Jump to content

Why I never became Eastern Orthodox

Оцени ову тему


Препоручена порука

 

After I became convinced by the historic claims of Christianity concerning the person of Jesus, I started looking for a church to call my own and as I did, I quickly became confused by the disorienting variety of teachings and practices among different denominations and this forced me to confront questions about the divisions that exist within Christianity. I started studying Church history and I quickly narrowed my focus to the division between Catholicism and Protestantism. Eastern Orthodoxy didn’t, at that time, register as a contender for one very simple reason. I’m an English speaking white dude in a British commonwealth country. There is a universality to Catholicism that doesn’t exist in the Eastern Orthodox churches. For me to become Eastern Orthodox, I’d have to join a Church with a very specifically ethnic or national identity. When people ask me why I’m not Eastern Orthodox, I’m tempted to get into a theological throw down, but the easiest way to answer that is by pointing out that I’m not Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, or any other ethnicity that the Eastern churches in the city I live in serve. A point of contention at all the major divisions in Christianity has been the focus on authority. So, the East West split focused on the authority of the Pope vs. other bishops and patriarchs. The protestant reformation was about the authority of the Church and the Pope vs. the exclusive authority of scripture, and the English reformation was about the authority of the Pope vs. the authority of the King. So, as you might guess, authority, how it’s defined, and where it resides, seems like a pretty essential component of the faith. So in the case of the East West schism, there were a number of controversies that they were stuck on, but arguably, the most significant one was the disagreement over the authority of the bishop of Rome vs. that of the other patriarchs and bishops. Rome insisted that the bishop of Rome had a unique and universal authority over the entire Church, without which there would be no universal Church, as inherited from the authority of Peter. The Eastern Orthodox side was arguing that the bishop of Rome was a first among equals but only in an honorific way which meant that he had the same authority as the other patriarchs. So that was their position going into the controversy. OK, how true were they to their positions after the controversy had led to an actual division and schism? Well, the West still maintained the conviction that the bishop of Rome had a universal authority over the whole Church. But the East, did not continue to treat the Bishop of Rome as a first among equals. In fact, they excommunicated him which seems like a clear violation of their own claim that no autocephalous patriarch has authority over another. The honor of first among equals has since been designated to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Jesus wanted his followers to be one as a sign of his divinity to the world. Between East and West, from what little I know of it’s history, I only have ever seen major attempts from the West to realize that unity. Through the councils of Lyon and Florence, the East’s bishops conceded Rome’s position on Papal Supremacy, the Filioque, and purgatory, but the unity that was struck fell apart when the Eastern delegates went home and succumbed to political pressure there. Rome has always been the initiator of ecumenical dialogue, from what I’ve seen. It was at the first Vatican Council that the mutual excommunications of 1054 were lifted. It was the second Vatican council that made ecumenism a high priority for the Church moving forward which paved the way for the joint theological commission of East and West. It was Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI who recited the Nicene Creed with Eastern patriarchs without the filioque. It was the bishop of Rome who first visited the East. It wasn’t until 1995 when the Patriarch of Constantinople finally visited Rome.

 

