Raskol se zahuktava

[Жика]

Шта је било са Зизисом на крају? Пре две године је прекинуо општење са митрополитом солунским.

[The Godfather]

Жарко Видовић: Васељенска патријаршија од пада Цариграда не иступа као бранитељ православља

BY СТАЊЕ СТВАРИ on 17. ОКТОБРА 2019. • ( 1 )

Фанариотска политика православне црквене хијерархије у Босни, па и у Србији, пре и после Пећке патријаршије, допринела је томе да велики број православних напусти веру

Жарко Видовић (Фото: Душан Јауковић)

 

Чињеница је, међутим, да цариградска патријаршија већ одавно, од самог пада Цариграда под Турке, нема могућност да иступа као заступник и бранитељ православља. Цариградског патријарха од г. 1453. поставља турски султан, а од времена Кемала Ататурка патријарх може бити постављен само уз одобрење турске владе.

Но, та патријаршија никад није представљала, нити имала могућност да представља грчки православни народ и цркву, него само Фанар. А Фанар је трговачка четврт Цариграда (названа тако по пристанишним светионицима). То је грчка буржоазија коју је Турска оставила на миру, и задужила да води турске трговачке послове, пошто се сами Турци нису трговином бавили. Фанар је био заштићен, и ниједан јаничар није могао без дозволе самог султана, односно везира, да ступи на тло Фанара. Фанар је уживао аутономију истичући белу заставу, као и наш Дубровник. Али, та аутономија је плаћана великим порезом плаћеним турској порти. Порез је износио и до осамдесет процената добити. Но, зато су Фанариоти (не само Грци, него и Јевреји, Цинцари и Јермени Фанара) под заштитом Турске, вршили нечувену пљачку становништва по територији Турске империје. За ту пљачку су били једнако заинтересовани и Турци и Фанариоти, јер што је већа пљачка, већи приход ће имати и турска порта из оних осамдесет процената пореза, и Фанар од преосталих двадесет процената добити. Фанариоти су бирали патријарха и патријарх цариградски је представљао само њих. Фанариотски патријарх је постављао епископе по Грчкој, Бугарској, Србији, Босни – све док није 1557. основана, издвојена и обновљена Пећка српска патријаршија. Утицају Фанариота могли су да се отму само манастири и свештеници повезани са манастирима. Ситуација је, дакле, правно иста: како је цариградски патријарх под влашћу турског султана, тако је и Руска црква, чак лишена патријарха, преко Светог Синода, који као своје чиновничко тело именује цар, потчињена цару.

Фанар, седиште Васељенске патријаршије: (Извор: Борба за веру)

Но, кад су Грци почели да раде на свом ослобођењу, Фанар и цариградски патријарх су били на страни Турске – против Грка. И дан-данас цариградски патријарх подржава – јер мора – Турке у заузимању дела Кипра. Фанарско свештенство и епископи у Босни – а после укидања Пећке патријаршије поново епископе у Босни поставља Фанар – били су на страни Турака за време великог српског устанка у Босни и Херцеговини 1875-1878. године. Као и против православних Грка. Зато је грчка црква издвојена и одвојена од цариградске патријаршије. Дакле, Фанариоти нису никакви „Грци“, него турски поданици. Разочарење балканских православних народа у цариградску патријаршију користила је, међутим, Римокатоличка римска црква да читаво „грчко православље“ или „шизму“ окарактеришу онако како је заслужио да буде окарактерисан само Фанар. То је иста клевета православља као кад се и у царској Русији православље поистовећује с потчињеношћу цркве царском апсолутизму, а заборављају се руски монаси и таква појава као славјанофили, борци за обнову аутентичног православља.

Фанариотска политика православне црквене хијерархије у Босни, па и у Србији, пре и после Пећке патријаршије, допринела је томе да велики број православних напусти веру, поистовећујући је са азијатским деспотизмом и подаништвом. Деморализација је била велика и после устанка у Босни и Берлинског конгреса 1878, те су православни свештеници, разочарани у своје епископе Фанариоте, одбацивали свештенички чин и позив, и постајали или атеисти, као Васа Пелагић, или римокатолици – као и добар број сродника предака писца ових редова.

Међутим, теологија Фанариота није православна, него управо римокатоличка, а у њој има исламског утицаја исто онолико колико га има и на теологију главног и највећег, званичног римокатоличког теолога, Томе Аквинског (који је формиран под утицајем аристотелизма из исламске папске Шпаније, кад се Римска црква, истим средствима као и ислам, борила са исламом за превласт у Медитерану).

Тома Аквински (Извор. Јутјуб)

У тој теологији је наглашено јединство или целина цркве као бића којим се поништава биће верника. Црква је „објективно света“ и као таква, она „објективно“ постоји онако како постоји било која ствар или институција у свету и историји. Она није схваћена као духовна заједница. Биће није човек верник, него црква као правна установа заснована, као и исламска држава, на божанском праву. Бог је тако схваћен исламски: као предодређеност светског и историјског збивања. Славјанофил Алексеј Хомјаков је то први јасно запазио, и написао студију о савезу римокатолицизма с исламом против православља. Тај савез је већ у заједничком својству и исламске и римокатоличке теологије: обе подједнако одричу слободу и духовност човека као посебног и појединачног бића, дакле, одричу личност човека. Човек стиче вредност (која се ни за ислам ни за римокатолицизам не састоји у слободи и духовности човека, него у моћи и ефикасности служења Римској цркви или исламској држави), дакле, стиче вредност тек укљученошћу у заједницу (римокатоличку или исламску), јер основа вредности је та заједница, њено јединство, створено, тобоже, самим Богом. Православље, напротив – и једино оно међу свим могућим теологијама у историји човечанства – истиче вредност човека као безусловну, без обзира на укљученост човека у било коју заједницу, а вредност се не састоји, него се само доказује укључењем, а састоји се у духовности и слободи којом се човек као биће по себи и у себи, као биће Богом створено, таквим какво јест (духовно и слободно биће), одликује још пре сваке историје и пре сваког свог времена. То је смисао православног учења о вечности Логоса.

Православна црква долази у кризу кад занемари ту основу хришћанског учења и кад, попут ислама или римокатолицизма, сматра да би црква могла бити света без претходне духовности и слободе човека. То званични теолози православних цркава – кад су ове у кризи, као у време власти султана, или цара, или било ког тоталитаризма над њом – заборављају, истичући да је битно у учењу православном еклисиологија, учење о цркви као заједници.

Другим речима, унијати, римокатолички теолози и сл., увек су православље поистовећивали с његовим кризним положајем, тј. с политиком која је силом наметана православној црквеној хијерархији. А то значи да су православље поистовећивали са издајом православља, те испада да је православље у самој својој суштини – издаја хришћанства.

Жарко Видовић, Руски славјанофили: реч у њихову одбрану (1975-1976), стр. 83-86.

[srb_Lo]

пре 18 минута, Жика рече

Шта је било са Зизисом на крају? Пре две године је прекинуо општење са митрополитом солунским.

Митрополит му је претио да ће га разчнити ако даље критикује Критски Сабор . Иначе Антимоса је прво Вартоломеј укорио да Зисиса и остале казни . 

[Milan Nikolic]

РПЦ: Престаћемо да помињемо поглавара Грчке цркве ако призна украјинске расколнике

Пресс-служба Патриархии РПЦ

 

Руска православна црква ће престати да помиње поглавара Грчке православне цркве, архиепископа Јеронима, у диптиху РПЦ, уколико он за време литургије буде помињао поглавара украјинских расколника, рекао је портпарол РПЦ Владимир Легојда.

„Свети Синод Руске православне цркве овластио је Светог патријарха московског и целе Русије Кирила да прекине да помиње архиепископа атинског и целе Грчке у диптиху, уколико поглавар Грчке цркве током богослужења почне да помиње вођу једне од украјинских расколничких група, или уколико предузме нешто што би сведочило о његовом признавању украјинског црквеног раскола“, рекао је Легојда, цитирајући одлуку Синода.

Он је додао да ће РПЦ одржати молитвени контакт са свим епископима и свештеницима Грчке православне цркве који не признају украјинске расколнике.

„Ценимо молитвено општење са нашом браћом из Грчке православне цркве и наставићемо да одржавамо са њима живу молитвену, канонску и евхаристијску везу преко свих тих архипастира и пастира, који су већ иступили или ће иступити против признања украјинског раскола, који се неће окаљати служећи се расколничким лажним хијерарсима, него ће служити као пример хришћанске храбрости и чврстог залагања за веру Христову“, истакао је Легојда.

 

https://rs.sputniknews.com/rusija/201910171121031094-rpc-prestacemo-da-pominjemo-poglavara-grcke-crkve-ako-prizna-ukrajinske-raskolnike/

[Vladan :::.]

Амерички конзул иде на Св Гору. Да приправи пут и поравни стазе Барту.
 

Στο Άγιον Όρος ο Γενικός Πρόξενος των ΗΠΑ Gregory W. Pfleger

Του Αιμίλιου Πολυγένη

Στο Άγιον Όρος μετέβη σήμερα, Πέμπτη 17 Οκτωβρίου σύμφωνα με έγκυρες πληροφορίες της Romfea.gr , ο Γενικός Πρόξενος των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών της Αμερικής στην Θεσσαλονίκη Gregory W. Pfleger.

Οι πληροφορίες της Romfea.gr αναφέρουν ότι ο Πρόξενος των ΗΠΑ θα έχει σε λίγη ώρα, συνάντηση με την Ιερά Επιστασία στις Καρυές.

Να σημειωθεί ότι ο Πρόξενος των ΗΠΑ επισκέπτεται τον Άγιον Όρος, δύο ημέρες πριν από την επίσημη επίσκεψη του Οικουμενικού Πατριάρχη.

Τέλος ο Gregory W. Pfleger κατά τη διήμερη επίσκεψή του, θα διανυκτερεύσει σε δύο διαφορετικές Μονές του Αγίου Όρους.

https://www.romfea.gr/agioritika-nea/32337-sto-agion-oros-o-genikos-projenos-ton-ipa-gregory-w-pfleger

 

[Vladan :::.]

Руски Синод детаљно о ситуацији у Грчкој и реакцијама
 

Заявление Священного Синода Русской Православной Церкви

17 октября 2019 г. 15:28

17 октября 2019 года на заседании Священного Синода Русской Православной Церкви было принято заявление о ситуации, сложившейся в Элладской Православной Церкви после проведения внеочередного Архиерейского Собора 12 октября 2019 года по украинскому церковному вопросу (журнал № 125).

Члены Священного Синода Русской Православной Церкви ознакомились с опубликованными в средствах массовой информации документами внеочередного Собора иерархии Элладской Православной Церкви от 12 октября 2019 года, в частности, с коммюнике Собора и c докладом Блаженнейшего Архиепископа Афинского и всея Эллады Иеронима «Автокефалия Церкви Украины», в котором предлагается «признать… автокефалию Православной Церкви независимой Украинской республики».

