to judge ecclesiastical matters everywhere and to give them a final conclusion.”
      The same assertion was also made in the tomos granted to the Ukrainian schismatic church. However, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, the Church’s foremost canonist, writes that “the Bishop of Constantinople has no authority to officiate in the dioceses and parishes of other Patriarchs, nor has he been given by this Canon [Canon 9 of Constantinople—O.C.] to grant a decision in reference to an appeal on the part of the whole Church.”
      Further, Pat. Bartholomew notes that the newest autocephalies were granted by Constantinople, but degrades the independent statutes of these Churches at the same time. “The newest and so-called ‘autocephalies,’” he terms them, reflecting Constantinople’s conviction that the autocephaly of any Church except for the four ancient Patriarchates and the Church of Cyprus can, in fact, be revoked by Constantinople, as they were never explicitly confirmed by an Ecumenical Council. However, their autocephalous status was confirmed by the organizational makeup of the Crete Council of 2016, which Constantinople considers to be binding on all Orthodox Churches.
      Moreover, it should be noted that most of these autocephalous were granted to Churches that were formerly precisely under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, such as the Russian Church, whereas Ukraine is not under Constantinople’s jurisdiction and thus its intervention there is non-canonical.
      And despite recent examples, the Church of Cyprus received its autocephaly from an Ecumenical Council, and the Church of Georgia initially from the Church of Antioch. Thus there is ancient precedent for autocephaly begin granted not by Constantinople. And regarding the newer examples, they were not always without controversy. Constantinople granted the Polish Church its autocephaly at a time when its Mother Church in Russia was weak, and this caused no little stir. The Polish Church later sought autocephaly from the Russian Church. The autocephaly granted to the Georgian Church in the 1990s was actually a recognition of what had already been, since the Georgian Church declared its own autocephaly in 1917, which was recognized by the Russian Church a few decades later. And the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia received its autocephaly first from the Russian Church, though Constantinople issued a new tomos of autocephaly later when the Czech-Slovak Church sought to regularize its relations with Constantinople (though without actually seeking a new tomos).
      Also regarding the canonical tradition, Pat. Bartholomew writes that he included with his letter a study on the reality of ordinations celebrated by schismatic or deposed bishops, which would mean by extension that Constantinople recognizes the hierarchs and clergy of the various Old Calendarist groups as true clergy.
      “However,” the Union of Orthodox Journalists writes, “in the very document, at the very beginning, Metropolitan Basil of Smyrna recognizes that on the basis of the sacred canons of the Church, it is impossible to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of such schismatic ‘ordinations.’”
      Pat. Bartholomew also offers several historical examples of schismatic ordinations being accepted by the Church: the Meletian schism in the early Church, the case of the Bulgarian Church from 1872 to 1945, and the reunion of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate. However, none of these situations are analogous, as none of them involves one Patriarchate interfering in the life of another to cancel legitimate excommunications and anathematizations and create an entirely new structure within another Church’s territory. The case of ROCOR is especially helpful in that we see a Church body, which was never fully out of communion with the Church, returning precisely to the body from which it had separated.
      In the case of the Bulgarian Church, it was not excommunicated by every Local Church—concelebrations continued with other Local Churches and the Romanian Church provided holy Chrism to it for many years—and in 1945 was received back into communion with other Local Churches—it was not a case of a sect of schismatics within one Local Church being restored under the authority of another Local Church altogether.
      http://orthochristian.com/119888.html?fbclid=IwAR3x-cHBJEfQ_bg-nEcg1tw1idOleTjDoXNSyWArVM2auoSUCK4RSguncNc
×
×
  • Create New...