Last week I made a video about why I never became Eastern Orthodox and it got a lot of reaction, which is great, but that reaction was quite polarized and there seemed to be a lot of misunderstanding about what I was trying to say in that video, so I wanted to take some more time to address some of the feedback as well as the misunderstandings from the previous commentary. The first thing I’d want to point out and re-emphasize is that the perspective I’m trying to share on this topic is more personal than anything else. Some people complained that my presentation of the history and theology of the great schism was too one sided. And that’s completely true. It’s the same criticism or disclaimer I made about it at the beginning of the video by saying that it wasn’t supposed to be an apologetic about why Catholicism is right and Eastern Orthodoxy wrong. It was about my reasons for not being Catholic as opposed to Eastern Orthodox which is going to be inherently one sided. Ultimately, I’d hate for people to think that I’m positioning myself in an adversarial way towards Eastern Orthodoxy because the honest fact is, I do find the peculiarities in Eastern Christianity extremely attractive. I like a lot of the simplicity of it, I like icons, I absolutely LOVE eastern architecture. I love how you’ve been so steadfast against the aberrant currents of modernism, and I could go on. So let me try to dispel what I think is the biggest misunderstanding from the last video which is that some people thought I was criticizing ethnic or national churches which is definitely not what I was trying to say. I think it’s great that there are particular churches that express the theology, liturgy, and spirituality of a particular heritage. The point I was trying to make about the universality of the Church, is that there needs to be a way for those national churches to express their communion and universality with one another. So in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, from what I understand, they would say that their universality is expressed in their common theology… their orthodoxy. But the question for me has always been, how is that common theology defined? How do you make sure that as new difficulties and controversies arise the entire Church responds to address them? Well, if there’s no one final authority, like we have with the Pope, then you’d need an ecumenical council where all the patriarchs and bishops gather to define doctrines and settle controversies. But for the Eastern Orthodox, as they are known today, there hasn’t been an ecumenical council in over 1000 years. And meanwhile, Rome never stopped calling and hosting ecumenical councils through the centuries. So there seems to be something, to me, about the Eastern Orthodox Churches that keeps them frozen and unable to reaffirm the universal aspect of our faith because there isn’t one unifying voice to bring them together in an ecumenical way. In evaluating the East West schism, I tried to find a similar easy to identify and understand argument. Something that made one of the positions self refuting and I felt like I found it in the Eastern position and that’s what I was trying to emphasize in my last video. I was interested in trying to discover which Church stayed true to the very thing they were contending in the division itself. The Eastern bishops maintained that the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals but not supreme in authority. But after the schism, they excommunicated him and haven’t once shown him that kind of honor since, so they’ve betrayed their own position. Now some people responded to that by saying, the Pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople too, which is true. But in so doing, he was acting in accord with the argument that the West was making which is that he had universal authority. The East was saying that the authority of those ancient sees ended there. Constantinople couldn’t tell Rome what to do and vice versa. But in, excommunicating the Pope, they were contradicting themselves and their own arguments. So, I hope that provides some more clarity for what I was trying to say in my last video and again, don’t take my word as some kind of authority because I’m not. Based on my comprehension level, these are the points I found persuasive. You should go do your own research because it matters, and it’s pretty interesting. The Wikipedia article on the East West schism is actually a great resource so, I’ll link it in the description.

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

 

Ovom mladom Hriscaninu treba objasniti da je glava Crkve - Hristos I On je nas Jedini Autoritet , a ne papa , ni kao vicar Hristov ni kao Petrov naslednik... Divno je to sto kao mlad covek zudi za Istinom, istrazuje, meri I odmerava ali ipak racionalnim, juridickim putem, tako da put ka autenticnom Pravoslavnom Hriscanstvu nije lak, samorazumljiv ili ocigledan, koji se bazira samo na crkvenoj istoriji, vec vodjen Duhom Svetim u narucje Avramovog gostoprimstva medju svoje I kao svoj na svome. Modernom Kanadjaninu ne moze biti jasno zasto je nacionalnost deo crkvenog etosa I ne moze da "vidi" ili oseti univerzalnost Pravoslavne Crkve koja je svagda prisutna I posvedocena mucenickom zrtvom ljubavi kroz vekove.

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

пре 5 минута, "Tamo daleko" рече

Ovom mladom Hriscaninu treba objasniti da je glava Crkve - Hristos I On je nas Jedini Autoritet , a ne papa , ni kao vicar Hristov ni kao Petrov naslednik... Divno je to sto kao mlad covek zudi za Istinom, istrazuje, meri I odmerava ali ipak racionalnim, juridickim putem, tako da put ka autenticnom Pravoslavnom Hriscanstvu nije lak, samorazumljiv ili ocigledan, koji se bazira samo na crkvenoj istoriji, vec vodjen Duhom Svetim u narucje Avramovog gostoprimstva medju svoje I kao svoj na svome. Modernom Kanadjaninu ne moze biti jasno zasto je nacionalnost deo crkvenog etosa I ne moze da "vidi" ili oseti univerzalnost Pravoslavne Crkve koja je svagda prisutna I posvedocena mucenickom zrtvom ljubavi kroz vekove.

Evo meni kao srbinu nije jasna ta nacionalnost Crkve, a koja je istovremeno univerzalna navodno. Toliko je univerzalana da malo pomalo pomesne Crkve bacaju anateme i prijetnje jedna na drugu zbog jurisdikcije nad nekom teritorijom. Takve probleme nemaju katolici.

Mladi gospodin je pohvalio taj etnički element kod pravoslavca koji daje vjeri jednu osobenost, ali istovremeno ukazuje da to jeste i problem jer se vidi da pomesne pravoslavne Crkve često ne mogu da riješe nesuglasice sa sobom, i poslednji kritski Sabor je pokazao to. 

