www.byzcath.org

Pochaev Monastery

Posted By: theophan

Pochaev Monastery - 01/14/19 08:48 PM

Christ is in our midst!!

I saw an article on the website of the Moscow Patriarchate that describes a move by the Ukrainian government to take the monastery back and return it to being a museum. Has anyone seen that? I wonder what the reason for that would be. The article says there are 200 monks and 50 novices who live there at this time.

Bob
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/17/19 07:45 PM

Dear Bob,

That is absolute MP propaganda. The Pochaiv ("Pochaev" is Russian) Lavra is, in fact, a monastery that has historically belonged to the Kyivan Church. The ones that have turned Churches and Monasteries in Ukraine and Russia into museums have been the former Soviet Union with whom the Moscow Patriarchate worked in close cooperation (as it was obliged to do _ although there were many times in the history of Christianity, including that of the ROC itself, when Christians chose the path of martyrdom rather than work with atheistic regimes).

Both the Pochaiv Lavra and the Kyiv-Pechersky Lavra were, are and will formally become part of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. But the Primate of the UOC has reiterated time and again that NO force will be used to return these ancient Kyivan Shrines back.

And once they are back with their rightful owners, please be assured they will never be "museums." And the St Sophia Cathedral of Kyiv, will also become the Cathedral Seat of the Metropolitan of Kyiv once again. It will one day, we hope, will also become the Seat of the Patriarch of Kyiv and Ukraine. The Moscow Patriarchate will have to get used to the new realities there, even though they are kicking and screaming and even though their agents are working overtime to sow the seeds of disinformation everywhere right now.

As for Pochaiv itself, there is a new Venerable Father by the name of St Amphilokkhy of Pochaiv. He was not only an ethnic Ukrainian, but a Ukrainian patriot who helped heal wounded Ukrainian anti-Soviet guerrillas within the walls of Pochaiv. This is, of course, never mentioned by the MP which only extols him as a great ROC saint.

The unification of all Ukrainian Orthodox (and also groups of ethnic Russian Orthodox) Christians within the Orthodox Church of Ukraine continues as more and more parishes of the MP there declare their allegiance to it. I understand that there are now some Ukrainian Catholics who are opting to become Orthodox within the new Orthodox Church as well - we shall see how it all transpires. Alex
Posted By: theophan

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/18/19 12:48 AM

Christ is in or midst!!

Thanks, Alex. I thought that, if this were true, it would be a reversal of the freedom the Church experienced after the fall of communism. It made no sense to me.

Bob
Posted By: Three Cents

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/21/19 12:47 AM

I have not been to Pochaiv but have stayed at the Lavra twice. The monks were absolutely MOSPAT, but that was when His Beatitude Met. Volodymyr (Sabodan) was still alive and prior to Euromaidan. The New Ukrainian Church is not recognized by any other Orthodox Church and in fact His Eminence Met. Kallistos (Ware) of the EP spoke of problems with this in Romania.
The Local Churches fear jurisdictions being established by the EP within their canonical territories and would like a Pan-Orthodox Council to address autocephaly, which Crete did not do. It will be interesting to see how this finally is resolved.
Christ Is Among Us! Indeed He Is And Ever Shall Be!
Three Cents
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/24/19 08:09 PM

Christ is Baptized! In the River Jordan!

Well, when did other autocephalous Churches and Orthodox patriarchates become established through Pan-Orthodox Councils in recent centuries? I'm asking, not telling. And wasn't the recent Council called by the EP ignored by the MP and its allied Churches? Is the Moscow Patriarchate now the first among equals (although it is highly unlikely it considers itself equal to anyone) within Orthodoxy? For the sake of Orthodoxy, I certainly hope not.

In granting the Tomos of Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, the Ecumenical Patriarch rejected the MP's claims to consider Ukraine its "canonical territory." And Ukrainian Orthodox reject that as well. More and more parishes of the MP in Ukraine are now going over to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and that process continues and will continue over time. And, in time, the MP will need to accept the new ecclesial reality in Ukraine. Its view of the Russian World or "Russky Mir" which is a political and not a spiritual or ecclesial ideology, is done with respect to Ukraine. World Orthodoxy will also get used to this new reality, later if not sooner, just as it got used to the Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian and, yes, Moscow Patriarchates.

