Raskol se zahuktava

[Bokisd]

пре 2 минута, Ведран* рече

пре 3 минута, Trifke рече

ne

Да

ne 

()

[Ведран*]

Управо сада, Trifke рече

Tebi kao kenguru je prirodno da preskaces. 

Море кад те испрескчем! 

[Trifke]

Управо сада, Ведран* рече

Море кад те испрескчем! 

[Bokisd]

пре 7 часа, Ведран* рече

Ево ја стојим збуњен ставом Еп. Максима

Sto jes', citam sad intervju e.Maksima :

http://teologija.net/ako-ovo-bude-kraj-znacu-da-nije-ljubav-razgovor-sa-episkopom-maksimom-vasiljevicem/

"...Praznik autokefalnosti je, po mom skromnom mišljenju, praznik jedinstva a ne praznik „nezavisnosti“. Jer Crkva – a kroz nju sva  tvorevina – ima jedno središte koje služi kao kvasac istorije, jednu blagodat koja osvećuje sve i svakog. Istorijske okolnosti i raspleti 1219. godine dovode Savu u Nikeju i šta se zbiva: tadašnji Vaseljenski Patrijarh, ogrnut odeždom nemoći (sklonjen u Nikeju), potpuno ignoriše kanonskog episkopa srpskih oblasti, a to je bio ohridski arhiepiskop Dimitrija Homatijan, i dodeljuje „autokefaliju“ srpskoj državi. Ovaj istorijski moment sa početka 13. veka jeste zanimljiva ali i snažna analogija sa nekim novijim dešavanjima u pravoslavnom svetu..."

Mislim, ono (ovo ), ... sta je tacno hteo da kaze vladika,... nije bas 'nezavisnost' , ali jeste jedinstvo,... jel' to znaci da Carigrad jos ima vlast nad svima koji imaju autokefaliju ? 

Ili, sta znaci, VP ogrnut odezdom nemoci,... da li to znaci da je nekako prisiljen da primi Savu i da podari autokefaliju, da je mozda politika igrala odlucujucu ulogu,... sta znaci da VP ignorise kanonskog episkopa Homatijana, da li to znaci da VP nije imao vlast u tom istorijskom  trenutku da nam podari autokefaliju ? 

Stvarno mnogo nejasnoca , zbunjujuce, ... kakve zakljucke covek da izvuce iz ovakvih poruka e.Maksima ? Ne znam, nikad nisam voleo to neko crkveno diplomatisanje, iako znam da je i to potrebno u nekim trenucima, ali, ovo mi deluje nekako previse.

[Trifke]

E ovo nadilazi i samog rimskog Papu 

http://orthochristian.com/119888.html?fbclid=IwAR3x-cHBJEfQ_bg-nEcg1tw1idOleTjDoXNSyWArVM2auoSUCK4RSguncNc

YOUR DUTY IS TO REALIZE THE WISDOM OF OUR ACTIONS—PAT. BARTHOLOMEW TO ALBANIAN CHURCH

 

Istanbul, March 13, 2019

thenationalherald.com    

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 subsequentlyin 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.

[Bokisd]

пре 2 минута, Trifke рече

‘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.

.. imamo jos jednu novu ex cathedru... 

[Trifke]

пре 1 минут, Bokisd рече

.. imamo jos jednu novu ex cathedru... 

Na zalost. Mada ovako drsko se ni Papa ne ponasa

[Bokisd]

пре 46 минута, Bokisd рече

Sto jes', citam sad intervju e.Maksima :

http://teologija.net/ako-ovo-bude-kraj-znacu-da-nije-ljubav-razgovor-sa-episkopom-maksimom-vasiljevicem/

"...Praznik autokefalnosti je, po mom skromnom mišljenju, praznik jedinstva a ne praznik „nezavisnosti“. Jer Crkva – a kroz nju sva  tvorevina – ima jedno središte koje služi kao kvasac istorije, jednu blagodat koja osvećuje sve i svakog. Istorijske okolnosti i raspleti 1219. godine dovode Savu u Nikeju i šta se zbiva: tadašnji Vaseljenski Patrijarh, ogrnut odeždom nemoći (sklonjen u Nikeju), potpuno ignoriše kanonskog episkopa srpskih oblasti, a to je bio ohridski arhiepiskop Dimitrija Homatijan, i dodeljuje „autokefaliju“ srpskoj državi. Ovaj istorijski moment sa početka 13. veka jeste zanimljiva ali i snažna analogija sa nekim novijim dešavanjima u pravoslavnom svetu..."

Mislim, ono (ovo ), ... sta je tacno hteo da kaze vladika,... nije bas 'nezavisnost' , ali jeste jedinstvo,... jel' to znaci da Carigrad jos ima vlast nad svima koji imaju autokefaliju ? 