 

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

пре 31 минута, Justin Waters рече

Evo meni kao srbinu nije jasna ta nacionalnost Crkve, a koja je istovremeno univerzalna navodno. Toliko je univerzalana da malo pomalo pomesne Crkve bacaju anateme i prijetnje jedna na drugu zbog jurisdikcije nad nekom teritorijom. Takve probleme nemaju katolici.

Mladi gospodin je pohvalio taj etnički element kod pravoslavca koji daje vjeri jednu osobenost, ali istovremeno ukazuje da to jeste i problem jer se vidi da pomesne pravoslavne Crkve često ne mogu da riješe nesuglasice sa sobom, i poslednji kritski Sabor je pokazao to. 

 

 

:-)

Kada gledamo Crkvu iz administrativne perspective naravno da je to tako kao sto opisujes, medjutim Crkva kao zivi organizam jeste u svetu (sa svima nama gresnicima , sa slabostima koje se preobrazavaju Bozijom blagodacu), ali nije od ovoga sveta! Pojam katolicanska (univerzalna) potice jos od Aristotela, nije izmisljena od strane hriscana. Crkva je organska Celina, organizam koja poseduje svu punocu, a ta punoca je prisutna u svim njenim krstenim clanovima. I kao sto kaze o. Staniloje, Crkva ima svecelog Hrista sa svim njegovim spasiteljskim I obozujucim darovima I svaka lokalna zajednica (parohija, episkopija, mitropolija), pa cak I svaki vernik ima Hrista u celosti, ipak ukoliko ostane u celini Tela.

Crkva je svecela I u odnosu na jeresi I raskole koji su joj suprostavljeni. Ona je potpuna I u pogledu otpadnistva pojedinih njenih delova. Ukoliko neki deo otpadne od Crkve, to uopste ne umanjuje njenu celovitost (katolicanskost).

Preko zapovesti ljubavi svakom hriscaninu je data zapovest da bude "katolik", tj. saboran. Tako da mera njegove duhovne zrelosti u ljubavi predstavlja u stvari meru njegove sabornosti.

Dakle ni jedna pomesna pravoslavna Crkva, tj. bolje receno njeni clanovi nisu oslobodjeni od greha (citaj "problem medjusobnih nesuglasica" I sl.), automatski svojim clanstvom u bilo da je srpsku pravoslanvu, rusku, gruzijsku, antiohijsku crkvu, vec se nase isceljenje ogleda u meri rasta u Hristu!

Svi znamo da je Etnofiletizam osudjena jeres, a koliko je svaka od pomesnih crkava obolela ili neizlecena od toga, varira od slucaja do slucaja.

Tacno je da Katolici nemaju takvih problema, ali ne smemo se zanositi da je Papa nosilac njihove univerzalnosti! :-)

 

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

Skoro sam slusao od jednog naseg svestenika iz Kanade da upravo Americka Pravoslavna Crkva OCA radi pravu stvar i mnogi ljudi joj prilaze,

posto je tamo kod njih raznog pravoslavnog sveta rusa, srba grka, gruzijaca, pravoslavnih arapa i naravno amerikanaca, kanadjana navodno i neki svestenici su Srbi,

Rusi, Amerikanci itd. sluzi se valjda na engleskom a i neki svoj nacin pojanja pokusavaju da oforme.

Ovo sve ostalo je nazalost vezalo svoj Crkveno parohijski zivot strogo za nacionalno opredeljenje itd.

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

пре 3 часа, "Tamo daleko" рече

Svi znamo da je Etnofiletizam osudjena jeres, a koliko je svaka od pomesnih crkava obolela ili neizlecena od toga, varira od slucaja do slucaja.

De iure је јерес. А фактички није необично видјети међунационалне сукобе или креирање црквених политика сходно етничко-националнима. Нпр., зашто је проблематично натезање са МПЦ? Управо јер се ту јавља етнофилетизам, па не чуди што се ономад обратише БПЦ да их представља у међуцрквеним односима. И сама СПЦ пати од тога. Заправо, свака хришћанска црква ( па и католичка ) пати од тога ( колико се само РКЦ користи у националистичким надгорњавањима у Пољској и Хрватској, што од "мрсних људи", што од свештенства, то је милина видјети. Него то је опет проблем са источним Европљанима, док Западњаци, како изгледа, ипак јесу јединствени у овом смислу. Макар ми тако изгледа ).