Поскольку возглавляемая митрополитом Киевским и всея Украины Онуфрием самоуправляемая Украинская Православная Церковь, объединяющая 95 архиереев, более 12 тысяч приходов, более 250 монастырей и десятки миллионов верующих, пребывает в каноническом единстве с Русской Православной Церковью и ни к кому не обращалась за автокефалией, очевидно, что речь идет о признании раскольнических сообществ в этой стране. Ранее Константинопольский Патриарх Варфоломей неоднократно заявлял о признании митрополита Киевского и всея Украины Онуфрия единственным каноническим Предстоятелем Православной Церкви в Украине (последнее такое заявление было сделано им во всеуслышание на Синаксисе Предстоятелей Поместных Православных Церквей в январе 2016 года). Однако в конце 2018 года Патриарх Варфоломей изменил своим прежним заявлениям и, не имея на то канонических полномочий, «восстановил в сане» без покаяния и отречения от раскола тех, кто был из него извержен, предан анафеме или же никогда не имел ни канонической хиротонии, ни даже формального апостольского преемства. Главой новосозданной структуры стал человек, получивший свое «рукоположение» от изверженного из сана и отлученного от Церкви бывшего митрополита Киевского Филарета. Последний был также «восстановлен» в «архиерейском достоинстве» Константинопольским Патриархом, но вскоре после этого покинул новоучрежденную «церковь» и заявил о восстановлении своего прежнего раскольнического сообщества, которое он именует «Киевским патриархатом».

О трудном положении Украинской Православной Церкви после антиканонической легализации украинского раскола Константинополем, о насилии и гонениях против ее верных чад, развернутых бывшими властями Украины, Русская Православная Церковь неоднократно информировала Священноначалие Элладской Православной Церкви. 9 октября 2019 года — за несколько дней до упомянутого внеочередного Собора иерархии Элладской Церкви — Патриарх Московский и всея Руси Кирилл обратился к Блаженнейшему Архиепископу Афинскому и всея Эллады Иерониму с братским посланием, содержавшим призыв воздержаться от односторонних действий и не принимать «поспешных решений до тех пор, пока Дух Святой не соберет Предстоятелей всех Святых Божиих Церквей и не умудрит их сообща от имени всей Святой Соборной и Апостольской Церкви найти решение, которое всех устроит и послужит преодолению нынешнего кризиса».

Печально, что необходимость спешного и одностороннего признания неканонического раскольнического сообщества Блаженнейший Архиепископ Иероним основывает на ряде ошибочных и ложных аргументов, неоднократно опровергнутых не только иерархами, учеными и богословами Русской Православной Церкви, но также многими видными архипастырями, пастырями и богословами Элладской Православной Церкви.

Не соответствует действительности утверждение Блаженнейшего Архиепископа Иеронима о том, что «Православная Церковь Украины… всегда оставалась в канонической церковной юрисдикции Матери Церкви — Вселенского Патриархата». В 1686 году грамотами Святейшего Патриарха Константинопольского Дионисия и Священного Синода Константинопольской Церкви Киевская митрополия была передана в юрисдикцию Московского Патриархата. На протяжении более 300 лет каноническую юрисдикцию Московского Патриархата над Киевской митрополией признавал весь православный мир, в том числе и Элладская Православная Церковь. При этом, согласно священным канонам Церкви, споры о территориальной юрисдикции имеют срок давности не более тридцати лет (VI Всел. 25).

Все эти факты были проигнорированы двумя комиссиями Элладской Православной Церкви, которым было поручено изучение украинского церковного вопроса. В своих выводах данные комиссии, по словам митрополита Кифирского и Антикифирского Серафима, «упускают из виду более чем трехсотлетнюю живую традицию зависимости митрополии Киевской и всея Украины от Московского Патриархата. И эти реалии были отражены во всех календарях Элладской Церкви вплоть до нынешнего года. Возможно, они упускают из виду и тот факт, что нынешний Вселенский Патриарх Варфоломей своими патриаршими письмами 1992 и 1997 годов признавал каноническую юрисдикцию Московского Патриархата над Киевской митрополией и уважал канонические прещения, наложенные на ныне очищенных и восстановленных изверженных из сана и раскольнических клириков».

Не соответствует действительности утверждение Блаженнейшего Архиепископа Иеронима, будто «из-за отсутствия Московского Патриархата» на Критском Соборе 2016 г. «не представилась возможность обсуждения вопроса о предоставлении автокефалии». В действительности тема автокефалии была исключена из повестки Собора много ранее, по настоянию Патриарха Варфоломея. Теперь становится очевидной причина этого. Ведь на заседаниях Межправославной подготовительной комиссии в 1993 и 2009 годах представителями всех Поместных Православных Церквей был согласован порядок предоставления автокефалии, который предполагает а) согласие Поместного Собора кириархальной Церкви-Матери на то, чтобы ее часть получила автокефалию; б) выявление Вселенским Патриархом консенсуса всех Поместных Православных Церквей, выражаемого единогласием их Соборов; в) на основе согласия Церкви-Матери и всеправославного консенсуса официальное провозглашение автокефалии посредством издания Томоса, который «подписывается Вселенским Патриархом и свидетельствуется подписями в нем Блаженнейших Предстоятелей Святейших автокефальных Церквей, приглашенных для этого Вселенским Патриархом». Относительно последнего пункта не до конца был согласован лишь порядок подписания Томоса, но это обстоятельство не отменяет достигнутых договоренностей по остальным пунктам. На Синаксисах Предстоятелей 2014 и 2016 годов делегация Московского Патриархата, наряду с представителями некоторых других братских Церквей, настаивала на включении вопроса об автокефалии в повестку дня Собора. Русская Церковь окончательно согласилась на исключение этой темы из повестки дня Собора лишь после того, как Патриарх Варфоломей в январе 2016 г. в присутствии других Предстоятелей заверил, что у Святейшей Константинопольской Церкви нет намерений осуществлять какие-либо действия, имеющие отношение к церковной жизни на Украине, ни на Святом и Великом Соборе, ни после Собора.

Перечисленные в докладе Блаженнейшего Архиепископа Иеронима и ранее неоднократно опровергнутые аргументы в точности следуют позиции Константинопольского Патриархата. Однако возникают сомнения, разделяет ли их полнота Элладской Православной Церкви. Об отсутствии единомыслия между иерархами Элладской Церкви по данному вопросу и о том, что голоса не согласных с признанием украинского раскола были проигнорированы, свидетельствует митрополит Кифирский Серафим: «Сначала говорили убеленные сединами и весьма почтенные митрополиты Каристийский Серафим и Илийский Герман, которые с большой мудростью и разумением рассуждали об этой животрепещущей проблеме, признав, что да, Вселенский Патриарх имеет каноническое право предоставлять автокефалию на определенных условиях, но текущая ситуация весьма критическая, и потому требуется необычайная осмотрительность и глубокое изучение и исследование всей этой сложной проблемы без всякой спешки. В том же самом ключе были выдержаны выступления Преосвященных митрополитов Кесарианийского Даниила, Месогейского Николая, Пирейского Серафима… и мое. Преосвященные митрополиты Дриинопольский Андрей и Этолийский Косма не брали слово, но присоединились к прежде выступавшим Преосвященным архиереям. Отсутствовавшие, но письменно изложившие свою позицию Преосвященные митрополиты Новосмирнский Симеон и Керкирский Нектарий с той же самой чувствительностью и с той же точки зрения подошли к этому серьезному украинскому вопросу».

Митрополит Новосмирнский Симеон в своем письме, обращенном к Собору иерархии и его Блаженнейшему Председателю, отмечает, что предоставление автокефалии Украине при тех условиях, в которых она была предоставлена, «не имеет ничего общего с другими автокефалиями, которые раньше предоставлялись» Константинопольским Патриархатом. Он подчеркивает, что «поспешное признание… раскольников и так называемых "самосвятов" в обход канонической местной Церкви, но также и Московского Патриархата, которым были осуждены раскольники — и предоставление автокефалии новой церковной структуре порождает оправданные вопросы и вызывает противодействие». Он также указывает на канонически неприемлемый факт существования «двух параллельных местных Церквей» на Украине и уже случившийся повторный раскол внутри «новой церковной структуры, получившей автокефалию». Он прямо упоминает заинтересованность крупных геополитических сил в поспешном предоставлении «автокефалии» раскольникам. Сравнивая сегодняшнее положение Православия с событиями Великого раскола 1054 года, он призывает иерархию «не спешить занять позицию». «Насильственный и поспешный подход к решению вопроса, — говорит митрополит Симеон, — сделает нас уязвимыми и подвергнет риску нашу Церковь. Будет ошибкой считать, что подобного рода подход к вопросу послужит поддержкой Вселенскому Патриархату».

Митрополит Керкирский Нектарий, не имевший возможности присутствовать на внеочередном Соборе иерархии своей Церкви, обратился к Собору с письмом, в котором призывает «отложить принятие решения». Он отмечает, что настоящее «время — неподходящее, чтобы принимать решение по данному острому вопросу, в том числе и по той причине, что геополитические условия на широчайшем пространстве отстоят от нормы, и в результате, какое бы решение ни было вероятным, оно создаст трудности нашему отечеству». Он также призывает Элладскую Церковь «взять на себя роль посредника», чтобы начать диалог между Константинопольским и Московским Патриархатами.

Митрополит Пирейский Серафим, известный как специалист по церковно-каноническому праву, не только представил вниманию Собора исчерпывающее исследование, в котором убедительно опровергал аргументацию, изложенную в докладе Предстоятеля Элладской Церкви, но и в своих устных выступлениях подверг острой критике так называемый «объединительный собор» раскольников. Он подчеркнул, что «так называемый "объединительный собор" не имеет силы, поскольку состоял из мирян, и предоставление автокефального статуса этой несуществующей "церковной" структуре также оказывается недействительным». Он далее отметил, что все попытки оправдать это «каноническое беззаконие» аномальной канонической практикой, «со ссылкой на Оттоманское пленение Церкви» и трудный период, когда ряд Поместных Церквей напрямую зависел от Константинопольского Патриарха, «замалчивают канонический церковный порядок Святых Вселенских Соборов». «Я потребовал, — свидетельствует митрополит Серафим, — от Священного Синода Элладской Церкви созыва Всеправославного Собора для разрешения этого сложнейшего вопроса, к которому, к сожалению, примешивается геополитика, или даже геостратегия, оказывающая влияние на всех Предстоятелей Автокефальных Православных Церквей. Одновременно я поставил на вид Синодальной комиссии по межправославным и межхристианским отношениям, что она не представила Постоянному Священному Синоду, Блаженнейшему Председателю Иерархии Элладской Церкви ни какого-либо доклада о мнениях по данному вопросу других Автокефальных Православных Церквей, ни оценки возможных последствий для единства Церкви, в случае разрыва общения Русской Церковью и ее признанием старостильников в Греции. В то же время я ответил Председателю комиссии по церковно-каноническим вопросам, что митрополит Онуфрий не имел никакой возможности принимать участия в так называемом "объединительном соборе", как не мог бы Блаженнейший Архиепископ Афинский участвовать вместе с самопровозглашенным "Архиепископом Афинским" Парфением Везиреасом — диаконом Элладской Церкви, изверженным из сана».

