[illerlytoindy]

CORRECTION: I mean I think that there will be no Pan Orthodox Council because of many become independent churches. Well, I may be wrong. I think that there should have Pan Orthodox Council to represent Orthodox Church in the world not by geography or ethnic but as universal church.

[Siuchingach]

This story of power politics among church leaders is very sad, though I suppose nothing new. On the actual issue raised here I agree substantially with what has been said. Nonetheless it prompts me to ask what is the latest on the proposed Pan-Orthodox Council?

Anthony

[Thomaswhitee]

Well, if we would all be a bit more charitable towards our Church and beloved Patriarchates we wouldn't be making beggars out of our Bishops. Their time would never pass when they receive our spiritual support whether it be through almsgiving or prayer.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Ygxejxox]

I think many people were hoping that the Pan-Orthodox Council would bring out precisely this universal, rather than ethnically or geographically restricted, character of Orthodoxy. There was a lot of talk about it some years back, but I have heard very little recently. So I was wondering.

[Thomaswhitee]

Dear Alexis,

Don't worry about it, I had an knee jerk reaction. I understand your point.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[limpoporanique]

2005.04.06 RUSSIAN CHURCH: Perplexity in Moscow over Constantinople's
Canonical Claims to Ukraine
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
DEPARTMENT FOR EXTERNAL CHURCH RELATIONS
Office of Communication

Press-release, 06.04.2005
<http://www.mospat.ru/text/e_news/id/8954.html>http://www.mospat.ru/text/e_news/id/8954.html
Church news
Perplexity in Moscow over Constantinople's Canonical Claims to Ukraine
During his meeting with Ukrainian President Victor Yuschenko on March 26,
Archbishop Vsevolod (Maidansky) of Skopelos, Cicago-based representative of
the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Patriarchate of Constantinople),
declared Constantinople's canonical claims to Ukraine. His statement was
distributed by the Religious Information Service of Ukraine and then
published at the official website of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the
USA. This statement has provoked serious perplexity in the Russian Orthodox
Church.
The statement reads, 'The position of the Mother Church, the Patriarchate
of Constantinople, is that her daughter - the Moscow Patriarchate -
consists of that territory which it encompassed to the year 1686. The
subjugation of the Kyivan Metropolia to the Moscow Patriarchate was
concluded by Patriarch Dionysios without the agreement or ratification of
the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Great Church of Christ'.
Commenting the mass media reports, Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, the Moscow
Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Secretary for
Inter-Orthodox Relations, noted in his interview to Tserkovny vestnik that
on the face of it the text raised serious doubts if the Ukrainian
journalists conveyed Archbishop Vsevolod's statement correctly.
'Archbishop Vsevolod of Skopelos participated in the negotiations on the
Ukrainian problems on several occasions and never challenged the validity
and canonicity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is a self-governed
part of the Moscow Patriarchate', Father Nikolay stressed.
'I also know that during his visit to Ukraine Archbishop Vsevolod
considered it his primary duty to pay a visit to His Beatitude Metropolitan
Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine. However, the fact of the official
publication by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA leaves no room for
doubt. Besides, we have learnt from the press release issued in the USA
that Archbishop Vsevolod had official meetings with the former Metropolitan
Philaret of Kiev, who was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church, and with
a representative of the so-called 'Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox
Church'. Moreover, the Primate of the canonical and universally recognized
Ukrainian Orthodox Church was ranked on a par with a member of an
uncanonical schismatic group and an anathemized person. It appears to mean
that for Archbishop Vsevolod there is no substantial difference between
them. There is an impression that His Eminence is now guided by a new
approach, rather then the conception that was worked out by previous
consultations between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow
concerning a settlement of the Ukrainian church problem. I do not know how
it is possible to combine this new approach with the statement Archbishop
Vsevolod made during his meeting with Metropolitan Vladimir that the
Patriarchate of Constantinople stands invariably for settling the problem
of schism on the basis of church canons'.
Speaking about the published statement by Archbishop Vsevolod, Father
Nikolay pointed out that similar statements were already voiced in the past
and represented nothing new or peculiar. 'Ukrainian schismatics, in their
attempts to sow discord between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and
Moscow, alleged also before that the Orthodox Church of Constantinople
considers Ukraine to be its canonical territory. To put an end to the
misunderstandings the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
issued on August 8, 2000, an official statement describing these
allegations as 'completely erroneous' and the publications reproducing them
as 'based on incorrect information'. At that time the Patriarchate of
Constantinople expressed regret that the attempts to spread such rumors
'not only cause division but also conflict between Christians and they
misrepresent and distort the virtuous intentions of those who have
sacrificed and labored for the restoration of the unity of Christians''.