Организациона етничка подијељеност православних цркава није нужно у сукобу са католичанством православне цркве, све док као главни остаје осјећај заједничке православне припадности и љубави. Али колико се често то прекрши у стварности? Превише.

Оно што је мени било најчудније у видеима јесте његова прича о томе како су се Украјинци чудили зашто неукрајинац жели да се моли у украјинској цркви. Први пут у животу сам чуо да се неко православан тако односи према инороднима. Сво вријеме сам мислио да уопште није проблем да Рус уђе у бугарску цркву, или Македонац у украјинску, или било ко. Не знам сад да ли су се Украјинци можда чудили зашто неко неправославан жели да дође у православну цркву, мада нисам био тамо па му морам вјеровати на ријеч.

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

1 hour ago, Ћириличар рече

Нпр., зашто је проблематично натезање са МПЦ? Управо јер се ту јавља етнофилетизам, па не чуди што се ономад обратише БПЦ да их представља у међуцрквеним односима. И сама СПЦ пати од тога.

Ovo je vrlo los primer koji si naveo povodom "kreiranja crkvenih politika shodno etnicko-nacionalnima". U svim debatama I ovde na forumu, kao I na mnogim izlaganjima povodom MPC problema, nisam razumevala da natezanje sa MPC koje pominjes je posledica etnofiletizma u Srba! Po tvom komentaru, ispasce da je opravdano to sto su se braca Makedonci obratili BPC da ih predstavlja (sic!) Besmisleno.

Sto se tice drugog dela tvojeg posta, nemoj da te cudi nepoverenje koje izrazavaju Ukrajinci kada neko "stran" udje u crkvu; svaka crkva ima nekog "dezurnog" ko ce da pravi red, iako mu niko to nije ni poverio da radi. :-)  ; a drugo u danasnja vremena, kada se napadaju I hramovi od strane terorista, sta ces , nikom ne pise na celu ko je I sta je kada udje u crkvu, premda takvo podozrenje nema opravdanja ako zelimo misionariti na podrucju Amerike, Kanade itd.

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

 

пре 4 часа, "Tamo daleko" рече

Tacno je da Katolici nemaju takvih problema, ali ne smemo se zanositi da je Papa nosilac njihove univerzalnosti! :-)

Papa svakako nije nosilac njihove univerzalnosti, ali u njihovoj praksi se dosta dobro vidi koliko je korisno što nisu podjeljeni na pomesne crkve i što imaju jednu vidljivu glavu koja predstavlja kohezivno tkivo u ostaloj hijerarhiji. 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

пре 16 часа, Ћириличар рече

I’m an English speaking white dude in a British commonwealth country. There is a universality to Catholicism that doesn’t exist in the Eastern Orthodox churches. For me to become Eastern Orthodox, I’d have to join a Church with a very specifically ethnic or national identity. When people ask me why I’m not Eastern Orthodox, I’m tempted to get into a theological throw down, but the easiest way to answer that is by pointing out that I’m not Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, or any other ethnicity that the Eastern churches in the city I live in serve.

Сигурно има већи број национално (превише) оријентисаних парохија и заједница итд. и то није еклисиолошки добро али није свуда исто. Ипак мислим да је генерализовао своје искуство, на шта има право, његова ствар, осим када тај став проповеда на јутјубу :)

Ево у САД-у енглески, арапски и грчки. Свака част. И у тој заједници он не би постао ни Американац ни Сиријац ни Грк. А ни Србин :) 

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

пре 4 часа, "Tamo daleko" рече

nisam razumevala da natezanje sa MPC koje pominjes je posledica etnofiletizma u Srba!

Нисам нигдје конкретно споменуо етнофилетизам у Срба, него генерално присутност етнофилетизма у читавој проблематици са МПЦ ( и онда сам спомињао обраћање МПЦ ка БПЦ ). Одакле извуче Србе као етнофилетисте у томе није ми јасно. Но када нас већ спомену, свакако је СПЦ етнофилетистичка на неким другим мјестима - била и јесте. У Македонији је свакако била таква прије 100 и више година, док су се Србија и Бугарска превирале око тога чија ће бити долина Вардара - мада се данас не би могло то рећи више. Не знам да ли се може и за БПЦ, пошто су се, како испратих, понијели дипломатски поводом обраћања МПЦ.