Коммюнике внеочередного Собора иерархии сообщило о решении, принятом по итогам обсуждения данного доклада. Но кто именно принял это решение и в какой форме — остается неясным. Целый ряд авторитетных иерархов обращал внимание Собора на критическое положение мирового Православия, на необходимость чрезвычайной осторожности и глубокого изучения проблемы — без какой-либо спешки и давления извне. Несколько митрополитов, в том числе и отсутствовавших на Соборе, письменно обратились к Собору с призывом отложить решение вопроса.

Решения Собора иерархии в Элладской Церкви принимаются голосованием всех участников. Однако ни по вопросу о признании украинских неканонических сообществ, ни по вопросу об утверждении решений Постоянного Священного Синода Элладской Православной Церкви по Украине голосование епископата не проводилось. Об этом, в частности, заявил митрополит Кифирский Серафим: «Как известно, решения в нашей Церкви принимаются голосованием: либо поднятием руки, либо открытым, либо тайным, либо путем опроса всех участников собрания. Может быть, в пользу автокефалии было бы подано достаточное количество голосов, но немало было бы и тех, кто придерживается противоположной точки зрения, а также тех, кто своим молчанием присоединились бы ко вторым».

В открытом доступе отсутствует официальный документ за подписями греческих архипастырей, который можно было бы считать свидетельством единого соборного решения Поместной Церкви. Более того, весьма быстро было распространено известие о том, будто Элладская Православная Церковь признала украинскую автокефалию, что не соответствует ни тексту коммюнике, ни позиции многих участников Собора. Возникают серьезные опасения, что соборный способ принятия решений, освященный словами святых апостолов: «Угодно Святому Духу и нам» (Деян. 15:28), — и тысячелетней историей Единой, Святой, Соборной и Апостольской Церкви, в данном случае был нарушен.

Если украинский раскол будет действительно признан Элладской Православной Церковью или ее Предстоятелем — в форме совместного служения, литургического поминовения лидера раскола или направления ему официальных грамот — это станет печальным свидетельством углубления разделения в семье Поместных Православных Церквей. Полнота ответственности за это разделение ляжет, прежде всего, на Патриарха Константинопольского Варфоломея и на те внешние политические силы, в интересах которых был «легализован» украинский раскол. Вместо того, чтобы признать допущенную ошибку и попытаться исправить ее путем всеправославного обсуждения, Патриарх Варфоломей блокировал любые переговорные инициативы на этом направлении и на протяжении года, по многим свидетельствам, оказывал беспрецедентное давление на иерархов Элладской Церкви, требуя от них признания раскольников. Он неоднократно заявлял о признании Элладской Церковью неканонических лже-иерархов Украины как о деле решенном, словно бы речь не шла о независимом решении автокефальной Православной Церкви. Положение Элладской Церкви, существенно ограниченной в своем автокефальном устройстве, осложняется двойной юрисдикцией значительной части ее епископата, канонически зависящей от Константинополя: этим иерархам, например, рассылались циркуляры из Константинопольской Патриархии с требованием немедленно признать новосозданную псевдо-церковную структуру. Тем, кто нашел в себе смелость открыто обличать заблуждения Константинопольского Патриарха и вступать в дискуссию с ним, угрожали, к ним требовали применить дисциплинарные меры, их обвиняли в предательстве и недостатке патриотизма.

Печально, что таким образом исторические заслуги греческого народа в распространении Православия размениваются на сиюминутные политические выгоды и поддержку чуждых Церкви геополитических интересов. Но эти спекуляции на национальных чувствах не будут иметь успеха. Они не смогут подорвать единство нашей веры, купленное кровью новомучеников и исповедников наших Церквей. Они не прервут единство нашей аскетической традиции, созидавшейся подвигами многих преподобных отцов и подвижников. Они не уничтожат вековую дружбу греческого и славянских народов, оплаченную кровью русских воинов и закаленную в общей борьбе за свободу братского греческого народа.

Мы дорожим молитвенным общением с нашими собратьями в Элладской Православной Церкви и будем сохранять с ней живую молитвенную, каноническую и евхаристическую связь — чрез всех тех архипастырей и пастырей, кто уже выступил или в дальнейшем выступит против признания украинского раскола, кто не запятнает себя сослужением с раскольническими лже-иерархами, но явит пример христианского мужества и твердого стояния за истину Христову. Да укрепит их Господь в исповедническом подвиге, молитвами святителей Марка Эфесского и Григория Паламы, преподобного Максима Исповедника и всех тех греческих святых, которых почитали и чтут у нас, на Святой Руси.

Вместе с тем мы помним, что священные каноны Церкви осуждают тех, кто вступает в молитвенное общение и сослужение с изверженными из сана и отлученными от общения (Апост. 10, 11, 12; I Всел. 5; Антиох. 2 и др.). В связи с этим прекращаем молитвенное и евхаристическое общение с теми архиереями Элладской Церкви, которые вступили или вступят в таковое общение с представителями украинских неканонических раскольнических сообществ. Мы также не благословляем совершение паломнических поездок в епархии, управляемые означенными архиереями. Соответствующая информация будет широко распространена среди паломнических и туристических организаций стран, составляющих каноническую территорию нашей Церкви.

Священный Синод Русской Православной Церкви уполномочивает Святейшего Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла прекратить поминовение имени Блаженнейшего Архиепископа Афинского и всей Эллады в диптихах в случае, если Предстоятель Элладской Церкви начнет за богослужениями поминать главу одной из украинских раскольничьих группировок или предпримет иные действия, свидетельствующие о состоявшемся признании им украинского церковного раскола.
 

http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5515008.html
 

[Vladan :::.]

Један поглед из комшилука на причу о расколу.
(као засебну тему већ је поставио @александар живаљев)
 

Милош Ернаут: Српски архијереји – јединствени у нејединству

BY СТАЊЕ СТВАРИ on 17. ОКТОБРА 2019. • ( 3 )

Вјерницима остаје да ћуте и гледају све јавније свађе својих отаца, да се ставе на страну једних или других, или да дигну руке од свега, чекајући да нас прогутају или Москва или Цариград

 

Жалости чињеница да се данас номинално јединство православних огледа у нејединству. Стављајући се на страну Москве или Цариграда, бранећи једне и оспоравајући друге, многи српски јерарси, свештеници и теолози, чини ми се, занемарују опасност која се, између осталог и ради овог црквеног спора, надвила над саму Српску Цркву, која у години великог јубилеја, али и на сам јубилеј, показује своју слабост urbi et orbi, манифестујући унутрашње нејединство на крајње неприхватљив начин.

Клица расколништва, чије је сјеме годинама чекало да проклија, дала је своје прве плодове 2010. године, када је (не)праведно разријешени епископ Артемије, не допуштајући да Господ буде Праведни Судија, распаљене сујете из Шишатовца кренуо да својим „правовјерјем“ раздјељује монаштво, свештенство и вјерујући народ којима је, мало прије тога, док је он управљао Епархијом рашко-призренском, свима био Архипастир. И у њему, који је деценије провео у монашком и епископском чину, преовладала је партијска логика смјењених предсједника, који вођени повријеђеном сујетом након смјене, оснивају сопствене партије, да би бар негдје били први. Донекле разумљиво за свјетовне људе жељне моћи, угледа и славе, али потпуно несхватљиво за оне који су се, бар номинално, одрекли свега земаљског, Христа ради!

И баш када је Артемијева звијезда залазила на тамним хоризонтима медијске сцене, престајући изазивати интерес јавности, дошли су дани када је пуноћа Православне Цркве требало свијету показати толико жељено лице јединства. Деценијама припремани Свети и Велики Сабор показао је одсуство елементарне еклисиолошке свијести. Не улазећи у стварне разлоге непојављивања руске и других делегација неких Помјесних Цркава, остао је укус горчине што се нису на Криту, те злосрећне 2016. године, бар заједно фотографисали, да пријатељима и непријатељима покажемо да смо једно, да нас има и да ћемо љубављу надићи сваку разлику међу нама. Тада је постало јасно да у земаљској Цркви много тога није како треба, те да се будућа неслагања тек очекују. Тако је и било.

 

Криза Цркве у Украјини само је изнијела на видјело оно што је већ било скривено испод површине. Васељенски патријархат, у маниру старе оцвале даме моћног Константинопоља, желио је свијету доказати и показати примат над свима, ризикујући да оно мало јединства проспе на ватру геостратешке ломаче. С друге стране, Руска православна црква, опијена империјалним заносом, свјесна своје бројности (на којој углавном почива њена снага и углед) и нарасле јачине руске државе, настојала је и још увијек настоји очувати своју позицију Трећег Рима.

Мислећи да су Руси у праву по питању Цркве у Украјине, нећу да им опростим што се нису појавили на Криту. Или, можда је Украјина бумеранг за Крит?

Али, све то није толико важно за нас, колико смо ми важни за себе. Остављајући на страну појединачна мишљења уважених теолога, историчара и политиколога, у Украјинској утакмици највише смо изгубили ми, Срби, јер смо допустили да оно на шта (ни)смо позвани утиче на нас саме, да нас слабе фрагментира, да се исцрпљујемо догађајима из комшилука на које ни на који начин не можемо утицати, јер нити смо велики као Руси, нити смо историјски утемељени као Цркве Истока. Можемо само бити мост између једних и других, али, чини ми се, тим мостом не желе прећи ни Цариград ни Москва, ни Кирил ни Вартоломеј.

Свађе у селу одразиле су се и на нашу малу, али стару Савину кућу, у којој је јединства (изузимајући Амерички раскол) било више у комунизму неголи данас.

Референдумска разрачунавања – За Русе и против њих, За Цариград и против њега, добила су нову димензију – За Максима и против њега, За Иринеја бачког и против њега. Два јерарха, несумњивог богословског образовања и вишедеценијског угледа, допустила су себи да се јавно надгорњавају, као два незрела дјечака, желећи један другог да потопе, додуше академским рјечником. Питам се, гдје нестаде онај новозавјетни савјет Спаситеља: „Ако ли ти згријеши брат твој, иди и покарај га насамо; ако те послуша, добио си брата својега“ (Мт. 18, 15).

 

А онда се, на исту тему, пинг-понг писмима, која не знам ко и с којим циљем пласира у јавност, настављају разрачунавати Његова Светост и умировљени епископ Атанасије. У све то, као по добром сценарију мексичких сапуница, да би ликова било више и да би радња добила на напетости, убацују и епископа Игњатија браничевског, који је добио незахвалну улогу да се као декан ПБФ-а држи прописа и закона, а да као епископ поштује одлуке Синода, а све у случају Максим Васиљевић.