As for Pochaiv, I would like to relate the story of a more recent visit there. The monks there are still very MOSPAT. I was approached by two of them who spoke only in Russian while I spoke to them in Ukrainian (which was fine). They asked me what my church background is and I didn't lie, I told them I am Ukrainian Catholic. They became visibly upset by this and said I was going to go to hell etc. I told them I would let God decide that - just as He will decide their eternal situation. They angrily asked me if I had come to Pochaiv, "like that Josaphat the soul-snatcher" to "convert" them. I could see that this wasn't going to end well, so I wished them well and began to walk away. They continued with their angry discourse and I turned to them to ask them how it is that living in Ukraine and at the Pochaiv Lavra, they couldn't speak two words in Ukrainian to me. I was right - that didn't end well. The sooner that ilk leaves Pochaiv and the Kyiv Caves Lavra, the better.

Alex the Soul-Snatcher
Posted By: SwanOfEndlessTales

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/25/19 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Well, when did other autocephalous Churches and Orthodox patriarchates become established through Pan-Orthodox Councils in recent centuries?


The answer, of course, is none. According to Constantinople, the only truly autocephalous churches are the ones which were ratified at ecumenical councils. That means five churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus. The other autocephalous churches, so they argue, received their autocephaly from Constantinople, pending ecumenical ratification (actually Georgia got its autocephaly from Antioch but the EP apologists are studiously ignoring this). And until said ratification, Constantinople reserves the right to revoke their autocephaly and otherwise intervene in their affairs as she sees fit. This is the problem... leaving aside the issues, historical and canonical, specific to Ukraine, Constantinople is claiming broad powers which the other churches- not just Moscow- dispute. That the Moscow Patriarchate exploits canonical arguments for its own hypocritical and self-serving purposes should not distract from the fact that what Constantinople is saying and doing is loaded with problems. Many Orthodox who were cheerleading the creation of the OCU are now shocked and dismayed by the EP's unilateral move to abolish the Russian Exarchate in Western Europe, but both actions spring from the same kind of thinking which prevails in the Phanar, and which has not been a secret for some years.

Quote
And wasn't the recent Council called by the EP ignored by the MP and its allied Churches?


To say "allied churches," as if they were just doing it because Moscow told them to, is not correct. Antioch specifically abstained for its well-known grievance against Jerusalem, which the EP refused to address at the council.

Quote
Is the Moscow Patriarchate now the first among equals (although it is highly unlikely it considers itself equal to anyone) within Orthodoxy? For the sake of Orthodoxy, I certainly hope not.


Moscow as a "first among equals" would be quite destructive and thankfully it will not be allowed to happen. The problem now is that the EP is claiming to be "First Without Equals" (this is the explicit wording used by Metropolitan Elpidophoros in his text which bears that as its title).

Quote
World Orthodoxy will also get used to this new reality, later if not sooner, just as it got used to the Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian and, yes, Moscow Patriarchates.


The Russkiy Mir ideology is a dead end and there is nothing particularly objectionable about the idea of Ukrainian autocephaly. The problem is the way it is being accomplished. World Orthodoxy can and will accept the Ukrainian autocephalous church, but it cannot accept Constantinople as the supreme mother church, who has the right to found and dissolve churches at will.

You can read my article about this here: https://orthodoxyindialogue.com/201...-of-the-ukrainian-tomos-by-joseph-zheng/
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/27/19 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
As for Pochaiv, I would like to relate the story of a more recent visit there. The monks there are still very MOSPAT. I was approached by two of them who spoke only in Russian while I spoke to them in Ukrainian (which was fine). They asked me what my church background is and I didn't lie, I told them I am Ukrainian Catholic. They became visibly upset by this and said I was going to go to hell etc. I told them I would let God decide that - just as He will decide their eternal situation. They angrily asked me if I had come to Pochaiv, "like that Josaphat the soul-snatcher" to "convert" them. I could see that this wasn't going to end well, so I wished them well and began to walk away. They continued with their angry discourse and I turned to them to ask them how it is that living in Ukraine and at the Pochaiv Lavra, they couldn't speak two words in Ukrainian to me. I was right - that didn't end well. The sooner that ilk leaves Pochaiv and the Kyiv Caves Lavra, the better.

Hello Alex,

Visiting the Pochayiv monastery is on my "bucket list", but I am disappointed to read how you were treated during your visit.