Посљедња реченица је била само генерална опаска на стање СПЦ уопште, а не конкретно у случају МПЦ. Тј. - "И СПЦ пати од етнофилетизма, као што се јавио у МПЦ", па може бити да се нисам најсрећније изразио.

пре 4 часа, "Tamo daleko" рече

Po tvom komentaru, ispasce da je opravdano to sto su se braca Makedonci obratili BPC da ih predstavlja (sic!) Besmisleno.

Не испада ништа мимо онога што је написано. Потпуно је неоснована ова дефанзивност.

пре 4 часа, "Tamo daleko" рече

Sto se tice drugog dela tvojeg posta, nemoj da te cudi nepoverenje koje izrazavaju Ukrajinci kada neko "stran" udje u crkvu; svaka crkva ima nekog "dezurnog" ko ce da pravi red, iako mu niko to nije ni poverio da radi. :-)  ; a drugo u danasnja vremena, kada se napadaju I hramovi od strane terorista, sta ces , nikom ne pise na celu ko je I sta je kada udje u crkvu, premda takvo podozrenje nema opravdanja ako zelimo misionariti na podrucju Amerike, Kanade itd.

А оно, ко ће му га знати. Можда је баш био тај неки локалац, као што кажеш, а момак изгенерализовао. Додуше, не стоји ти аргумент око терориста. Лик је бијељи од снијега. Тешко би га ико узео за терористу тамо :smeh1:

Но, оно што ми је занимљиво јесте чињеница како је лако прескочио преко филиокве и читаве дебате о примату папе рекавши:"Па хеј, нисам видје оникога осим Рима да се натеже ка екуменизму". Оно, прави је напор натезати се ка екуменизму у којем претендујеш 1000 година да будеш главни баја. Чудна ли чуда што ова друга страна није исто толико вољна на разговор и појачава опрез :0212_rolleyes: Има и пар других ствари но да не цјепидлачим.

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

пре 18 часа, Ћириличар рече

Оно што је мени било најчудније у видеима јесте његова прича о томе како су се Украјинци чудили зашто неукрајинац жели да се моли у украјинској цркви. Први пут у животу сам чуо да се неко православан тако односи према инороднима. Сво вријеме сам мислио да уопште није проблем да Рус уђе у бугарску цркву, или Македонац у украјинску, или било ко. Не знам сад да ли су се Украјинци можда чудили зашто неко неправославан жели да дође у православну цркву, мада нисам био тамо па му морам вјеровати на ријеч.

Čemu se čudit, nedavno sam imao spor sa bivšim članom jedne od naših slovenskih FB grupa (ne)pravoslavnim sektašom sa ovog sajta, Kad on nije u kanonskom jedinstvu sa svojom oficijalno priznatom pravoslavnom pomjesnom  Crkvom ne može se onda ni nazivati "pravoslavnim". Ustvari on si to o sebi misli da je "pravoslavan" ili tačnije "pravi pravoslavan" (vistinska crkva itd.) iako je članom te grčke starokalendarske i raskolničke paracrkve slične toj "eparhiji u bijegu, na utěku" (u egzilu u Ljuljacima):

nijedna od ovih crkvi nisu hramovi zvanične PC Češke, Moravske i Slovačke:

https://orthodoxiachristiana.cz/recka-pravoslavna-starostylni-br-cirkev-c1/

"Katakombe" češke, moravske, slovačke i poljske

https://orthodoxiachristiana.cz/mezirici/

http://www.hsir.org/index-el.html

http://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/

O ekumenismu

Taj češki/moravski "artemita" (zilot), inače otpao od oficijalne PC Češke, Moravske i Slovačke takodjer misli da ni češki/moravski/slovački, ukrajinski itd. pravoslavci nastanjeni na teritoriji pod kanonskom jurisdikcijom PC Češke, Morave/Slezska i Slovačke, dakle"ekumenisti" nemaju pravo ulaziti u "njegovu pravu" pravoslavnu crkvu a kamo li nekakvi drugi inovjerci. Objasnio sam mu da svrha naših slovenskih grupa nije rješavati kalendare ni pashalije, aleksandrijsku ni gregorijansku a ni teološke, dogmatske i vjeronaučne razlike izmedju Slovena pravoslavaca, Slovena katolika i Slovena luterana/evangelika, husita i ostalih protestanata, Slovena rodnovjermih ili neopagana ili Slovena muslimana, budista ili misionariti medju Slovenima agnosticima, ateistima i neopaganima. Kad je konačno shvatio da kod nas nema protežiranja, favoriziranja ni vjeroispovijesti ni nacija ni svjetonazora, pogotovu ne jednih na uštrb drugih i svi su kod nas ravnopravni - sam se valjda u znak neslaganja i protesta isčlanio iz grupe. 