А онда, у освит великог јубилеја, стављени смо пред избор – За Вучића и против њега. Одлука Синода да Предсједнику Србије додијели Орден Светог Саве додатно је подијелила већ подијељене Савине синове, српске архијереје, од којих неки, вођени митрополитом Амфилохијем, нису смогли снаге прећутати своје неслагање и доћи, Светог Саве ради, на Свечану академију у Сава Центар, већ су попут мале дјечице јавно дигли нос и демонстративно бојкотовали Свечану академију, допуштајући злурадим медијима да и на овоме поентирају, све дубље ширећи причу о видљивом и недопустивом нејединству унутар Српске православне цркве.

 

Вјернике, по старом добром обичају, нико ништа и не пита. Њима остаје да ћуте и гледају све јавније свађе својих отаца, да се ставе на страну једних или других, или, што је најгоре, да дигну руке од свега, мирно чекајући да нас, све заједно, разбраћене међу собом, прогутају или Москва или Цариград! Свеједно.

Аутор је магистар философије из Бањалуке

https://stanjestvari.com/2019/10/17/milos-ernaut-srpski-arhijereji-jedinstveni-u-nejedinstvu/

 

[Поуке.орг инфо]

 

[The Godfather]

“THEY WILL NOT DESTROY GREEK-SLAVIC FRIENDSHIP”

The Russian Holy Synod’s Statement of October 17, 2019 on the Ukrainian Issue and the Greek Church

 

spzh.news

On October 17, 2019, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a statement on the situation in the Greek Orthodox Church after the extraordinary Bishops’ Council on October 12, 2019 on the Ukrainian Church issue.

Members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church got acquainted with the documents of the extraordinary Bishops Council of the Greek Orthodox Church on October 12, 2019 that were published in the media, in particular, the communiqué from the Council and the report of His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and all Greece, “On the Autocephaly of the Church in Ukraine,” which proposes to “... recognize the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of the independent Ukrainian republic.”

Since the self-governing Ukrainian Orthodox Church, headed by Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and all Ukraine, which unites 95 bishops, more than 12,000 parishes, more than 250 monasteries, and tens of millions of believers, is in canonical unity with the Russian Orthodox Church and has not appealed to anyone for autocephaly, it is obvious that we are talking about the recognition of schismatic communities in this country. Earlier, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople repeatedly declared the recognition of Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine as the only canonical primate of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine (the last such statement was made by him publicly at the Synaxis of Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches in January 2016). However, at the end of 2018, Patriarch Bartholomew changed his previous statements and, without canonical authority, “restored to dignity,” without repentance and renunciation of the schism, those who had been expelled from it, anathematized, or who had never had a canonical ordination, or even formal Apostolic Succession. The head of the newly-created structure is a man who received his “ordination” from the ex-Metropolitan of Kiev Philaret, who was defrocked and excommunicated from the Church. The latter was also “restored” to “the episcopal dignity” by the Patriarch of Constantinople, but soon after left the newly-established “Church” and declared the restoration of his former schismatic community, which he calls the “Kievan Patriarchate.”

The Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly informed the authorities of the Greek Orthodox Church about the difficult situation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church after the anti-canonical legalization of the Ukrainian schism by Constantinople and about the violence and persecution against its faithful children deployed by the former authorities of Ukraine. On October 9, 2019—a few days before the above-mentioned extraordinary Bishops’ Council of the Greek Church—Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia addressed his Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and all Greece with a fraternal message, calling on him to refrain from unilateral actions and not to make any “hasty decisions until the Holy Spirit gathers the primates of all the holy Churches of God and guides them together on behalf of the entire Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to find a solution that will suit everyone and serve to overcome the current crisis.”

It is sad that His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos bases the necessity for hasty and unilateral recognition of the non-canonical schismatic community on a number of erroneous and false arguments repeatedly refuted not only by the hierarchs, scholars and theologians of the Russian Orthodox Church, but also by many prominent archpastors, pastors and theologians of the Greek Orthodox Church.

The statement of his Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos that “the Orthodox Church of Ukraine... has always remained in the canonical ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Mother Church—the Ecumenical Patriarchate” does not correspond to reality. In 1686, by the gramotas of His Holiness Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople, the Kiev Metropolis was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. For more than 300 years, the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate over the Kiev Metropolis was recognized by the entire Orthodox world, including the Greek Orthodox Church. At the same time, according to the sacred canons of the Church, disputes over territorial jurisdiction have a statute of limitations of no more than thirty years (Canon 25 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council).

All these facts were ignored by the two commissions of the Greek Orthodox Church that were entrusted with the study of the Ukrainian Church question. In their conclusions, these commissions, according to Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythera, “overlook more than 300 years of living tradition of the dependence of the Metropolis of Kiev and all Ukraine on the Moscow Patriarchate. And these realities were reflected in all the calendars of the Greek Church up to this year. Perhaps they also overlook the fact that the current Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, in his Patriarchal letters of 1992 and 1997, recognized the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate over the Kiev Metropolis and respected the canonical penalties imposed on the defrocked and schismatic clerics who are now purified and restored.”

The statement of his Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos that “due to the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate” from the Cretan Council in 2016 “there was no opportunity to discuss the issue of granting autocephaly” does not correspond to reality. In fact, the topic of autocephaly was removed from the agenda of the Council much earlier, at the insistence of Patriarch Bartholomew. Now the reason for this becomes obvious. After all, at the meetings of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission in 1993 and 2009, representatives of all Local Orthodox Churches agreed on the procedure for granting autocephaly, which involves a) the consent of the Local Council of the Mother Church for a part of it to receive autocephaly; b) the identification by the Ecumenical Patriarch of the consensus of all Local Orthodox Churches, expressed by the unanimity of their Councils; c) on the basis of the consent of the Mother Church and the pan-Orthodox consensus, the official proclamation of autocephaly through the publication of a tomos, which is “signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and witnessed to by the signatures of the most blessed primates of the most holy autocephalous Churches invited for it by the Ecumenical Patriarch.” Regarding the last point, only the procedure for signing the tomos was not fully agreed upon, but this fact does not cancel the agreements reached on the remaining points. At the Synaxis of Primates in 2014 and 2016, the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate, along with representatives of some other fraternal Churches, insisted on including the issue of autocephaly in the agenda of the Council. The Russian Church finally agreed to the exclusion of this topic from the agenda of the Council only after Patriarch Bartholomew assured, in January 2016 in the presence of other primates, that the holy Church of Constantinople had no intentions of carrying out any actions related to Church life in Ukraine, either at the Holy and Great Council or after the Council.

The arguments listed in the report of His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos and repeatedly refuted earlier exactly follow the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, there are doubts whether the fullness of the Greek Orthodox Church shares them. Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira testifies to the lack of unanimity between the hierarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church on this issue and that the voices of those who disagree with the recognition of the Ukrainian division were ignored: “First, the gray-haired and highly-respected Metropolitans Seraphim of Karystia and Germanos of Eleia, who with great wisdom and prudence talked about this burning issue, acknowledging that yes, the Ecumenical Patriarch has the canonical right to grant autocephaly under certain conditions, but the current situation is very critical, and therefore extraordinary circumspection and deep study and investigation of the whole complex problem are required without any haste. The speeches of the Right Reverend Metropolitans Daniel of Kaisariani, Nicholas of Mesogaia, Seraphim of Piraeus and others were in the same vein. The Right Reverend Metropolitans Andrew of Dryinoupolis and Cosmas of Aetolia did not take the floor, but joined the Right Reverend bishops who had previously spoken. The Right Reverend Metropolitans Simeon of New Smyrna and Nektarios of Corfu, who were absent but expressed their position in writing, approached this serious Ukrainian issue with the same sensitivity and from the same point of view.”

In his letter addressed to the Bishops’ Council and His Beatitude, Metropolitan Simeon of New Smyrna notes that the granting of autocephaly to Ukraine under the conditions in which it was granted, “has nothing in common with other autocephalies that were previously granted” by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. He stresses that “the hasty recognition ... of schismatics and so-called ‘self-consecrators,’ in circumvention of the canonical Local Church, but also the Moscow Patriarchate, which condemned the schismatics, and the granting of autocephaly to the new church structure creates justified questions and causes opposition.” He also points to the canonically unacceptable fact of the existence of “two parallel Local Churches” in Ukraine and the repeated schism that has already occurred within the “new church structure that received autocephaly.” He explicitly mentions the interest of major geopolitical forces in hastily granting “autocephaly” to schismatics. Comparing the current situation of Orthodoxy with the events of the Great Schism of 1054, he urges the hierarchy “not to rush to take a position.” “A forced and hasty approach to the issue,” says Metropolitan Simeon, “will make us vulnerable and put our Church at risk. It would be a mistake to assume that this kind of approach to the issue will serve as support for the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”

Metropolitan Nektarios of Corfu, who was unable to attend the extraordinary Bishops’ Council of his Church, addressed the Council with a letter in which he called for “postponing a decision.” He notes that the present “time is not the right time to make a decision on this acute issue, including because geopolitical conditions in the wider region are not ideal, with the result that any decision is likely to cause difficulties in our country.” He also calls on the Greek Church to “assume the role of mediator” in order to start a dialogue between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Moscow.

Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, known as a specialist in the Church’s canon law, not only presented an exhaustive study to the Council, in which he convincingly refuted the arguments set forth in the report of the primate of the Greek Church, but also sharply criticized the so-called “unification council” of the schismatics in his oral speeches. He stressed that “the so-called ‘unification council’ is not valid because it was composed of laity, and that the granting of autocephalous status to this non-existent ‘church’ structure is also invalid.” He further noted that all attempts to justify this “canonical lawlessness” by anomalous canonical practice, “with reference to the Ottoman captivity of the Church” and the difficult period when a number of Local Churches were directly dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, “suppress the canonical ecclesiastical order of the holy Ecumenical Councils.” “I demanded,” Metropolitan Seraphim testifies, “that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece convene a pan-Orthodox council to resolve this complex issue, which, unfortunately, is mixed with geopolitics, or even geostrategy, which affects all the primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches. At the same time, I confronted the Synodal Commission on Inter-Orthodox and Inter-Christian Relations about the fact that it had not submitted to the Permanent Holy Synod and His Beatitude the Chairman of the Hierarchy of the Greek Church, any report on the views on this issue of other autocephalous Orthodox Churches, nor an assessment of the possible consequences for the unity of the Church in the event of a rupture of communion by the Russian Church and its recognition of the Old Calendarists in Greece. At the same time, I replied to the Chairman of the Commission on Church canonical issues that Metropolitan Onuphry could not have taken part in the so-called ‘unification Council,’ just as His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens could not participate together with the self-proclaimed ‘Archbishop of Athens’ Parthenios Vesireas—a defrocked deacon of the Greek Church.”