Have you read this article and seen this video?: ПОЧАЇВСЬКА ЛАВРА: УПОДІБНЕННЯ СЕКТІ КРЕМЛЯ

I read it using Google Translate and it's sad to read that there is a sign on the premises of the monastery stating that Catholics, Protestants, and unbelievers are not welcome. The sign is shown in the video.

Do the monks need to be reminded that the crowns on the miracle working icon were given by Pope Clement XIV?

There's also this interview with the rector of the monastery: Після повернення П...иметься – настоятель

He is asked about the sign as well as about the time when the monastery was under the care of the Basilians.
Posted By: eamon

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/29/19 02:42 PM

I find the entire situation depressing, I have a Friend who is a Monk in the OCA , and like many there is a Russiophile, and he defended the use Russian and even kind of defended the signs telling Catholics and others they would not pray for them. I find this just heartbreaking.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/31/19 09:08 PM

Dear Swan,

I agree with your overall assessment. I've seen your website and your articles are deeply spiritual reflecting the best traditions of the Christian East. In praying the Rule of the Theotokos, I simply add a few words to each Hail Mary that reflects on the events under consideration (as the Holy New Hieromartyr St Seraphim Zvezdinsky outlined). I was amazed that St Seraphim of Sarov said that the Most Holy Theotokos indicated to him that this Rule of prayer was more important in the life of a Christian than any other prayer to her. I love quoting that to Roman Catholics who think Eastern Christians have poached that prayer from them . . . smile .

All the best,

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/31/19 09:13 PM

Dear Griego Amigo!

How wonderful to speak with you again!

Yes, I've read that article. I do think that things will get better with time as people get used to what is a new situation there. Tempers run high nowadays and things can get so overheated that they get out of control. Even I can get out of control - (yes, it is possible, if you don't believe me just ask our Administrator or Father Anthony).

If I can learn to read Russian, the Pochaiv monks can learn some Ukrainian and stop deprecating the language. Do you see how irenical I've become? It is all thanks to the past spiritual direction of John Vernoski!!

Cheers, Alex
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/31/19 10:25 PM

Found this little article about St Neilos and the monastery of Grottaferrata to be inspirational and an antidote to what ails Pochaev and others. Grottaferrata Think we can all learn.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 01/31/19 10:29 PM

This is where the UGCC Patriarch Josyf the Hieroconfessor would go to pray . . . thank you!
Posted By: dochawk

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 02/02/19 01:03 AM

bumbling around the the back of my crafty mind is a notion that *someone* should put Rome to the test on it's First Millennium overtures and appeal to Rome . . .
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 02/02/19 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by dochawk
bumbling around the the back of my crafty mind is a notion that *someone* should put Rome to the test on it's First Millennium overtures and appeal to Rome . . .


Bumbling around in my old mind is the question: Why?
Posted By: dochawk

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/01/19 04:27 AM

Rome has made overtures to the effect that nothing other should be required of the East than was in the first millennium. So is Rome willing to accept *its* first millennium role?
Posted By: ajk

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/01/19 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by dochawk
Rome has made overtures to the effect that nothing other should be required of the East than was in the first millennium. So is Rome willing to accept *its* first millennium role?


Not Rome exactly but Pope Benedict as expressed when he was Cardinal Ratzinger and, in a context that is usually not conveyed:

The Ratzinger Formula

Quote
Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.

Who would have the greater difficulty with the quid pro quo proposed?
Posted By: theophan

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/04/19 02:18 AM

Utroque:

Christ is in our midst!!

I think what doc has in mind is a gentle question posed to both sides of this problem in the Orthodox Church. "Can we somehow be a mediator in this? We don't want to get into the issues, but could we somehow bring you two together for the sake of the unity Christ wants for you?"

Bob
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/12/19 05:09 PM

Rome has had many commissions and debates over this with the Orthodox. But no movement from Rome on the issues Orthodoxy is very serious about - at least not yet. May I suggest the following actions Rome could take that would go a long way toward real rapprochement with Orthodoxy?

1) Rome could remove the Filioque from the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and amend previous creedal formulations during ecumenical councils that posited the Filioque. Rome could also get the World Council of Churches to agree on the original Nicene Creed as well.

2) Amend the canons/positions of the 8th Ecumenical Council to reflect the position on the Filioque as defended by St Photios the Great of Constantinople in that same vein.

3) Affirm a theology of Original Sin in keeping with the Cappadocian/Eastern perspective.

