[SteantyjetMaw]

Does anyone from the Romanian Patriarchate or the Jerusalem Patriarchate have any inside information concerning the supposed severing of communion between the two patriarchates?

According to portal-credo (http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=83949), they have broken communion based on issues of canonical borders. I also found reference to this on the Jerusalem Patriarchates news site. It's in greek, if you can read it. I can only glean bits and pieces through Google translate.

"The Jerusalem Patriarchate stopped communion with the Patriarchate Romania" http://www.jp-newsgate.net/gr/2011/05/09/3352/#more-3352

and

"Clarification by the severance of the commemoration of the Patriarchate Romania" http://www.jp-newsgate.net/gr/2011/05/20/3393/#more-3393

I'm surprised I haven't heard about this yet. Am I the only one?

[dodadaxia]

This was mentioned last month already.

This blog mentions it a few times. http://albionfourthrome.blogspot.com/

The reason being that during Patriarch Teotict's time he authorised a church to be built in Jericho but under Patriarch of Romania's Jurisdiction rather than under Jerusalem. The Patriarch of Jerusalem has tried to get this resolved as it was uncanonical but since he said there was no reply from the Patriarch of Romania, he decided to excommunicated them and remove him from the diptychs.

In Romania there are Ukrainian churches under the Patriarch of Romania but I am not sure why there is a problem in Jerusalem.

Also there are problems in Serbia as same thing happened and also about the new Diocese of Moldova which is currently under MP both by the Patriarch of Romania breaking canonical borders.

[SteantyjetMaw]

Do you know if there has been any response to this made by the other Patriarchates? It seems like a pretty big deal to me.

[dodadaxia]

I only know that the MP was not happy that soon after Patriarch Daniel was made Patriarch he established the Moldova Diocese under Romanian Patriarchate stating that Russians stole Moldova. Ok fair point but he was still encrouching on MP's territory and Patriarch Bartholomew also pointed this out. I find it funny that Patriarch Bartholomew pointed this out since a few months before before this the Russians complained to him that he was doing exactly the same thing in Asia.

[SteantyjetMaw]

It's very sad to see the historical Patriarchates so totally consumed by politics and quarreling. Like St. John of San Francisco said of the EP in 1938, they have "become a source of division, and at the same time being possessed by an exorbitant love of power". It seems like all I hear about them now is their quarreling over land or their "fraternal relations" with the heterodox.

[MP+4]

The problem with the Romanian situation is that its based upon phyletism. The Romanian Orthodox website itself has a letter explaining its position and made clear that this center is to serve only romanians since the arab orthodox already have their institutions. And that unlike the russian places it will be the patriarch of the romanian church that will be commemorated and not the JP. Here are the excerpts from the romanian synod that raises red flags:

..."We know from history that the administrative issues could always be solved in an amiable way. But one thing is sure. The settlement is and will remain the property of the Romanian Patriarchate assigned to the pilgrims".

"We do not doubt the right of jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem over Israel, Palestine and Jordan, but we raised this settlement only for the Romanian pilgrims, not for the native Orthodox faithful who are under the direct care of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, in the territory of the Holy Land, under Palestinian authority, and in Jordan.'

The following statement seems to say that the JP will not be the bishop commemorated at the Jericho center as opposed to their other churches in the holy land:

"The Romanian Orthodox Church has many more very big settlements subordinated directly to the Patriarchate of Moscow, but always recognising the spiritual authority of Jerusalem by remembering Patriarch Teofil III at the holy services”, also said the Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church. '

http://www.basilica.ro/en/patriarcha...tion_2360.html

[tipokot]

It seems like all I hear about them now is their quarreling over land or their "fraternal relations" with the heterodox.

Unfortunately, a lot of religious news comes from secular journalists who seem mostly interested in reporting on subjects which appeal to the secular mentality. Religious scandal, strife between religions, strife within one religion, and the movement of religions towards a One World Religion are all appealing to the secularist who, approaching the subject of religion only superficially, struggles between wanting all religion implode or disappear on one hand (so he doesn't have to struggle to find the truth), and wanting all religions to unite on the other hand (so he doesn't have to struggle to find the truth). Orthodox should usually give little attention to religious news issued by secular journalists.

Regarding the subject of Romania and Jerusalem, it seems that there has been a misunderstanding between the two patriarchates, but it is one that seems fairly easy to resolve. Jerusalem broke communion with the Romanian Church, forbidding concelebration with the Romanians until the issue is resolved (but they will still commune Romanians), while the Romanians seem genuinely bewildered and intend to set up a commission to talk with Jerusalem with the hope of resolving their differences. Here are a couple of posts from the Romanian Patriarchate on the subject:

http://www.basilica.ro/en/news/bthe_...emb__6244.html

http://www.basilica.ro/en/news/bexpl...chob_8871.html

I don’t know if I would agree that the Patriarchates are all “consumed with politics and quarrelling.” Most of our canonical problems today, including the issue of overlapping jurisdictions in America and other countries that aren’t historically Orthodox, resulted from the subjugation of the Moscow Patriarchate under the Soviets. Now that Communism has fallen, there is a tremendous mess to be cleaned up so that the Church can function more canonically. The canonical order of the Church should not take precedent over the salvation of souls and the establishment of more specifically soul-profiting endeavors, but neither can we completely disregard the canonical order of the Church. If it seems that news from the Patriarchates and autocephalous churches seems to mostly be concerned with relations between Orthodox and non-Orthodox, and relations between first hierarchs of different local Orthodox churches, this is likely because these subjects come under the domain of the first hierarchs of the various local churches, and the news outlets for each local church are usually connected to the office of the first hierarch.