Inače mi pratimo sve šta se dešava i u SPC i u Ukrajini, Rusiji i Češkoj i  svuda drugdje.  

VÍRA NA UKRAJINĚ MEZI MOSKVOU A KYJEVEM

https://tinyurl.com/yazzw7rj

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

Taj članak o Ukrajini i tamnošnjoj situaciji sa kanonskim i nekanonskim pravoslavnim crkvama imamo i mi na nekim od naših FB grupa:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/slavlit/permalink/2188576361167404/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/slavlit/

Članak je dakle aktualan i nov, od 11.4. 2018. a komentar na jednoj od tih grupa je ovakav: 

Jasný príklad, keď nacionalizmus je pre niektorých viac ako viera!

Jasan primjer, kad nacionalizam je za neke (ljude, vjernike) više nego vjera (više im znači od vjere, važniji i preči im je od vjere)!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/826637467372650/permalink/1633610003342055/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/826637467372650/

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

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.

  • Чланови који сада читају   0 чланова

    • Нема регистрованих чланова који гледају ову страницу
  • Сличан садржај

    • Од Danijela,
      Relics of Agios Nektarios, which were kept in a special casket in front of his icon, in the Church of Agios Nektarios, in the village of Platanitis in central Greece, were stolen on Thursday.
      The thieves broke into the church in the middle of the night and, for an unknown reason, removed the holy relics which are visited and revered by thousands of Orthodox faithful every year.

      Nektarios, born in the mid-nineteenth century and died in the early twentieth century. Born in Selyvria, Thrace (part of present day Turkey), in October of 1846 as Anastasios Kephalas, Nektarios (his ordained name) began working and studying in Constantinople at the age of 14.
      In 1904 at the request of several nuns, he established a monastery for them on the island of Aegina. The monastery was then named Holy Trinity Monastery. In December of 1908, at the age of 62, Nektarios withdrew to the monastery on Aegina, where he lived out the rest of his life as a monk. He wrote, published, preached, and heard confessions from those who came from near and far to seek out his spiritual guidance.
      Thousands of miracles have been attributed to his intercession, with cases of cancer in particular, and other serious illnesses being totally cured.
      Nektarios died on the evening of November 8, 1920, at the age of 74. He was buried at the Holy Trinity Monastery on Aegina. His relics were removed from the grave in 1953 and parts were given to different churches around the Greek Orthodox world.
      Some relics were kept at the Church of Agios Nektarios, in the village of Platanitis, from where they were stolen on Thursday.
      Ηe was officially recognized as a saint by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1961. His feast day is celebrated annually on November 9.
       
      https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/07/17/relics-of-orthodox-saint-nektarios-stolen-from-greek-church/
    • Од Ромејац,
      Shumylo concludes that initial ordinations of the UAOC hierarchy were, unfortunately, conducted by an imposter without the Apostolic succession.