4) Affirm the later Latin dogmas concerning the Theotokos in a way that concludes there is nothing in the Eastern Church Mariology or Theotokology that requires "additions" or acceptance of the Latin dogmas.

5) Affirm prayer for the dead so as to avoid the term "purgatory" as being a necessity for the Christian East and also affirm that Eastern Eschatology bears the fullness of comprehensive Catholic truth and always has.

6) Affirm the role of the papacy within the context of a renewed Petrine Ministry where the jurisdictions of all Particular Churches is respected and that "jurisdiction" is understood as something that may only be exercised by Rome outside its own Particular Church when called upon to do so by either the hierarchy of another Particular Church or an ecclesial individual who feels he or she is being unjustly treated by his or her own Particular Church hierarchy.

7) Affirm the Orthodox calculation of Easter/Pascha which is based on the teaching of the earliest Councils.

I think that is a very good start - doesn't everyone? Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/12/19 05:11 PM

Oh, and I forgot something else.

Affirm the right of any Eastern Catholic Church to return to full communion with its Sister Orthodox Church and even encourage such to do so. In this way, Rome will put pay completely to the charge of seeking Uniate converts by Orthodoxy.
Posted By: SwanOfEndlessTales

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/12/19 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Rome has had many commissions and debates over this with the Orthodox. But no movement from Rome on the issues Orthodoxy is very serious about - at least not yet. May I suggest the following actions Rome could take that would go a long way toward real rapprochement with Orthodoxy?

1) Rome could remove the Filioque from the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and amend previous creedal formulations during ecumenical councils that posited the Filioque. Rome could also get the World Council of Churches to agree on the original Nicene Creed as well.


I think Rome should be allowed to keep the filioque provided it is understood in the same way St Maximus understood it.

Quote
2) Amend the canons/positions of the 8th Ecumenical Council to reflect the position on the Filioque as defended by St Photios the Great of Constantinople in that same vein.


I think there is reason to question this position as being definitive. In his righteous polemic against the Latin innovation, St Photios did a bit of innovating himself. I think the question of the procession of the spirit is so subtle and obscure that much of what is said on either side is at best speculative and at worst nonsense.

Quote
6) Affirm the role of the papacy within the context of a renewed Petrine Ministry where the jurisdictions of all Particular Churches is respected and that "jurisdiction" is understood as something that may only be exercised by Rome outside its own Particular Church when called upon to do so by... an ecclesial individual who feels he or she is being unjustly treated by his or her own Particular Church hierarchy.


This is bad news. It may sound like a restriction but if a bishop is given supreme appellate authority, which is activated by any dissatisfied individual in a local church, then any faction in any of the local churches can call on his intervention to resolve a dispute. Or, to put it differently, this bishop can intervene anywhere that he has friends on the ground. This is more or less how the Ecumenical Patriarchate justifies its unilateralism in Ukraine.

Quote
7) Affirm the Orthodox calculation of Easter/Pascha which is based on the teaching of the earliest Councils.



The principles for calculating Easter are the same in both east and west, we easterners just persist in using an outdated calendar. I think the Church of Finland has the right idea.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/15/19 04:50 PM

Dear Swan - Christ is in our midst!

With respect to the Filioque, I would agree with you. But would Orthodoxy? Rome would, of course, say it already understands the Filioque in the way St Maximos the Confessor did smile . Many EC Churches do not use the Filioque and have moved in their outlet from one where they saw its formal removal as a way to be ecumenical toward the Orthodox. However, today there would be those EC's who would also urge the Latin Church to drop it because it was not in the original Nicene Creed and presents an unnecessary canonical impediment to Orthodox-Catholic relations. RC theologians in dialogue with Orthodox theologians, as I've heard them myself, will affirm that Rome should move to restore the Creed to is earlier form. However, your position is most ecumenical!

As for St Photios, he is also beginning to appear in the calendars of EC Churches, notably the Ruthenian Catholic one . . . Suffice to say that I would be very afraid to even bring up what you've said about him to any Orthodox priest and to very many EC priests of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" theological perspective. But what you've more than earned my respect as an independent thinker sir.

And the Easter calculation is not, as I understand, entnirely dependent on which of the two calendars one uses - I am more than happy to stand corrected. The Church of Finland celebrates Pascha with the West NOT because of the fact that it calculates Easter based on the Gregorian calendar but because, as its hierarchy has affirmed, of adaptation to the much larger Western Christian body it lives with in Finland by the principle of adaptation. All other Orthodox Churches who are on the Gregorian Calendar calculate Easter independently of it and in accordance with the principles of the first two Ecumenical Councils, I believe. This is called the "Reformed Julian Calendar." Again, I am only too happy to stand corrected.