The communiqué of the extraordinary Bishops’ Council reported on the decision taken following the discussion of the given report. But who exactly made this decision and in what form remains unclear. A number of authoritative hierarchs drew the attention of the Council to the critical situation of world Orthodoxy, the need for extreme caution and deep study of the problem—without any haste and pressure from outside. Several metropolitans, including those who were absent from the Council, appealed to the Council in writing to postpone the decision of the issue.

The decisions of the Bishops’ Council of the Greek Church are made by vote of all participants. However, the hierarchy voted neither on the issue of recognition of the Ukrainian non-canonical communities, nor on the issue of the approval of the decisions of the Permanent Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church regarding Ukraine. This was stated by Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira: “As you know, decisions in our Church are made by voting: either by the raising of hands, or openly, or secretly, or by surveying all participants in the meeting. Perhaps a sufficient number of votes would have been cast in favor of autocephaly, but there would have been many who held the opposite view, as well as those who, by their silence, would have joined the latter.”

There is no official document signed by the Greek archpastors openly available, which could be considered evidence of a single conciliar decision of the Local Church. Moreover, the news that the Greek Orthodox Church recognized Ukrainian autocephaly was spread very quickly, which does not correspond to the text of the communiqué or the position of many participants in the Council. There are serious concerns that the conciliar way of making decisions, sanctified by the words of the Holy apostles: It is pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us (Acts 15: 28), and the two-thousand-year history of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, was violated in this case.

If the Ukrainian schism is truly recognized by the Greek Orthodox Church or its primate—in the form of a joint service, liturgical commemoration of the leader of the schism, or sending him official letters—it will be a sad testimony to the deepening division in the family of Local Orthodox Churches. Full responsibility for this division will fall, first of all, on Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and on those external political forces in whose interests the Ukrainian schism was “legalized.” Instead of admitting his mistake and trying to correct it through pan-Orthodox discussion, Patriarch Bartholomew has blocked any negotiation initiatives in this direction and for a year, according to many testimonies, has exerted unprecedented pressure on the hierarchs of the Greek Church, demanding that they recognize the schismatics. He repeatedly declared the recognition of the non-canonical false hierarchs of Ukraine by the Greek Church as a settled matter, as if it were not an independent decision of an autocephalous Orthodox Church. The situation of the Greek Church, which is essentially limited in its autocephalous structure, is complicated by the dual jurisdiction of a large part of its episcopate, canonically dependent upon Constantinople: These hierarchs, for example, were sent circulars from the Patriarchate of Constantinople demanding immediate recognition of the newly-created pseudo-Church structure. Those who found the courage to openly denounce the errors of the Patriarch of Constantinople and enter into a discussion with him were threatened, disciplinary measures were enforced against them, and they were accused of betrayal and a lack of patriotism.

It is sad that in this way the historical merits of the Greek people in spreading Orthodoxy are exchanged for short-term political benefits and support for geopolitical interests alien to the Church. But these gambles on national feelings will not succeed. They will not be able to undermine the unity of our faith, bought by the blood of the New Martyrs and Confessors of our Churches. They will not interrupt the unity of our ascetic tradition, which was created by the exploits of many venerable fathers and ascetics. They will not destroy the centuries-old friendship of the Greek and Slavic peoples, paid for with the blood of Russian soldiers and hardened in the common struggle for the freedom of the fraternal Greek people.

We cherish prayerful communion with our brethren in the Greek Orthodox Church and will maintain a living prayerful, canonical and Eucharistic connection with it—through all those archpastors and pastors who have already spoken out or will further oppose the recognition of the Ukrainian schism, who will not stain themselves by concelebrating with the schismatic false hierarchs, but will show an example of Christian courage and a firm stand for the truth of Christ. May the Lord strengthen them in their podvig of confession, through the prayers of Sts. Mark of Ephesus and Gregory Palamas, Maximus the Confessor and all those Greek saints who were and are venerated in our Holy Rus’.

At the same time, we remember that the sacred canons of the Church condemn those who enter into prayerful communion and concelebration with those who are defrocked and excommunicated (Apostolic Canons 10-12; Canon 5 of the First Ecumenical Council; Canon 2 of the Council of Antioch, etc.). In this regard, we cease prayerful and Eucharistic communication with those bishops of the Greek Church who have entered or will enter into such communication with representatives of the Ukrainian non-canonical schismatic communities. We also do not bless pilgrimages in dioceses managed by the aforesaid bishops. The relevant information will be widely distributed among the pilgrimage and tourist organizations of the countries that make up the canonical territory of our Church.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church authorizes His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia to stop commemorating the name of His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece in the diptychs if the primate of the Greek Church begins to commemorate the head of one of the Ukrainian schismatic groups during Divine services or takes other actions testifying to his recognition of the Ukrainian Church schism.

 

Патриархия.ru

10/17/2019

[The Godfather]

GREEK CHURCH RECOGNIZES UKRAINIAN SCHISMATICS…OR DID THEY? PERSPECTIVES FOR THE FUTURE

The Greek Church and Synod are divided by Constantinople over Ukraine. Some factions are rushing to recognize schismatics, others are resisting

Matfey Shaheen

Photo: risu.org.ua    

On Saturday, October 12, 2019, the Orthodox world was shocked by perhaps the most predictable catastrophe—news that the Greek Orthodox Church has recognized the schismatic OCU.

That was until conflicting reports came out, and now it’s possible there is an internal conflict within the Greek Church over this matter.

As a general disclaimer, when discussing the situation surrounding the Greek Church’s recognition (or lack thereof), of the OCU, we are currently entering the realm of informed speculation. Unless one was present during the council meetings in Athens, we don’t truly know what happened, especially not until more news comes out.

While this author normally dislikes making predictions, this is an incredibly key issue in this already labyrinthian conundrum, and it helps to summarize where we are, what likely happened, and what direction things appear to be going in. We will do this, not with wild speculation, but by looking at the information we do have, and evaluating the current situation and possible future developments.

What happened?

As noted, on October 12, it was announced that after postponing the issue for some time, the Greek Church recognized the schismatic OCU, which previously was recognized only by Constantinople.

There has been profound and wide-scale resistance in the Greek Church to this recognition. Many Greek Hierarchs have already outright condemned the schismatics, such as Metropolitans Seraphim of Piraeus (and here) Nektarios of Corfu, Paxoi, and the Diapontian Islands, Seraphim of Kythira, and Ambrose of Kalavryta. The Metropolis of Piraeus has also called upon the Synod not to recognize the Ukrainian schismatics.

Notably, a powerful open letter to the Holy Synod signed by now reportedly over one thousand Greek people was released, begging the Holy Synod not to recognize the schismatics.

There was hope, that due to this strong resistance, the OCU would not be recognized, or at least recognition would keep being postponed, right up until it was announced that the Greek Church recognized them. The Greek Church was under incredible political and ecclesiastical pressure to recognize them, and so it seemed like they simply caved in.

But then, yet another complicated twist happened.

It was reported that Metropolitans Seraphim of Piraeus and Seraphim of Kythira had issued statements saying the Greek Church has not recognized the OCU.

The Greek hierarchs say the recognition of the OCU was not yet put to a vote, at the full Bishops’ Council; the hierarchs said the Council instead simply reiterated the Synod’s earlier decision, in which they “recognize[d] the Ecumenical Patriarch’s canonical right to issue the status of Autocephaly,” But as OrthoChristian previously noted, the statements coming from Athens are vague enough that it is not clear whether this means they simply support the theoretical right of Constantinople to grant autocephaly, or whether it means they specifically recognize the OCU.

It seems this is not simply a result of poor communication, but very clever communication.

Many of the statements coming from Athens are written in very calculated Byzantine speech, to put it bluntly, the communications are in doublespeak, so the interpretation is intentionally vague and open-ended, allowing whichever interpretation is most expedient at any given moment.

Update: Demonstrative of this issue, the Greek Church just issued a clarification of the council statement, in response to the claims of Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira that the press committee did not clearly portray what happened:

The Church’s new statement says that the three-member press committee “has expressed the truth of the matter and any other attempt to interpret it does not reflect the reality.”

The statement notes that what was previously declared in the official minutes of the session is based on the recommendations of Archbishop Ieronymos and the results of the discussions that took place, in which 33 of the hierarchs present spoke, and “took its final form and is the decision of the hierarchy.”

Despite all the confusion, the statement still has not clarified if a vote took place which the entire Church of Greece now recognizes. This clarification managed to neither confirm nor deny anything, which makes it barely a clarification. This logic is completely circular, and does not address the core questions, which remain unanswered, notably:

• Did a vote take place in which all Hierarchs of the Church of Greece participated?

• What verbatim did the Bishops vote on?

• What was the result of this vote?

• Does the Greek Church as a whole simply recognize the theoretical right of Constantinople to grant autocephaly, or do they specifically recognize the OCU?

• Has OCU head Epiphany Dumenko been added to the diptychs of the Greek Church now?

• Will the Archbishop of Athens concelebrate with Epiphany?

Seeing as the Holy Synod and Bishops’ Council of the Greek Church voted to entrust Abp. Ieronymos with resolving the matter of recognizing the OCU on behalf of the Greek Church, commemorating Epiphany Dumenko would presumably mean the Greek Church has accepted, and entered into communion with the OCU.

Still, the clarification didn’t explain any of the confusion, or what really happened, it merely said the previous decision was correct while it is still unclear exactly what that decision means and what will happen going forward.

Photo: Met. Seraphim of KythiraFor this reason, Met. Seraphim of Kythira said to RIA-Novosti at the beginning of the week, “We did not make a decision. If now, after this discussion, the Archbishop plans to commemorate [Epiphany] or to move ahead, he takes full responsibility upon himself.”

This seems like a key aspect of this confusion; the language is vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations, and it’s possible both sides don’t exactly know what will happen next. In fact, it’s a common diplomatic tactic, wording things in a way to give yourself multiple ways out of a situation.

This may explain why, despite previous reports and apparent confirmations from the Ukrainian schismatics and Constantinople, that the OCU has been officially recognized by the Greek Church, two leading Greek hierarchs are rightfully contesting this.

It seems supporters of recognition are arguing that because Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens supports recognizing the OCU, and because the Council did affirm the “right” of Constantinople to grant “autocephaly”, that this effectively implies the Greek Church de-facto recognizes the OCU.

It appears they just took Occam’s Razor to this contested issue and interpreted the support of two synodical commissions and the Archbishop, as implying the entire Greek Church officially supports the OCU, when a full vote has not yet occurred to confirm or deny this.

If no vote has happened, yet recognition is still going ahead, it would imply that certain people are trying to push this through without the consent of the other hierarchs.

If this is so, it could backfire horribly should other hierarchs stand up and demand a vote, revealing the pro-Constantinople faction is not as infallible and unquestionable as it thinks it is.

It’s a bit like in a certain election, when the political elites and the establishment support a certain favorite candidate, and every poll and expert declares they will certainly win, disregarding the opinion of the regular people, and then they are blindsided when their candidate is beaten by the other they slandered.