[dodadaxia]

Old news but the priest has been defrocked by Patriarch of Jerusalem

http://albionfourthrome.blogspot.com...-romanian.html

[Toninvell]

i wish they all would put the Church back together

[vipBrooriErok]

Frankly, this sort of thing is very common. Given time, it will be resolved. It doesn't really effect people on the ground.

[SteantyjetMaw]

Frankly, this sort of thing is very common. Given time, it will be resolved. It doesn't really effect people on the ground.

Have there been other recent instances of a similar nature, where one jurisdiction severs communion with another?

[ButKnillinoi]

Yes, it happens. When you don't have emperors to back you up, it is the only way to indicate serious concern with the actions of another bishop and is in line with the Scriptural admonition (2 Thessalonians 3:14).

[SteantyjetMaw]

Maybe this question requires a new thread, but is that really the way to do it? I mean, do you feel like that is the correct way of pointing out, as you said, "serious concern"? Are there any examples of these being done recently over doctrinal issues, instead of over land?

[ButKnillinoi]

These sorts of actions have been taken for a variety of reasons. You probably need to ask the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Romania as to why this was done in this particular instance, I don't pretend to speak for them. My comments are of a general nature, not taking sides or making judgements.

Herman the general Pooh

[tipokot]

Maybe this question requires a new thread, but is that really the way to do it? I mean, do you feel like that is the correct way of pointing out, as you said, "serious concern"? Are there any examples of these being done recently over doctrinal issues, instead of over land?

Ecclesiastical divisions have various natures, and not all of them can be characterized as schisms. For instance, history shows that more than once some part of a Local Church would not be in communion with another for an extended period of time for historical or political reasons. For example, the Ignatians and Photians of the Church of Constantinople in the 9th century: their opposition was in no small degree supported and exacerbated by political changes and government coups. At the beginning of the 10thcentury, Patriarch Nicholas did not recognize the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI, for which he was deposed and replaced by Patriarch Euphemius: in this instance, there was an ecclesiastical division for a time. In the 13th century, the supporters of Patriarch Arsenius created another division within the Church, having refused to recognize the ending of the Lascaris Dynasty and the establishment of the new Paleologos Dynasty.

------
The current situation in Ukraine provides fertile ground for overcoming schism: the broad scope of schisms in Ukraine was in many ways caused by political competition which we now see fading into the past. The popularity of schism lies in a willingness to act in the interests of some political circles; it is also a hostage to its temporary nature.

http://www.synod.com/synod/engdocume...ionraskol.html
But the history of Church provides a number of cases when communion was broken between two parties with the same faith, and both parties had saints and later got united.
----

9. The division between St. Wilfrid, metropolitan of York and the rest of the English Church in the 7th-8th centuries. St. Wilfrid objected that his diocese had been divided up without his agreement, and appealed to Rome, which on three occasions upheld his appeal. However, St. Wilfrid never received back the whole of his diocese. The quarrel was eventually settled through a compromise engineered by St. Erkenwald, Bishop of London.

12. The division between St. Patriarchs Nicholas Mysticus of Constantinople and Euthymios in the early 10th century because of the tetragamy's affair. During this time two opposite hierarchies were established, with struggles for the church buildings etc. This division was resolved in 920 at the Council of Union.

15. The division between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Serbian Church in the 14th century.

16. The division between the Russian Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the 15th-16th centuries because the patriarchate refused to recognise the de facto autocephaly of the Russian Church (until 1589). Unofficially the communion was restored in the late 15th century.

19. The division between the whole of the Greek State Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the 19th century. This schism was resolved in 1852.

20. The division between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Bulgarian Church in 1872. The Greeks anathematised the Bulgarians for phyletism, and the schism was not patched up until 1945.

So, from these cases we can see that administrative division (providing that the same faith is kept) is not always a schism. The methods of resolving of this divisions also need to be studied. Sometimes two bishops in communion were allowed on the same territory until the death one of the bishops. Sometimes other ways were used.

Anyway, these examples provide fruitful historical material for the more detailed study of similar historical cases.

http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/inde...t=english&id=3 Regarding “recent” examples of local churches breaking communion over doctrinal issues, the lack of such examples is due to the fact that we do not have recent examples of an entire local church introducing a new and heretical teaching that is inconsistent with what is believed by the rest of the Church. Admittedly, many of the examples above concerned divisions within one local church rather than the breaking of communion between two local churches, but recently there have been doctrinal issues within one local church that resulted in divisions, defrocking, anathematization, etc.: for instance the “Name Worshipers” and “Renovationists” in Russia.