As for what I noted with respect to a reformed and universal Petrine Ministry, I don't believe I've said anything novel and have outlined, albeit sparsely, the general principle of that primacy as it was understood in the first millennium. I am happy to stand corrected otherwise. The Petrine Primacy does exist in Orthodoxy today and it is exercised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. There have been rumblings from the ROC denying this, but it has yet to flesh out their view ecclesiologically.

Finally, the issues surrounding the Ukrainian situation is often treated by who I will call "disconnected outsiders" as simply a game of ecclesial chess between Moscow and Constantinople with the Ukrainian Orthodox notably absent from the board moves.

What will it take to get the Moscow Patriarchate to accept the reality of what so many Ukrainian Orthodox want by way of an autocephalous Church and indepedence from the MP? Does that come as a shock to anyone today? Are those individuals so innocent of the history of those two Churches and the ensuing politics involved? And does Orthodoxy believe that social, cultural and political considerations don't mesh with their Churches? And is the Orthodox world blind to the glaring injustices committed by the MP towards the Ukrainian Orthodox historically. Not to mention the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church as well. Should not there, in future, be a mechanism within Orthodoxy whereby a church like the MP incur excommunication for its historic acts of collusion with its government to impose a double ecclesial and political imperialism on unwilling peoples?

Many former UOC-MP parishes which have united with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine have, truth be told, stopped commemorating in their liturgies not only the Moscow Patriarch but also Metropolitan Onuphrius. Have they not already been living in "schism?" Ukrainians are used to being called schismatics throughout their history, beginning with Roman Catholics who at one time saw Orthodox as being such and now by the MP.

The fact is that the Ukrainian Orthodox have never been happier since obtaining their Tomos of Autocephaly from His All-Holiness. I see their contentment on their faces every Sunday. I hear about it from my Orthodox relatives in Ukraine. Relations between Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholics have never been warmer. Moscow will just have to get over things and stop alppealing to its own interpretation of canon law. It should take the Great Fast to beg Ukrainian Orthodox and Eastern Catholics for forgiveness for what it did to these - as Father Alexander Schmemann once said at a theological conference in Edmonton "My Russian people committed a terribly grave sin against the Ukrainians." Time for some real instrospection by the MP.
Posted By: ajk

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/15/19 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
As for St Photios, he is also beginning to appear in the calendars of EC Churches, notably the Ruthenian Catholic one . . .
For Ruthenian Catholics, what calendar, what date?

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
And the Easter calculation is not, as I understand, entnirely dependent on which of the two calendars one uses - I am more than happy to stand corrected.
Stand corrected. For Orthodox and Catholics-Protestants there are just two operative methods/dates based on either the Gregorian or Julian calendar.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The Church of Finland celebrates Pascha with the West NOT because of the fact that it calculates Easter based on the Gregorian calendar but because, as its hierarchy has affirmed, of adaptation to the much larger Western Christian body it lives with in Finland by the principle of adaptation. All other Orthodox Churches who are on the Gregorian Calendar calculate Easter independently of it and in accordance with the principles of the first two Ecumenical Councils, I believe. This is called the "Reformed Julian Calendar." Again, I am only too happy to stand corrected.
Stand corrected.
Quote
The Finnish Orthodox Church (and, formerly, the Autonomous Estonian church) celebrates Easter according to the Gregorian calendar in order to comply with national legislation, which is unheard of elsewhere among the Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions. This has met with some disapproval among the Orthodox Churches elsewhere in the world.
Finnish Orthodox Church
Posted By: dochawk

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
\

7) Affirm the Orthodox calculation of Easter/Pascha which is based on the teaching of the earliest Councils.


While most of the others allow some progress, I think this one is actually backwards.

The early councils specified a means of calculating Pascha. The tables were to *implement* it, not supersede.

However, the way out for both is to dump the calendars and actually follow the astronomical calculations . . .

(actually, that it's the Orthodox holding onto the clearly incorrect tables that don't comply with the councils is one of the things that most baffles me . . .)

hawk
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 03:01 AM

Dear AJK,

Truly the difference in calendars affects the calculation (how could it not?), but I believe there is more to it than that. One of the sticking points is that the Western calculation of Pascha sometimes falls before Passover and this would be in violation of the tradition of the early Councils.