Ili, sta znaci, VP ogrnut odezdom nemoci,... da li to znaci da je nekako prisiljen da primi Savu i da podari autokefaliju, da je mozda politika igrala odlucujucu ulogu,... sta znaci da VP ignorise kanonskog episkopa Homatijana, da li to znaci da VP nije imao vlast u tom istorijskom  trenutku da nam podari autokefaliju ? 

Stvarno mnogo nejasnoca , zbunjujuce, ... kakve zakljucke covek da izvuce iz ovakvih poruka e.Maksima ? Ne znam, nikad nisam voleo to neko crkveno diplomatisanje, iako znam da je i to potrebno u nekim trenucima, ali, ovo mi deluje nekako previse.

http://teologija.net/ako-ovo-bude-kraj-znacu-da-nije-ljubav-razgovor-sa-episkopom-maksimom-vasiljevicem/

" Поменусмо да је 1219. године Васељенски патријарх потпуно игнорисао канонску ситуацију у областима државе Стефана Немање које су, важно је истаћи, потпадале под јурисдикцију Охридског архиепископа Димитрија Хоматијана (иначе, једног од најугледнијих каноничара позне Византије) и супротно канонима доделио „аутокефалију“ српској држави. Сви смо данас поносни и радосни због тог смелог, иначе „неканонског“ чина. Садашње превирање у Украјини је један привремени проблем и верујем да нема оне геополитичке димензије које му се приписују. Ако би се Црква поделила због једне канонске турбуленције, то би значило да није била толико велика, него мала и већ пре тога изгубљена. Изнећу своје скромно мишљење за које знам да је „мањинско“: верујем да крајњи циљ интервенције првопрестоне Цркве није заузимање једног географског простора, већ узношење у литургијски свет огромне већине украјинског народа који је – из разних, оправданих или неоправданих разлога – до сада остао ван домашаја Евхаристије истинске Цркве… Онај пак део Цркве који се на тој територији већ налази у пуноћи живота Цркве не треба да негодује него да молитвено препозна прилику да сународници на другачији начин уђу у благодатни простор исте Цркве.
Треба да верујемо да ће Цркве превазићи искушења и да ће сви, можда, бити захвални што су се управо таква искушења појавила. Црква Христова историјски побеђује онда када је привидно на губитку. Можда је овим потезом Цариград на губитку, како то виде Москва и многи други. Међутим, дугорочно гледано, можда је ово квасац неког дубљег јединства који ће доћи после нашег нараштаја. Вартоломеј је на себе преузео крст једне историјске одлуке и тек ће даља историја – а не садашњи тренутак – показати да ли је био у праву."

Ovde je v.Maksim malo jasnije objasnio svoj stav, ne znam, pomalo deluje da se vladika svom silom trudi da opravda poteze VP cak i po cenu 'silovanja' istorije i kanona,... kao sto i danas VP pokusava  da nadje 'rupe' u kanonima i predanju kako bi sebe opravdao.

[srb_Lo]

Еп.Максим као да је постао викар Вартоломеја . Ово не сме да прође тек тако у овом тренутку 

[Bokisd]

пре 9 минута, srb_Lo рече

Еп.Максим као да је постао викар Вартоломеја . Ово не сме да прође тек тако у овом тренутку 

Mislim (meni tako deluje) da je kontekst onog teksta  v.Irineja upravo ovo sto kazes,... 'blaga' kritika za neprimereno svrstavanje na pozicije VP.

[АлександраВ]

пре 6 минута, Bokisd рече

и супротно канонима доделио „аутокефалију“ српској држави.

Колико ја знам, Срби нису неканонски добили аутокефалију, Охрид је био аутономан а не аутокефалан и због тога је Свети Сава ишао у Никеју. Може ли неко молим вас да ми ово разјасни.

[Ведран*]

Да ли је вама запало за око како Вартоломеј изгледа да одговара свима на писма осим нашем Патријарху. 

[Ведран*]

пре 2 минута, АлександраВ рече

Колико ја знам, Срби нису неканонски добили аутокефалију, Охрид је био аутономан а не аутокефалан и због тога је Свети Сава ишао у Никеју. Може ли неко молим вас да ми ово разјасни.

Читај Мачковића тамо на теологија.нет. Он је одговарао на те Максимове „аргументе" у једном чланку.

[Bokisd]

пре 8 минута, АлександраВ рече

Колико ја знам, Срби нису неканонски добили аутокефалију, Охрид је био аутономан а не аутокефалан и због тога је Свети Сава ишао у Никеју. Може ли неко молим вас да ми ово разјасни.

Kratko, koliko sam upoznat, jeste Ohrid bio crkvena autonomija u okviru VP, (citao sam u jednoj crkvenoj Monografiji) da je jedan VP (cini mi se German II ) pisao e.Hometijanu da se ne mesa u poslove VP i da je autokefalnost SPC legitimna i kanonska jer je to bila crkvena teritorija VP i da je Ohridska episkopija autonomna u okviru  VP... itd...

[АлександраВ]

@Ведран* @Bokisd  хвала