Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Eastern Orthodoxy Schism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eastern Orthodoxy Schism

    Anyone (possibly one of the Orthodox Christians here) able to explain to me what all the hubbub is between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church that apparently led to one of them forbidding communion to the other? I've tried reading up on it but it's kind of confusing to an outsider. All I've really got is that the dispute seems to be over the status of the Ukraine Orthodox Church.

  • #2
    There have been three Ukrainian Orthodox Churches for the past couple decades; two had been in schism, and the other has been under the effective control of Moscow for 3 1/2 centuries. Given the quasi-war between Ukraine and Russia, that puts them in a bit of a tough spot. The Patriarch of Constantinople decided that he would revoke what he saw as temporary permission for Moscow to control Kiev, reunite the three Ukrainian churches, and grant the reunified church autocephaly (similar to autonomy). The Patriarch of Moscow didn't like that, and broke communion with Constantinople in protest. Moscow has withdrawn from pan-Orthodox organizations, forbidden its clergy to assist in services with clergy under Constantinople (and vice versa), and forbidden its laymen to receive communion from clergy under Constantinople.

    I'm not convinced that either side is entirely in the right; it will likely take a pan-Orthodox council to straighten out. I'm just a layman, though, so it's all way above my paygrade.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      There have been three Ukrainian Orthodox Churches for the past couple decades; two had been in schism, and the other has been under the effective control of Moscow for 3 1/2 centuries. Given the quasi-war between Ukraine and Russia, that puts them in a bit of a tough spot. The Patriarch of Constantinople decided that he would revoke what he saw as temporary permission for Moscow to control Kiev, reunite the three Ukrainian churches, and grant the reunified church autocephaly (similar to autonomy). The Patriarch of Moscow didn't like that, and broke communion with Constantinople in protest. Moscow has withdrawn from pan-Orthodox organizations, forbidden its clergy to assist in services with clergy under Constantinople (and vice versa), and forbidden its laymen to receive communion from clergy under Constantinople.

      I'm not convinced that either side is entirely in the right; it will likely take a pan-Orthodox council to straighten out. I'm just a layman, though, so it's all way above my paygrade.
      That's a good explanation. Thanks!

      Comment


      • #4
        Addendum: it's not only Moscow that thinks Constantinople was overreaching in revoking an earlier ban on the Ukrainian schismatics. Almost the rest of Orthodoxy believes that Constantinople should at least hold a council before they can decide on such matters.
        The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. - Karl Popper, 1987

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dante View Post
          Addendum: it's not only Moscow that thinks Constantinople was overreaching in revoking an earlier ban on the Ukrainian schismatics. Almost the rest of Orthodoxy believes that Constantinople should at least hold a council before they can decide on such matters.
          Autocephaly has never been a smooth process; what's unusual about this time is that Constantinople granted it rather than it being arrogated by the church involved (though this more or less happened with the OCA as well; even half a century on, I don't know that any other body has acknowledged its autocephaly).
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #6
            I recently came across some writings which bring some clarity IMO.
            The Institution of Autocephaly in the Orthodox Church
            The Debate over the Declaration of Autocephaly in a Church
            Metr. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos Weighs in on the Division Between Constantinople and Moscow
            I appreciate the stance of the Church of Cyprus:

            At the end of the Divine Liturgy on Sunday 3 November 2019, Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus made the following remarks after the Church of Russia decided to cut off commemoration of the Church of Greece:
            "I consider the stance of the Patriarch of Moscow unacceptable. We do not cut off commemoration of another Primate because we disagree with a position of theirs. Only if they become heretics do we cut off communion with them. And what I know is that neither the Ecumenical Patriarch nor the Archbishop of Athens are heretics. This, of course, does not mean I agree with them. Although we tried to mediate a meeting to find a solution, it did not find approval, so we did not persist. But neither the Ecumenical Patriarch wants to meet with Moscow, nor does Moscow want to meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch. This is why, as the Church of Cyprus, we also take a neutral stand because we do not agree with the stand of either of them and have not gone on to commemorate any new Primate."


            This is also instructive:

            Regarding the deposing and excommunication of Filaret, these double convictions were imposed in excess of all canonical sensitivity. He did not violate matters of faith, but matters of order. Why then did they impose an excommunication? For the same canonical offense that they imposed his deposing, and (because Filaret insisted) they also imposed the excommunication. However, an excommunication is imposed on matters of faith, not on matters of canonical and moral deviance. How then did they impose double penalties for the differentiation of Filaret?
            This is somehow aimed at the ecclesiastical fullness of 15,000,000 people who followed Filaret - bishops, clergy, monks and laity. It was done in order to force either him or his ecclesiastical faction to bow their necks, for reasons of pastorally fencing off the rest of the people of Ukraine, and for the exaltation of the splendor of Moscow. We have everywhere an authoritative rationale and practice, as I emphasize again and again. A rationale and practice of new Regulations in the ecclesiastical space, outside and above the Holy Synods of Orthodoxy. And they rest on the compulsorily granted autocephaly and patriarchal value of the 16th century, which they expand at their pleasure in extent and depth. We have something like a new Orthodoxy, as if the inter-patriarchal ancient Apostolic Orthodoxy had disappeared, and they are rebuilding a new structure and rational Orthodoxy. It is similar to a secular political change.
            * As an example of this Super-Orthodoxy, in February 2016 the Patriarch of Moscow held an exclusive dialogue in Havana and signed a joint statement with the Pope as if he was the First of the East. This took place even though it was commonly decided for the Holy and Great Synod of Kolimvari to take place. This move by Moscow was not considered unique. A month earlier, the Russians had a formal theological dialogue with the Syro-Jacobites. They set aside all notions of decency and ethics, since (at the very least) it should be understood that such a direct dialogue would be carried out by the Patriarchate of Antioch in their common and familiar political territory (that is, Orthodoxy in Syria). Who does the Russian Church represent? With such moves, the Patriarchate of Moscow is showing unbridled hegemony.
            And all this explains the rationale of political authoritarianism and hegemony that runs through Russia. All this explains the absurdity of the "cutting off from communion", which is something like a "punishment of non-communion" imposed by the daughter Church of the 10th and 16th century to our Mother Church of the Ecumenical Synods! It was not the Canons (let them call upon them after a feast), but the clear Russian hegemony and its tactics of imposing them, which is the cause of this interruption of communion. In a way we have an unbridled arrogance and a direct insult not just to some Canons (as the Ecumenical Patriarchate dictates), but to the whole system of Canons and to the whole system of the Holy Ecumenical and Local Synods which convey and affirm in their Acts the Patriarchal value of the Ecumenical and other ancient Patriarchates.


            Much more here

            I quite understand that Moscow is unhappy with the declaration of autocephaly, but its response is rather too heavy-handed, IMO.

            ETA: This ebook is from a broken link at the previous link, and strives to be an irenic look from multiple perspectives of the situation. Although it is under the auspices of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it eschews polemic.
            Last edited by One Bad Pig; 12-12-2022, 06:07 PM.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #7
              Russian "Orthodox" Church is a vestigial KGB appendage whose sole purpose is to serve the Kremlin's agenda. Little by little the whole world is going to learn that the problem with Russia was always Russia & communism wasn't an aberration.
              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

              Comment

              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
              Working...
              X