It isn't simply a matter of two calendar calculations coming up with two different dates of Pascha. The Reformed Julian calendar IS the Gregorian calendar with the date of Pascha calculated in a way that the rules governing the determination of Pascha are respected.

So you need to flesh out your argument some more.

And, Dochawk, I doubt very much that the Orthodox will agree with you . . . smile. Ah, what would we do if East and West finally did resolve these differences and became one? smile
Posted By: Santiago Tarsicio

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 03:15 AM


Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic


1) Rome could remove the Filioque from the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and amend previous creedal formulations during ecumenical councils that posited the Filioque. Rome could also get the World Council of Churches to agree on the original Nicene Creed as well.

2) Amend the canons/positions of the 8th Ecumenical Council to reflect the position on the Filioque as defended by St Photios the Great of Constantinople in that same vein.

4) Affirm the later Latin dogmas concerning the Theotokos in a way that concludes there is nothing in the Eastern Church Mariology or Theotokology that requires "additions" or acceptance of the Latin dogmas.



I think that the Marian dogmas are for the whole Church, it is revealed truth of the whole Universal Church and not only something for the particular Latin Church. I do not think it's something that any Catholic can choose. It is past time for some Eastern Catholics to defend what the Church believes.

In the same way, the Filioque is dogma. Understanding will always be according to dogma, even if the term is not in the Creed. The West for a long time professed the Creed without the term, but the understanding was unanimous - but at some point to avoid errors the term was added. Absence of the term does not imply in denial.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic

Affirm the right of any Eastern Catholic Church to return to full communion with its Sister Orthodox Church and even encourage such to do so. In this way, Rome will put pay completely to the charge of seeking Uniate converts by Orthodoxy.


St. Josafat Kuncewycz and other martyrs sacrificed in vain? This would only give reason for sedevacantistas or traditionalists (such as Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat, for example). The Magisterium can not contradict itself. If it was necessary to rid Christians of theological errors, it is not possible today to say that theological errors do not matter. If, for example, there are two statements that appear to be in contradiction, I think that the most authoritative document prevails.
Posted By: Santiago Tarsicio

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by SwanOfEndlessTales

I think there is reason to question this position as being definitive. In his righteous polemic against the Latin innovation, St Photios did a bit of innovating himself. I think the question of the procession of the spirit is so subtle and obscure that much of what is said on either side is at best speculative and at worst nonsense.


I believe it is possible to say that to the West, innovation is the negation of the Filioque. According to Sergei Bulgakov:

"In conclusion, we can say chat, co the extent they considered the problem of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Cappadocians expressed only one idea: the monarchy of the Father and, consequently, the procession of the Holy Spirit precisely from the Father. They never imparted co chis idea, however, the exclusiveness that it acquired in the epoch of the Filioque disputes after Photius, in the sense of ek monou tou Patros (from the Father alone)." (The Comforter, p. 80)

"the Augustinian theory of the Filioque was received in a natural and elemental manner in the West, without the participation of doctrinal theology, without new efforts to understand and prove this theory theologically. It was simply professed to be a self-evident theory and the only one that was possible. A whole series of Western writers, including popes who are venerated as saints by the Eastern church, confess the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son; and it is even more striking that there is virtually no disagreement with this theory." (The Comforter, p. 90).
Posted By: Santiago Tarsicio

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 04:15 AM

PS: Sorry, some letters were not recognized when I pasted the quote:

"In conclusion, we can say that, to the extent.... never imparted to this idea, however, the exclusiveness that it adquired in the epoch of the"
Posted By: ajk

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Truly the difference in calendars affects the calculation (how could it not?), but I believe there is more to it than that. One of the sticking points is that the Western calculation of Pascha sometimes falls before Passover and this would be in violation of the tradition of the early Councils.
Not true as has been pointed out on this forum many, many times by me and others referencing verifiable sources that include Orthodox commentators.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
It isn't simply a matter of two calendar calculations coming up with two different dates of Pascha.
It is that, two calendars each with respective computus, following the SAME prescription considered to be based on the authority of Nicaea I. They differ in that only one, the Gregorian, is sufficiently in harmony with nature, that is, the sun and moon.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The Reformed Julian calendar IS the Gregorian calendar with the date of Pascha calculated in a way that the rules governing the determination of Pascha are respected.
Not so.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
So you need to flesh out your argument some more.
I already have, many times in great detail in this forum but, first, you have to read them, and then make some authentic effort to understand. The bottom line: The Julian calendar and its Paschalion, because it fails to adequately describe nature, actually violates the prescription of Nicaea and the sacred Scripture on which it is based, while it stridently claims to uphold the same and thus, in my judgment, brings upon itself the description Orientale Tenebris. And the great disappointment is that those sitting in the darkness are content to do so, zealous and triumphant.