Archpriest Nikolay Balashov reminded the readers that Patriarch
Bartholomaios of Constantinople, during his visit to the Russian Orthodox
Church in 1993, stated officially that 'the Ecumenical Patriarchate
recognizes only one canonical Metropolitan of Kiev - His Eminence Vladimir,
Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine'. 'That is why', emphasized Father
Nikolay, 'it is so difficult for us to believe that the statement
Archbishop Vsevolod made in Kiev really reflects the official position of
the Patriarchate of Constantinople', adding that an appropriate inquiry has
already been sent to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
'From the historical point of view', said the DECR Secretary, 'the
published statement causes no less amazement. The Decree of His Holiness
Patriarch Dionysios of Constantinople was signed by all the Holy Synod
members including the Metropolitans of Chalcedon, Nikodemia, Lycia,
Thessaloniki and others - altogether 20 hierarchs. Besides, this decision
was approved by His Holiness Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem, who also
issued a confirming decree. Moreover, in his special official letter to the
bishops and all the Orthodox living in Poland, Patriarch Dositheos told
them to obey the Moscow-appointed Metropolitan Gedeon of Kiev, 'who is
accepted and recognized by all the patriarchs as a true and authentic
metropolitan'.
The documents confirming this are kept with care at the Russian State
Archives of Ancient Acts and well known to the scholarly community from
studies by famous Russian historian N. F. Kapterev published in the late
19th - early 20th century. These facts have never been challenged by other
researchers, even those with no special liking for Moscow. For instance,
Prof. I. I. Ogiyenko, a well-known Ukrainian historian (later the head of
the unrecognized 'Autocephalous Ukrainian Church in Canada'), in his study
'Ukrainska Tserkva: Narisi z istorii Ukrainskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi',
confirms that the envoys from Moscow and Kiev came back home with 'all the
necessary acts signed by the whole council'.
Archpriest Nikolay Balashov said on conclusion, 'It is not clear what
purpose is pursued by this attempt to rewrite the historical documents
which have not been challenged by anybody for three centuries and which are
recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches. Is it to cast a shadow on
the previous Primates of the Churches of Constantinople and Jerusalem and
their sacred thrones so that the traditional respect that the Slavic
faithful have for them may be belittled?'
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
DEPARTMENT FOR EXTERNAL CHURCH RELATIONS
Office of Communication
Address: 22, Danilovsky val, St.Danilov monastery, DECR,
113191 Moscow,
Russia
Internet: <http://www.mospat.ru>http://www.mospat.ru
E-mail: commserv@mospat.ru

[illerlytoindy]

Aloha everyone....

I think that we just need to pray that one day there will be a united Pan Orthodox Council and Peace on Earth finally. Let us pray for one another... in Christ.


Ukrainian Orthodox confllicts deepen

Kiev, Apr. 06 (CWNews.com) - Ukrainian Orthodox officials allied with the Moscow patriarchate staged a public demonstration in Kiev on April 6, to protest what they see as government interference in Orthodox Church affairs.

The Ukrainian Orthodox leaders organized a march through Kiev, past the presidential palace and parliament buildings, in response to reports that the government may government may hand over control of the renowned Monastery of the Caves to another, independent Orthodox group.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been split into competing groups in recent decades. After years of alliance with the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow, a Ukrainian Church leader, Metropolitan Filaret, broke away to set up the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate. That group now competes with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate for supremacy. A third, smaller, group, the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, also commands the allegiance of some believers.