Most likely, the signs were always there. It was always clear what the people supported, but the elites, being out of touch as usual, failed to take that into consideration, thinking they will simply tell people whom they should vote for, what they should believe, and it will happen.

Often time elite groups are so convinced of their own propaganda, they forget it’s even propaganda, and they simply totally disregard or miscalculate the actual reality that the people don’t support them. They live in an illusion of their own making.

They can’t imagine that common people may contest their “progressive” ideas.

We have actually seen this trend both in Ukrainian church history, as Archpriest Andrei Tkachev who was born in Lviv (Western Ukraine), notes, and we see this today in the crisis.

We see it when careerists and ultra-liberals within Orthodoxy assume they are the ruling hierarchs, the educated professors, and the “stupid” simple people lacking theology degrees need to just obey them.

In reality, these Neo-Papists and liberals may be surprised that Orthodoxy is a little more democratic than that.

More properly, Orthodoxy is a theocracy directly ruled by Christ, whom the Bishops represent, but no man on earth is his direct and only vicar.

These elites may control and be favored by media sources, they may be able to bury the opinion of traditionalists, especially older hierarchs, who are monastics and not as capable of expressing their opinion in modern mass media, but ultimately, they may be shocked when they find the true pious people on the ground outnumber them—and don’t support them at all.

It is possible this is what we’ve seen: The elite faction that controls the media pushed out their view first, but now slowly we will see hierarchs and clergy contest them.

The two contesting Greek Hierarchs affirm that despite calls to recognize the schismatics, and support for Constantinople’s “right to grand autocephaly”, no actual vote occurred at the council, therefore, the issue is still contested and unresolved.

No vote means that regardless of what was discussed, no resolution can be legally made.

This is important; if this is so, it means the fight for canonical order in Greece isn’t over just yet.

Now the biggest question is, why are there two conflicting reports?

This situation keeps getting more and more complicated, and the waters are getting increasingly muddied.

It was reported by some that the OCU was recognized, and now other Greek Bishops are saying it was not recognized. What actually happened?

We are witnessing the fruition of Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira’s previous warning, that indeed, Constantinople’s actions have divided the Greek Church.   

We are witnessing, right now, apparent internal division in the Greek Church over Ukraine.

It is possible, (and probable) that the cause for the conflicting claims is not simply communication errors, but this division in action:

The pro-Constantinople faction affirmed they support Constantinople, who supports the OCU, and therefore they also support the OCU—regardless if an actual vote took place confirming what they want to believe.

They took advantage of the vague decision of the council, and the fact that most people don’t speak Greek, and certainly weren’t privy to its meetings, and therefore, they interpreted the Council’s decision (or lack thereof) in a way which supports their position, and ran to the press with it before the traditionalist faction, hoping to simply pass off their opinion and desires as fact.

As the Constantinople faction is probably the most technology, media, and PR savvy, they probably hoped if they just beat everyone to the press and flooded the news with their position, it would just be accepted.

The pro-Constantinople faction also appears to be made up of younger hierarchs and clergy, more carrier oriented. It’s important to emphasize that their support for Constantinople appears to be more based in Greek nationalism and the idea that the Greeks always support Constantinople, rather than any love for the OCU itself.

Pat. Bartholomew stated outright in October of last year that, “Our Slavic brothers cannot tolerate the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and our nation in Orthodoxy,” and “Whether our Russian brothers like it or not, sooner or later, they will follow the decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarch, because they have no other choice.” Another Greek hierarch basically said that they must support Constantinople mainly because they’re Greek. It seems the Patriarchate which once condemned ecclesiastical nationalism, is now swallowed by it.

None the less, thousands of Greek clergymen are opposing the OCU, and therefore it seems the Phanar supporters are using very calculated and cunning wording and actions in all their decisions, trying to push this through without starting a war within their own church.

This could all be a case of Byzantine Machiavellianism at work; Constantinople copied the renaissance era Italian ecclesiology, why not their politics as well? They speak with the eloquence, some would say cunning, of Odysseus (or perhaps their “western brothers” in Rome prefer Ulysses). They push the narrative which suits them.

The New Lands and the Captivity of the Greek Church

Church of GreeceFor a true philhellene, the world of Hellas is in a sad state. By some turn of fate, the Greek Church has become captive to occupied Constantinople, which certainly is not free or independent in its actions, but according to its own archivists, served as a “tool” with for the U.S. Government since Truman, not to mention their location in an Islamist country.

Such a Stockholm Syndrome in Orthodoxy, I haven’t seen since a series of Cossack/Ukrainian dumy (tragic bard songs).

There is one such duma (song), Із полону з-під Ізмаїлу (From captivity in Izmail) which is one of the most depressingly tragic, yet hauntingly beautiful songs in the Ukrainian language. Even if you can’t understand it, I encourage you to at least listen to it; it sets the mood, so to speak, and gives you an idea how Ukrainians feel this day about the religious and political crisis, when you no longer recognize some of your own people, and they don’t recognize you.

The song tells the tale of many slaves freed by Zaporozhian Cossacks from Turkish slavery in Izmail, which was their fortress in the south of Ukraine in modern Odessa province. The Cossacks liberate the captives and try to lead them back into the Ukraine where the Dnipro river flows freely from Kiev Caves Lavra. The captives however looked back and fled from their own people, willingly going back to Turkish captivity because most of them were born or raised there, or otherwise had families, wives, or children born there. They asked the Cossacks to release them back to Izmail, saying they did not wish to live in Ukraine, as they already forgotten Orthodox lands. The tale ends tragically.

This also reflects the story of Maria (Marusia) Bohuslavka, a legendary Ukrainian heroine from the Kiev Region of Little Russia in around the seventeenth century, the same time the song takes place.

Marusia was the beautiful daughter of the priest of the city of Bohuslav near Kiev, until she was kidnapped by the Turks for a harem—as Ukrainian women are famed for their beauty—and one of them, Roxelana, even became the wife of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in history. Marusia is often compared to Roxelana.¹

In the tale, she rose up from the harem, just like Roxelana, and eventually gained the trust of her Turkish husband (if he can be called that), the Sultan of Istanbul, and stole the palace keys, where she went into the dungeons to visit captive Cossacks.

The truly tragic part is not even her dialog with them, but what came next. She freed them who had been captive for 40 years, but she would not go with them. She merely asked them to send her love and a piece of her heart back to her native lands of Kiev, as she was abducted at such a young age, and her life in the harem was the only one she knew.

She rescued the Cossacks, and they returned to their homeland, but Marusia would never see the green hills of Kiev again, having even forgotten the indescribably deep blue color of the mighty Dnipro River and the sound of nightingales on Lavra Hill singing over gold domed churches. Her Turkish husband murdered her. This tale also comes in bard song and spoken word form, as well as an old animated story from 1966.

M.Deregus. Marusia Bohuslavka.    

This is not simply a tragic tale, but an important anecdote. These bards’ songs, while legendary, record historical aspects of their time periods. There was a real phenomenon, that some people who had been in Islamic Turkish slavery for so long, chose to remain behind and forgot their Orthodox ways.

In both cases, the captured peoples said they have “already forgotten what it’s like to live in Orthodox lands” and preferred to remain slaves to the Ottoman Moslems. This may sound crazy, but these legends are ingrained in the profound tradition of Ukrainian folklore and kobzar bard-songs.

It is also imperative to note that a great deal of the Greek Church’s support for Constantinople comes from the fact that the Church of Greece is not entirely free. Many of the Greek hierarchs who support Constantinople come from the so-called New Lands, which is a region of northern Greece, where they are under a strange double subordination to Athens, but ultimately to Constantinople as well. Constantinople also has direct control over the Dodecanese islands, Crete, and other territories, not to mention Athos. This situation was summarized in this article.

The sheer irony is that Constantinople’s argument for their control over parts of the modern independent state of Greece—for the control of Pat. Bartholomew, a citizen and former soldier of the Turkish army—is because they are the same nation and historically part of the same country…

This is the exact same argument they oppose in Ukraine, which began as a single Rus’ nation, and rejoined Russia in the mid-17th century, and remained a part since 1991.

Greeks haven’t ruled Greece from Constantinople since 1453, but anyone over the age of 40 remembers when Russia and Ukraine were the same country.

Of course, no one is arguing that this means Russia should “control” Ukraine; the Ukrainian Orthodox Church actually enjoys more freedom from Moscow than the Greek Orthodox Church from Constantinople.

It’s simply ironic that Constantinople argues that Ukraine needs an autocephalic church because it’s been an independent state for less than 30 years, but Greece, also an independent state since the mid-1800s doesn’t get an independent church due to “historical ties” with ancient Constantinople.

Photo: fondsk.ru    

Pat. Bartholomew, a Turkish citizen who loves his Moslem brothers, uses those historical ties to justify control over half of Greece.

It has often been expressed that many hierarchs are simply afraid. If they don’t support Constantinople, Pat. Bartholomew will take the new territories from them.

Furthermore, despite this, Met. Seraphim of Kythira writes that there are even hierarchs from the New Lands who also oppose recognizing the OCU, but who did not speak up because they do not want their view to become public…

This is more evidence that the matter has not yet been decided, and there is still opposition in the Greek Church.

There is also the influence from the other New Land far across the Atlantic from the pillars of Hercules.

It’s truly amazing how some people complain about the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church with the Russian government—who share a common homeland—yet these same people are silent to the obvious influence of the American government in the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in Ukraine, and in Greece.

Let’s not forget the infamous words of Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople in an interview with the Evening Independent, as quoted by the Union of Orthodox Journalists:

“I will always promote America and American interests, live by American ideals and preach them. I will never forget this great country.”²³

We have an entire article about the ties between Patriarch Athenagoras (who tried to enlist in the U.S. Army) and the U.S. Government.

Photo: spzh.news    

The Greek Church and Archbishop Ieronymos are under a great deal of direct political pressure from the Americans and others to recognize the OCU. As a result, it’s possible they are (figuratively speaking) being held hostage in this situation.

Just take this extremely bizarre claim of the Archbishop into consideration:

“We all know that the proclamation of the autocephaly of the Church of Ukraine is extremely useful for the entire Orthodox Church and will be invaluable for strengthening relations between the two autocephalous Orthodox Churches—the sisters, great Russia and Ukraine.”

How will causing a canonical war in the middle of the Russian Church strengthen relations between the church and the schismatics? It’s like claiming that the invasion of a country will help bring peace between the people and the invaders.

The real question is, how can he possibly believe those words? Is this really his honest opinion? How free is he to act and speak as he chooses?

It almost seems like he is saying this with a gun to the head, so to speak.

The Archbishop is an extremely intelligent man, and for that matter, so is Patriarch Bartholomew. It is impossible for anyone in such a position to be that naïve; nobody naturally talks like that.

That position is so far out of reality, that there are only a few reasonable explanations, which mostly boil down to:

• The Greek Church is literally being forced by Constantinople and various state powers to support the schismatics.