Posted By: ajk

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by dochawk
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
\

7) Affirm the Orthodox calculation of Easter/Pascha which is based on the teaching of the earliest Councils.


While most of the others allow some progress, I think this one is actually backwards.

The early councils specified a means of calculating Pascha. The tables were to *implement* it, not supersede.

However, the way out for both is to dump the calendars and actually follow the astronomical calculations . . .

(actually, that it's the Orthodox holding onto the clearly incorrect tables that don't comply with the councils is one of the things that most baffles me . . .)

This is so. Astronomical calculations are neat and tidy and quite accurate but an overkill that I believe is an out, a face-saving measure for Old Calendarists that in the end is to no avail anyway. The astronomical method also departs from the framework of Nicaea and the prescription of Scriptural Passover on which it is based. It is an alternative that I once supported but now think is an elaboration that in the way it interprets the rule can alter the intent of the rule. The Julian computus was in accord with the rule and is numerically elegant but, unfortunately, nature does not function as modeled by the Julian computus. The Gregorian calendar and computus is a, probably the, true revision of the Julian in that it maintains a connection to the Julian methodology: While attaining the desired correspondence with nature, that is the sun and moon, it cleverly maps its corrections back onto key, familiar features of the Julian computus.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by dochawk
bumbling around the the back of my crafty mind is a notion that *someone* should put Rome to the test on it's First Millennium overtures and appeal to Rome . . .


Bumbling around in my old mind is the question: Why?


Going back a month and a half, I'd like to answer my own rhetorical question which I do not think anyone has adequately addressed:

Rome has put herself to the "Test" many,many times expressing in many documents, going back to Popes Benedict XV to Benedict VI , her love and affection for the Churches of the East separated from her communion, asking very little except that they reciprocate. .

Vatican Council II gave expression to that same love and affection, again appealing for reciprocity. I may be wrong, but I think it is the practice to officially invite the separated churches of the east to participate in those major Councils that have been held in the west since the separation.

St. Pope Paul VI and His Holiness, Patriarch Athenagoras mutually lifted the Anathemas imposed in 1054. This in itself establishes a kind of Communion.

It may be apocryphal (but I don't think so): it is said that the same Pope knelt and kissed the feet of a legate of His Holiness in the Sistine Chapel.

Rome readily accepts that Catholics of any rite may approach the chalice for communion in any Orthodox Church, but we know this is not accepted or reciprocated by the Orthodox.

An official international dialogue has been established, and ongoing for many years. Need more be said?

The fact is, there just is not enough documentary evidence from the first millennium to establish who is right on the issue of Primacy in the Church. There is weight on both sides and both are Orthodox, although there are no first millennial denials of Roman Primacy that I know of. We all need to be "tested" given the critical times in which we breathe.

Last evening I went to a beautiful Akathist at the Greek Orthodox church just down the street. I cried at the beauty; but, more,I cried at the separation of our churches. Why cannot we be in communion? Is it because that ancient old Roman liturgy is just too plain and simple, and the Orthodox are afraid that they would be overrun by sheer numbers? No, they would not. It is Rome that would be the richer, and she wants to be.Why? Because she has passed the test, but she need not give herself away. I would like to see Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome be put to the "test" by casting aside their "latinisms" which the Orthodox perhaps see as more an obstacle than the "Filioque" and such! This is the "Why" of an old man still waiting.
Posted By: Santiago Tarsicio

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque

St. Pope Paul VI and His Holiness, Patriarch Athenagoras mutually lifted the Anathemas imposed in 1054. This in itself establishes a kind of Communion.


It was a symbolic act, it effectively changes almost nothing.


Originally Posted by Utroque

Rome readily accepts that Catholics of any rite may approach the chalice for communion in any Orthodox Church, but we know this is not accepted or reciprocated by the Orthodox.