In the country's recent presidential elections, the Moscow patriarchate bitterly opposed the eventual winner, Viktor Yushchenko, whose ascent to power was welcomed by other religious groups in Ukraine. Now the Orthodox who remain faithful to Moscow charge that President Yushchenko is giving political preference to the Kiev patriarchate.

The problems of the Moscow patriarchate were compounded when a spokesman for the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople-- the acknowledged "first among equals" of the Orthodox world-- denied Moscow's claim that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate is the only legitimate canonical body in Ukraine.

Russian Orthodox leaders, along with the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have bitterly protested the public statement by Archbishop Vsevolod, the US-based representative of Constantinople that other Orthodox bodies in Ukraine may have canonical standing. Characterizing the statement as "outrageous" and "inexplicable," they have demanded a retraction and apology from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. To date, the Patriarch of Constantinople has not responded.

For President Yushchenko, the deep divisions among Orthodox believers pose a serious dilemma. After decades of unquestioned pre-eminence, and unswerving allegiance to Russian leadership, the Moscow patriarchate is now challenged by an Orthodox movement that supports Ukrainian independence. While he has promised to remain impartial in religious disputes, Yushchenko may be forced to settle quarrels over the ownership of Orthodox Church properties, such as the Monastery of the Caves.

[flanna.kersting]

Most important in this matter of the so-called "Kiev Patriarchate" is the fact that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Metropolitan Philaret (now the self-styled "Patriarch") was found to have a wife and children!

That finding resulted in his deposition from all clerical office by the Moscow Patriarchate - his canonical authority - for all of the obvious reasons. He is, therefore, no longer a Bishop, a Priest, or any other member of the clergy. It is not possible for him to hold any clerical office in the Church, and not the Ecumenical Patriarch or anyone else can change that fact. Archbishop Vsevolod - if he indeed made the statement credited to him - is waaaaay off-base.

Mr. Denisenko is not a Patriarch, he is a pretender, and the so-called "Patriarchate" is not any kind of Church at all, but a false creation masquerading as what it is not, to the spiritual detriment of those who are a part of it.

[Ltftujkg]

Reply to Alexis "Your point is well made. But as a former RC myself, lets not be afraid to look at the deeper reason my people may withhold 'alms' or general support. Rather than selfishness or a lack of charity, the power of the purse is the only voice many have. "

How true! Church revenue here in Greece this Easter fell 50%. Church attendance was up - the churches were full to overflowing as usual, but the faithful declined to contribute as much as they usually did due to the fact that they weren't sure whether their money would go to those who needed it or whether it would be used to feather some priest's nest.

Over Easter I read the biography of St. Nectarios of Aegina and the thing that made a tremendous impression on me was that nothing had changed much in church politics over the last 100 years.

The author might have been describing present day Patriarchs and their squabbles. The amount of money the church receives each week is unbelievable (and can only be calculated approximately becaue no receipts are given) and unfortunately there are many priests who give in to temptation - not by actually stealing the money and putting it in the bank as some have done, but by using the money for their own comfort - which, I suppose, is a just another form of stealing.


Effie

[intisgunkas]

Dear Randy,

I think we are getting frivolous here. The opinions of certain hierarchs do not change the reality that the Orthodox people of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus are and have always been canonically under one ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The chief hierarch was originally the Metropolitan of Kiev, subjegated under the Ecumenical Patriarch, because the first capital of Rus was Kiev. When Moscow emerged as the capital of Rus', the Metropolitane was eventually transfered to Moscow and the Russian Church was granted autocephaly, so the Ecumenical Patriarchate has no right to interfere or make decisions in these affairs. She can suggest but not act. The fact that Ukraine is now a separate politcal state, does not mean that it is ecclesiastically separate from Moscow. The "Kiev Patriarchate" is schimatic, as is any other Orthodox believing organization outside the blessing of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine. Only the Moscow Patriarchate can grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church, which is already autonomous. So, we can say whatever we feel but that does not change the canons.
As for this other, off the topic issue, of "moving toward peace, unity, and brotherly love" with the Latins. Are you trying to get a reaction here? I doubt any of us here hold any personal animosity towards the Roman Catholic Church or her members. But the reason we are not together is because unity can only come through unity in the fullness of Truth, which only the Orthodox Church possesses. I agree that the Orthodox Church should and must do more to help people with their spiritual and material needs. That is being done. Living here in Moscow, it is quite amazing what the Russian Church is doing in the realm of social services. But we would be betraying Christ himself if we denied the reality that ONLY the Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of salvific grace and Truth. It is not an "eastern lung" or "branch", but is the Tree of Life. The Roman Catholic Church is NOT these things. It is both schismatic and heretical. Even the current Ecumenical Patriarch has called our differences ontological. So, I suggest reading the Church Fathers and what they said about the Latin Church after its fall from Orthodoxy in the 11th century, rather than following the politically correct, emotional, wishy-washyness of ecumenism and syncretism.