      On January 5-6, 2019, the official delegation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) at the ceremony of the Tomos bestowal at the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul included Metropolitan Andriy Abramchuk of Galicia who concelebrated with Patriarch Bartholomew and the other Phanar bishops. In 1990, the Metropolitan was ordained by the notorious Victor (Vikenty) Chekalin, a pedophile and swindler who now serves a sentence in Australian jail for document forgery and fraud. At the anniversary of the Tomos bestowal this year, Patriarch Bartholomew led a divine service together with the now former Primate of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC, the one “restored” by Vikenty Chekalin) Makary Maletich. The latter was ordained by the hierarchs of the “Chekalin succession” – Dimitry Yarema, Ihor Isichenko and the former Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP) bishop Methodius Kudryakov. Part of UAOC bishops who in 2018 joined the OCU also got to the “Chekalin succession” through priestly and episcopal consecrations from Andriy Abramchuk, Makary Maletich and others. Even within the OCU the attitude toward this succession is ambiguous.
      Taking into consideration the necessity of discussing the issue of Apostolic succession of this part of the OCU hierarchy, Serhii Shumylo, Director of the International Institute of the Athonite Legacy in Ukraine, presented his new report titled “The self-avowed “bishop” Vikenty Chekalin and his participation in the first UAOC ordinations in March of 1990”. With the blessing of Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia this work was submitted to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
      The documents, evidence and facts presented in the study – including the ones from previously unknown archival sources – confirm that the first UAOC ordination on March 31, 1990 in Mikhailevychi village in Lviv Oblast was carried out by only two persons: Ioann Bodnarchuk, defrocked on November 13, 1989 because of his voluntary secession from the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), and fraudster Victor Chekalin. Besides, according to the published certificate, this “ordination” was led by Chekalin, who has never been ordained not only as a bishop but even monk or priest.
      In his research, Shumylo also studies publications that appeared at the Ukrainian site Cerkvarium.org by Dmytro Horevoy and Greek sites Phanarion.blogspot.com and Romfea.gr in August-September 2019, which stated that the bishopric ordination of Vikenty Chekalin was authentic.
      Studying various versions of Chekalin’s admission to monastic vows and ordination, and attempting to understand the motives of the main parties, the historian compares the remembrance of Archbishop Eulogius Smirnov, Abbot of Danilov Monastery in Moscow, and archival documents and correspondence according to which, Chekalin wasn’t even ordained as a monk.
      Also compared are the testimonies by Ioann Bodnarchuk and Victor Chekalin of various periods concerning the latter’s bishopric ordination. Thus, Chekalin’s own testimony before the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) Synod in July 1989 – January 1990 shows that Ioann Bodnarchuk didn’t take part in his ordination. The other two bishops who allegedly ordained Chekalin – Metropolitan Alexei Konoplev of Kalinin and Kashin and bishop of the Catacomb Church Vladimir Abramov – had already passed away by that moment and no confirmation of their participation in the ordination was found.
      As for the first UAOC ordination of 31 March 1990, it should be mentioned that the signature of Archbishop Varlaam (Ilyushchenko) of Simferopol and Crimea of the ROC was added to Vasyl Bodnarchuk’s Certificate of Ordination after the Archbishop’s death. According to the written testimonies of Archbishop Varlaam’s driver and archdeacon, the hierarch didn’t leave his diocese and held divine services in the Simferopol Cathedral on that day. Moreover, being a member of the ROC Synod, Varlaam personally signed the Moscow Synod’s resolution of November 14, 1989 on depriving Ioann Bodnarchuk of his episcopal rank, and “no way could secretly ordain new bishops with him four months later,” Shumylo writes. This situation, with archival documents signed by Ioann Bodnarchuk, was covered in detail in a piece by Fr. Rostislav Yarema (an English translation was published by the Orthodox Cognate PAGE).
      Thus, Shumylo concludes that initial ordinations of the UAOC hierarchy were, unfortunately, conducted by an imposter without the Apostolic succession. This was the violation of the first Apostolic Canon (“Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops”). The historian reminds that both Mstyslav Skrypnyk and Filaret Denisenko didn’t recognize the authenticity of the ordinations of the “Chekalin succession” hierarchs. However, many of those ordained this way were convinced in the legitimacy of their dignity and refused to be reordained, so the “Chekalin succession” still partly exists in the UAOC and UOC-KP. And in that status, many of the clergymen and hierarchs were accepted into communion by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
      Considering that copies of the Certificate of Ordination and the evidence mentioned in the media were provided to the Phanar and could become a basis for the Patriarchate Synod to recognize in October 2018 the UAOC hierarchy in their “current dignity” without reordination, Serhii Shumylo expresses his concern about the Ecumenical Patriarchate taking decision on the grounds of bogus documents and advocates that a detailed study of this issue should be made.
      Historian Finds New Evidence to Prove Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church’s Initial Ordination was Illegitimate
      THEDURAN.COM Shumylo concludes that initial ordinations of the UAOC hierarchy were, unfortunately, conducted by an imposter without the Apostolic succession.  
    • Од neca995,
      Свјетилен на Богојављење у ноте ставио прота Ненад Барачки. Поје се на јутарњем богослужењу. Овакав начин појања свјетила имамо на Господње празнике и за Св. Николу. Подржите рад и запратите канал у што већем броју, хвала 
       
×
×
  • Креирај ново...