• Supporters of Constantinople and the OCU are so devoted to this schism, and their own false ecclesiology, that they’ve lost all sense of honesty or reality.

• This is Byzantine-style ecclesiastical doublespeak.

• A combination of the above.

At this point, I have no idea which conclusion is worse.

What’s at stake—the big picture

Perhaps instead of the Ukrainian Church Crisis, we should call this the Great Canonical Crisis, because, let’s face it, this issue is much bigger than Ukraine; Ukraine is just the battlefield now, where a larger war is taking place. The Ukrainian Church Crisis is in fact more of a political crisis—if governments and radical groups would stop persecuting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the schismatics would have no ammunition.

The canonical Church enjoys the support of the majority of the actual practicing Orthodox of Ukraine. This is plainly evidenced by the Ukrainian government itself admitting the cross procession of the canonical church (which is heavily persecuted and supposedly “unpopular”) was twice as large as that of the schismatics—who of course receive political support. The Ukrainian Church Crisis is largely fueled by the political crisis. It’s not truly a religious issue at its core, as the schismatics themselves are more interested in nationalism than religion.

The same cannot be said for this much larger, great canonical crisis in the Orthodox world—which is the Eastern Papism coming from Constantinople and their new “first-without-equals” ideology. It may be all sparked by complex history and political connections to the U.S. Government; so in other words, this too may be originally a political crisis in its origin. But this disease infecting Constantinople has metastasized from the political sphere to the ecclesiological, thence to the theological, and it has become a religious crisis.

Far beyond the internal ecclesiastical life of Ukraine, when local churches are dealing with this issue, they must seriously consider the following questions, which permanently affect universal Orthodoxy:

• Will Orthodox Churches truly recognize Constantinople as it describe itself:

  • “The beginning of the Orthodox Church” without which “Orthodoxy cannot exist.” ⁴

  • “First-without-equals”⁵

  • a leaven “which leavens the whole lump”⁶

• Does Constantinople have the right to intervene or hear appeals on the territory of any church? According to St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, who literally wrote the book on canon law, no…they do not have this right.⁷⁸⁹

• If Constantinople can do all this, Local Churches beware—it can happen to you too. This means if any Local Church opposes Constantinople or their supporters, they could theoretically bring them (or rather, schismatics on their territory) “freedom and autocephaly” with a tomos that carries all the weight of a medieval iron ball-and-chain as a kind gift from the Greek brothers. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes¹⁰.

• Will everyone turn a blind eye to the obvious dealings of Constantinople with the U.S. Government? We are not talking about a local church cooperating with its local government on joint protects within its own nation, but a patriarchate based in an increasingly Islamized Turkey collaborating with the U.S.

• What about Constantinople’s constant ecumenist ties to the Vatican? Meeting the pope is one matter; but Constantinople representatives consistently seemed to be tied up in liberal and pro-homosexual trends in Orthodoxy, such as those promoted by the Jesuit Fordham University, or openly homosexual Michael Huffington’s own ecumenist foundation at Loyola University¹¹.

• Constantinople supports a church in Ukraine filled with Nazi sympathizers¹² who regularly assault Ukrainian Christians. Is this not alone a crisis, especially combined with the aforementioned issues and the division in Orthodoxy this caused?

As a result, we could be witnessing a complete fracture of the Orthodox world, a schism between Greeks and Russians or directly down liberal and conservative lines.

In that worst-case scenario all throughout Orthodoxy we could see divides and splits. Let’s sincerely pray it doesn’t come to that.

What if the Greek Church didn’t recognize the OCU?

If the Greek Church did not in fact have a legally binding vote at the bishop’s council, or any vote at all as the two Greek Metropolitans claimed, then there will at least need to be a gathering or statement from all the other bishops who contest this recognition to make it clear that this is a large body, with a consistent story—there was no vote, so no recognition. There are thousands of Greek clergy, including hierarchs, who oppose this recognition after all.

Various scenarios could unfold in the event there was no actual vote.

The Constantinople faction could simply interpret the statement of support for Constantinople’s power to grant autocephaly is sufficient, and claim that those opposing it are the source of the problems; and the elites in power will go ahead and act as if the OCU is already recognized.

We have already seen Greek Hierarchs (unsurprisingly from the New Lands) serve with OCU schismatics before this council meeting, and there is no reason to assume they will stop at this point.

Those who serve with the schismatics will continue to serve with them; those who want to serve with them will feel emboldened to interpret this council resolution as reason enough to serve with them, regardless of whether there was a vote or not.

Traditionalist hierarchs will call for a council, and those supporting the OCU will likely claim there is no need for one, as the decision was already made.

This would echo Constantinople’s refusal to have a pan-Orthodox council on this issue, despite the majority of other primates constantly calling for one.

They will simply ignore these calls and do as they please.

Effectively, we may see order in the Church of Greece break down. Each bishop will decide for himself what he will do, and who will he will recognize.

Unless a vast number of traditionalist hierarchs go on record against this, and demand a council and vote, it’s unlikely anything will stop those who recognize the OCU already from continuing to recognize them—they will just hide behind Constantinople; and until the greater problem is tackled by universal Orthodoxy, nothing will likely change the minds of those bishops.

Ultimately, we have to simply wait and see what will develop in the Church of Greece. Hopefully there will be mass resistance against these illegal canonical actions, but realistically, it seems that at the very least there will still be a splinter group in the New Lands and other Constantinople territories who will stand by them until the end, and until the issue with Constantinople is resolved, they won’t change.

If the Church of Greece didn’t support the OCU, the most likely scenario may be that each faction will simply continue what they’ve been doing until this issue is finally resolved at a pan-Orthodox council.

This is a serious issue. No one should take this as a passing crisis. We may look at an event which goes down in history as either a second great schism, or an eighth ecumenical council.

There will be many opportunities for holiness in supporting the unity and canonicity of Christ’s church, just as many holy luminaries of Constantinople did, such as St. John Chrysostom.

There is also the great risk of joining the darker side of history, and having your name go down beside Nestorius the heretic, who, by the way, was also Patriarch of Constantinople.

If the Greek Church did recognize the OCU, then why? And what’s next?

If the worst-case scenario comes to pass, and the Greek Church did, or ultimately does recognize the OCU, why did this happen, and what is next? The brilliant Russian Journalist Kirill Alexandrov provides excellent analysis. Here is a translation from his Russian article.

Why did this happen?

The answer to this question can be found by logical deduction.

Did the Greeks recognize the OCU because they are truly certain it is a real grace-filled local church? That she received her origin on a canonical basis through the actual unification of all Orthodoxy in Ukraine?

No, it can’t be so. Otherwise, why did the Greeks postpone recognition for almost a year? And everyone knows that the creation of the OCU did not cure the church schism in Ukraine, but deepened it even more. Moreover, the creation of the OCU gave rise to a new split, this time between Epiphany and Philaret Denisenko.

Is it possible the OCU is following God’s commandments?

No. It commits raider-style seizures of churches, atrocities and other attacks. Violence and threats from supporters of the OCU are well known facts.

Is the OCU a persecuted church that needs support and recognition?

No. Few religious organizations in modern history have enjoyed such powerful state support as from the Ukrainian government to the OCU. Everyone from the president to governors and mayors have helped this organization, along with the successor agency to the KGB in Ukraine, the courts, and the police.

Then why did the Greeks recognize the OCU?...

The support for the OCU is primarily the result of political ties with Western powers, and Constantinople, of course, having also that same alignment.

Kirill Alexandrov goes on to note the incredibly close ties between U.S. State Department officials with matters concerning the ecumenical patriarchate and the OCU. One of the highest ranking Ukrainian OCU schismatics, Makary Maletich, former Primate of the UAOC declared that Bartholomew only made this decision because he had the support from the US Government. This is directly from the mouth of an OCU leader.

US officials in Greece frequently get involved in church matters and stress the importance of “support for the ecumenical patriarchate”.¹³

It doesn’t take a political scientist to realize that that “support” is implied as a demand, and when the former US Ambassador to Ukraine who served there during the Maidan coup is now ambassador to Greece, it becomes blatantly obvious that the same people are up to the same tricks.

Alexandrov goes on to note that despite the fact that Greece is officially an Orthodox country, with an almost completely at least nominal Orthodox population, there are still laws passed supporting homosexuals because Greece is under crippling financial and political pressure, and they are dependent on the EU, who are ultimately aligned with the US.

He notes that in Greece, the Church is funded by and built into the state apparatus, and all Greek Bishops and clergy receive their salaries from the state budget. This, by the way, is unlike Russia or Ukraine, where clergy are paid directly by their church, and are in fact less dependent on the state than in Greece, where the state is literally the one signing their paychecks.

The main warning of the article is that if the Church of Greece goes along with this, we will already be seeing a schism happen in Orthodoxy, which could divide the entire Greek church, as well as Mount Athos.

Alexandrov also notes how ridiculous it is to recognize a church where most of the clergy were not even canonically ordained.

Philaret for example, was the former Metropolitan of Kiev. However, he ordained Epiphany a priest and later bishop while he was already in schism, and this was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As a result, it is one thing to receive Philaret back (which is also questionable), but the Ecumenical Patriarchate received Epiphany in his existing status without a canonical ordination, without repentance, and without even re-ordination.

This prompted Philaret, who is now in schism from his schismatic former protégé Epiphany, to finally declare the truth, that practically the entire episcopate was ordained in schism:

“Okay, if the Ecumenical Patriarch removed the anathema from me in 2018, then until 2018 was I under anathema or not? If I was under anathema, that means that all these bishops are illegitimate, and Epiphany is not only not a metropolitan—he’s not even a priest. If the Ecumenical Patriarch removed the anathema from me in 2018, then the entire episcopate is invalid!” Philaret declared.

While Philaret said that as an assault against Epiphany, it’s actually true—he was under anathema, Constantinople recognized it as of around a year ago, and therefore to recognize those he consecrated under anathema means that the entire process of valid ordinations and anathematization goes out the window. It is no longer clear at all who is Orthodox and who is a schismatic, because everything is leavened by the love of Pat. Bartholomew of Constantinople, which decides and unites all.

Epiphany also declared that he is proud of Nazi WW2 era leader Stepan Bandera, who was allied with Hitler. These are the type of people Pat. Bartholomew is in communion with.

The situation is even worse when we consider “Metropolitan” Makary Maletich who received his “ordination” from the child molester Viktor Chekalin, a defrocked deacon who pretended to be a bishop.

This means there are hierarchs in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate who never received a canonical ordination.

Some will argue that because we receive priests of other denominations by vesting, which is to say, in their existing dignity, there is no issue, but this is flawed for several reasons:

• Roman Catholic priests, for example, received by vesting come as individuals. It’s an entirely different matter—individual priests vs. a schismatic jurisdiction. The practice of receiving by vesting after repentance is almost always practiced on individuals.