[Pete789]

That article is rather inaccurate in regards to the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev (MP), never endorsed any of the candidates. In fact, during the orange revolution, his only public statement called for peace on both sides. At the same time, "Patriarch" Filaret, the other schimatics, and the RC hierarchs openly endorsed Yuschenko. I have nothing against Yuschenko and personally think he was a much better choice that Yanukovich. However, despite personal political opinions of MP clergy in Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church never endorsed any political candidate or party.

[intisgunkas]

This is not a matter of personal opinion. The Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church is under the Moscow Patriarchate. Despite being two political entities- Gosudarstvo (Russia and Ukraine), they are one people- Narod. Kiev was the original capital of Rus'. After the fall of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, Moscow emerged as the second capital of Rus'. Ukraine comes from the Slavonic word "Okraina", which meant border and has also been known as "Little Russia", just as there is a "Great Russia" and "White Russia" (now Belarus). These three countries, due to historical events, have become separate political entities but are essentially one people. One can see similarities elsewhere in Europe between Germany and Austria and Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. One might also say that about the United States and Canada, but that is stretching it.
Historically, Rus' (Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine), have always been in one Orthodox Church. Despite that, the Moscow Patriarchate has granted the Ukrainian Church autonomy, so they have their own Synod of Bishops but Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev is also a member of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate and bishops, once elected have to be approved by Moscow. The Ukrainian Church could one day become autocephalous, but that can only be done with the blessing of the Moscow Patriarchate. The "Kiev Patriarchate" is now headed by "Patriarch" Philaret, who was once the canonical Metropolitan of Kiev. After not being elected Patriarch of Moscow in 1990, he soon went down the path of schism. So, the Ecumenical Patriarch is acting uncanonically when trying to settle these affairs. They acted similarly in Estonia and there are now two Orthodox jurisdictions there, one under Constantinople and the other under Moscow.
The canons are quite clear that there should be one ruling synod of bishops in a geographical and/or political territory. This is not the case in America (again mainly the fault of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) and in other countries where Orthodox people have immigrated, but this is not the canonical norm and should not spread to traditional Orthodox lands.

[BgpOoGI2]

It would appear that Constantinople has refused to bless a schism and has refused to recognise the Ukrainian breakaways.

Perhaps that is because Patr. Bartholomew saw the genuine welcome of the people for Patr. Alexey compared to the officially orchestrated welcome that he vgot.

It would also appear that Patr. Bartholomew has agreed to direct talks with Patr. Alexey to find solutions to all their differences.

The big question is: Will Patr. Alexey or anyone else manage to wean Patr. Bartholomew and his (ill-)advisers away from the Roman church and away from the notion that Orthodoxy needs an "Eastern Pope"?

We don't need an "Eastern Pope" in Constantinople or in Moscow. Neither do we need to accommodate Benedict xvi.

What we do need is more frequent meetings between the Patriarchs and a "standing committee" of their representatives to handle internal matters.

Since Benedict xvi divested himself of the title "Patriarch" in an effort to assert the papacy as above patriarchal status, I think that the Patriarchs should consider working towards the goal of appointing Patriarchs for Western Europe, North America, South America and Austral-asia. They could leave the existing ethnic hierarchs in place in those areas, just placing them under their new Local Church Patriarchs. Africa of course already has its Patriarch.

Fr. Michael