• Priests of other faiths were never schismatics in rebellion from Orthodoxy, as they were never Orthodox to begin with. Before being received into Orthodoxy, these priests first must reject false doctrine they practiced, which is a confessional form of repentance. Constantinople received these schismatics as if they did nothing wrong.

• Ultimately, receiving by vesting is an act of economia, which is one matter for an individual. The real question is this: Does anyone want to be in communion with a jurisdiction that is barely Orthodox, and only by technicality and economia?

Another important issue is the entangling web of schisms.

When you enter into communion with someone, you are also practically speaking, entering into communion with anyone whom they are in communion with.

OCU schismatics continue to serve with and maintain close ties with Uniates, in addition to other schismatics, including those whom Constantinople itself excommunicated.

The OCU is on a collision course to communion with the Uniates, and if the Greek Church recognizes them, they will effectively be accepting the Unia.

The head of the Uniate church, Svatoslav Shevchuk declared that the ultimate goal of the Uniates and schismatics is to create a single patriarchate, in union with both Rome and Constantinople. “This is not utopian thinking, as some people call it. This is the goal of the ecumenical movement,” said Shevchuk.

Let’s recall what the Uniates have done in Ukraine.

Uniates were historically among the greatest persecutors of Orthodoxy, especially in Ukraine, and are also heavily involved in persecuting and attacking believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church today.

They also work together very well with the OCU. For example, against the backdrop of a blasphemous icon of the Mother of God together with soldiers in Nazi uniforms. Members of the OCU served a funeral for members of the Nazi SS together with Uniates. The schismatic and heretical clergy commented that they consider the SS fighters to already be saints.

Uniate clergy have frequently served memorial services for Nazis, complete with honor guards in Nazi uniforms. There was also an incident when a high-ranking mitered Uniate priest, glorifying WW2-era Nazi collaborators, called for terror and assassination.

There was also the terrifying moment when the infamous Uniate Chaplain Nikolai Medinsky assaulted Orthodox grandmothers while seizing a church in Kolomyya, while he and his fellow Greek Catholic priests declared: “We will not throw crumbs to you Moscow pigs. You are biomass devoid of rights. We will take not only this church from you, we will take it all. We will kick you off our land, and from the Kiev Caves Lavra!”

The Union of Orthodox Journalists made an English-language YouTube video discussing the assaults of the Uniates on the Orthodox.

Ukrainian Archpriest Fr. Rostislav Yarema, a Doctor of Theology from Lviv, Western Ukraine, writes that in 1990, there were 2,639 parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in Galicia (Western Ukraine), and that between 1990 and 1997, the Uniates seized around 2,000 of them, including around 1,000 in the Lviv Province alone.

This is not even withstanding the regular attacks committed by the OCU against the canonical church. The OCU and the Uniates are filled with real-life Nazis.

Take for example schismatic “priest” Alexander Dedyukhin, who was known for posting speeches by Adolf Hitler on his Facebook page; ironically, the Ukrainian nationalist “priest” seems to post in the Russian language. Dedyukhin is known for several extremist and anti-Christian views, especially:

• Denying the miracle of the Holy Fire.

• Saying the Maidan coup that overthrew the former Ukrainian government was an act of the Holy Spirit, comparing the Molotov cocktails used to the fire of the Holy Spirit.

Many law enforcement workers at the Maidan revolution died in Molotov cocktail attacks. Photo: chhag.livejournal.com  

• Saying a terrorist attack in Russia that killed at least 15 people was the answer to the Kiev Patriarchate’s prayers.

• Claiming that Drugs and prostitution should be legalized.

• And who could forget “Father” Dedyukhin’s teaching on forgiveness, which besides being an understatement is unorthodox in every sense of the word. According to this schismatic cleric, the best way to forgive an enemy is to simply kill him. Here is what he said specifically:

  • “Forgiveness comes in different forms. There is forgiveness through the scope of an automatic—that is how to forgive an aggressor, sending him 6 to 12 grams of love to one of his vital organs. This also frees us. The main thing is not to forget the simple truth: a dead enemy is no longer an enemy. A dead enemy is just a corpse. And we gain freedom by forgiving as much as we can;”

These are the type of people who represent the schismatics, and this specific priest was shamefully awarded by Patriarch Bartholomew!

How is it possible that any Orthodox support these people? The argument that Pat. Bartholomew simply doesn’t know about this, is not worth considering. If this information is reaching regular Orthodox Christians in the English language, a Patriarch should certainly be aware of what is even an open secret in Ukraine—that many OCU members are Nazi supporters.

The famous Greek theologian Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis, who is one of the many Greek spiritual authorities opposing the schism, summarizes this perfectly. He calls the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew:

“A new crusade against the Russian Church on behalf of the Uniate-crusaders and schismatics of Ukraine, in which Patriarch Bartholomew takes the most active part in alliance with the pope who only pretends that he remains neutral.”

It is also extremely symbolic, as Alexandrov notes, that news of this recognition happened just before the Feast of the Protection of the Mother of God, which is greatly venerated in Rus’, especially among Don Cossacks, but essentially ignored in Greece, though it should be the other way around.

The feast celebrates the miracle of when the Most Holy Theotokos with her Veil protected Constantinople from the raid of not yet baptized Russians in the ninth century. Then, after prayer in the Blachernae church the Theotokos appeared. A rising storm destroyed the Russian fleet, and Constantinople was saved.

Russians love this holiday; it is marked in the Russian typicon as a major feast. They literally celebrate their own defeat! The fact that they are on the side of the Orthodox Greeks, and not their own ancestors who were pagans shows how Russians place their Orthodox faith above their national pride.

Meanwhile, Bartholomew practically declares Greek racial supremacy; and the modern Greeks make statements declaring how they should never conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarchate on Ukraine, and that because they are the same race as Constantinople, they must support them.

If the Greek Church supports the OCU, if anyone does this, they are turning a blind eye to the scourging of the Body of Christ, as Bartholomew did. As a result, the suffering and blood of the Ukrainian people is on whomever recognizes these heretics and their collaborators.

Truly the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church, and only makes her grow, but woe to him who has their blood on his hands…

Matfey Shaheen

10/18/2019

[Предраг М]

"Не можемо не приметити да Патријарх овог пута чини посету манастирима који су учествовали у устоличењу Епифанија Думенка, па чак планира и посету келији у којој живи само један монах али не било који, већ управо онај који је омогућио улазак прве делегације "ПЦУ" на Свету Гору. Занимљиво је и то да Патријарх планира посету скитовима Св. Андреја и Св. Илије, које су подигли руски монаси и руски цареви а данас настањују Грци. Због свега овог наилазе помисли да ће сутра у пратњи Патријарха Вартоломеја бити Епифаније Думенко лично. Но, видећемо већ колико сутра."
 

 

https://svetogorskestaze.blogspot.com/2019/10/blog-post_18.html?m=1

[Баба]

Реакција Руса је блага и килава. Очекивано. Мислим, ја сам очекивао.

Зна се како се овакве ствари решавају. Ово су политичке одлуке Васељенске патријаршије, немају никакво утемељење у предању и канонима, јасно су окренуте против Руске цркве.

Да је Путин оно што се прича и пише у медијима, пре свега западним, о њему, Вратоломије би изгурао пар дана после признања расколника, али и он је килав и никакав.

Сори русофили али то је факат.

С друге стране Руска црква се понаша као Срби током ратова '90. док те душман коље ти га зовеш на преговоре. Место непријатеља да сравне са земљом, ослањају се на њихову хуманост, разумевање, човекољубље и трте мрте све у свему Руси су дефинитивно највећи губитници ХХI века. Имају срећу што је Трамп засео на власт па ће мало да одложи њихово неминовно уништење.

Но оно што је битно за ову тему јесте шта ће бити са црквом и православљем?

Мислим да ће се након признања Укра од стране Вартоломеја одмотати све досадашње несугласице између православних помесних цркава. Свако ће са сваким ући у раскол. Ако се нађе једна ПЦ која ни са ким није у расколу она би могла у неко будуће време бити посредник свеправославног помирења.

Знам да ће већина ово предвиђање дочекати на нож али тако сте реаговали и претходно кад сам најављивао ово данас. Ономад сам се још и обазирао на писанија овде, сада ми већ миндеђ.

Неће остати камен на камену а пошташалица цитатом "ни врата паклена јој неће одолети" се очито односи на нешто друго. Црква ће наравно наставити да постоји, само ћете је рашљама тражити.

 

[o. Miroljub]

пре 6 минута, Жељко рече

Реакција Руса је блага и килава. Очекивано. Мислим, ја сам очекивао.

Зна се како се овакве ствари решавају. Ово су политичке одлуке Васељенске патријаршије, немају никакво утемељење у предању и канонима, јасно су окренуте против Руске цркве.

Да је Путин оно што се прича и пише у медијима, пре свега западним, о њему Вратоломије би изгурао пар дана после признања расколника, али и он је килав и никакав.

Сори русофили али то је факат.

С друге стране Руска црква се понаша као Срби током ратова '90. док те душман коље ти га зовеш на преговоре. Место непријатеља да сравне са земљом, ослањају се на њихову хуманост, разумевање, човекољубље и трте мрте све у свему Руси су дефинитивно највећи губитници ХХI века. Имају срећу што је Трамп засео на власт па ће мало да одложи њихопво неминовно уништење.

Но оно што је битно за ову тему јесте шта ће бити са црквом и православљем?

Мислим да ће се након признања Укра од стране Вартоломеја одмотати све досадашње несугласице између православних помесних цркава. Свако ће са сваким ући у раскол. Ако се нађе једна ПЦ која ни са ким није у расколу она би могла у неко будуће време бити посредник свеправославног помирења.

Знам да ће већина ово предвиђање дочекати на нож али тако сте и реаговали и претходно кад сам најављивао ово данас. Ономад сам се још и обазирао на писанија овде, сада ми већ миндеђ.

Неће остати камен на камену а пошташалица цитатом "ни врата паклена јој неће одолети" се очито односи на нешто друго. Црква ће наравно наставити да постоји, само ћете је рашљама тражити.

 

Амин!

 

[Milan Nikolic]

пре 23 минута, Жељко рече

Руси су дефинитивно највећи губитници ХХI века. Имају срећу што је Трамп засео на власт па ће мало да одложи њихово неминовно уништење.

Можеш ли да појасниш како су Руси највећи губитници 21. века и како ће неминовно бити уништени? Нисам сигуран да си баш то хтео да кажеш.

[farisejski.bukvojed]

пре 41 минута, Жељко рече

...

Да је Путин оно што се прича и пише у медијима, пре свега западним, о њему, Вратоломије би изгурао пар дана после признања расколника, али и он је килав и никакав.

...

 

Ne moze da nadje odgovarajuceg nindzu, nema vise nindza u Japanu, penzionisali su se https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20135674

Mozda mu treba javiti da ima jos nade, evo u Leskovac su osnovali nidnza klub https://ninjutsuklubbujinkanleskovac.wordpress.com/about/