This does not proceed, the catholic who does so is in grave sin. A Catholic can only seek the sacraments in an orthodox church only when he is in need and is physically or morally unable to receive from a Catholic minister.
The Church understands that Orthodox Christians, because they are not in communion with the legitimate bishops and because they are in error in the faith, use the sacraments improperly.

But the Church, being a merciful mother, wants to rescue those children who lost themselves, she will always seek communion.


Originally Posted by Utroque

The fact is, there just is not enough documentary evidence from the first millennium to establish who is right on the issue of Primacy in the Church. There is weight on both sides and both are Orthodox, although there are no first millennial denials of Roman Primacy that I know of. We all need to be "tested" given the critical times in which we breathe.



For the Roman Catholic Church the Roman primacy is manifested in the Scriptures, in the Councils, in the Fathers, etc., and to end the doubts the dogma was solemnly defined in the First Vatican Council - so that there is no turning back in this matter.


Originally Posted by Utroque

Last evening I went to a beautiful Akathist at the Greek Orthodox church just down the street. I cried at the beauty; but, more,I cried at the separation of our churches. Why cannot we be in communion? Is it because that ancient old Roman liturgy is just too plain and simple, and the Orthodox are afraid that they would be overrun by sheer numbers? No, they would not. It is Rome that would be the richer, and she wants to be.Why? Because she has passed the test, but she need not give herself away. I would like to see Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome be put to the "test" by casting aside their "latinisms" which the Orthodox perhaps as more an obstacle than the "Filioque" and such! This is the "Why" of an old man still waiting.


Sorry, but this seems wishful thinking. The unity of all Christians is certainly desirable, it is a scandal that is disjointed, but unity only in truth - being realistic, I do not see how it is possible for the Church to undermine its own doctrine to please Christians who are in error, this would be a very scandal greater and would only interest the devil.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 09:14 PM

Dear Santiago Tarsicio,

No, I don't believe St Josaphat died in vain. But they died for a FORM of church communion that is no longer relevant to today. Roman Catholic theologians at Balamand and others have discussed this. The Church unias of yesteryear are no longer relevant to today's Orthodox-Catholic discussions.

As for the Marian dogmas of the West, you are looking at it with Roman Catholic eyes. The Eastern Churches do not accept the Augustinian view on the stain of Original Sin. That changes everything for the Christian East.

I know that the Filioque is dogma in the Catholic Church. But it can be "developed" to avoid the issues that divided the Church in the past. If as Swan has said here the Filioque can be "recast" as Maximos the Confessor understood it, then there could be no problem.

The removal of the Filioque from the Creed, however, is a different matter not having to do with dogma, but with canonicity. For Rome to remove the Filioque does not imply it is rejecting it - only going back to how the Nicene Creed was used for the first millennium.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 09:24 PM

Dear AJK,

Yes, I have read your comments. I've also shared them with friends who are Orthodox priests and scholars who don't agree with you (and those others).

If we are arguing that the calendar that should be in vogue is the one that is "most correct" then that is one thing. And saying the Orthodox have it backwards or are otherwise deficient here or there won't cut it - not with them (I'm not referring to "liberal Orthodox" who don't represent the positions of their Churches). Even Pope Francis has been known to favour adopting the Orthodox Easter for purposes of unity. Apart from the calculation of Pascha itself, there is the problem that the Western calculation sometimes puts Easter before Passover - I have it on good authority that the Orthodox don't accept this except for a couple of exceptions.

You expound and teach with great knowledge. But your bedside manner accusing me of not reading or understanding what you wrote is quite offensive since you don't know me, my academic background or my professional experience. If your perspective is "read it and know the truth" then that is an unacceptable paradigm of conversation for any person of some intelligence and education.

Will leave it at that as I'm getting too old for the old Byzantine Forum shenanigans. I hope an Orthodox commentator could come on and take this further. Alex
Posted By: Santiago Tarsicio

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic


No, I don't believe St Josaphat died in vain. But they died for a FORM of church communion that is no longer relevant to today. Roman Catholic theologians at Balamand and others have discussed this. The Church unias of yesteryear are no longer relevant to today's Orthodox-Catholic discussions.


"Uniatism" as a method is not accepted even by the Eastern Greek-Catholic churches. Eastern Catholic churches are no longer understood as methods, for they are authentic living churches, living members of Christ, they have the right and duty to evangelize, they have a voice in the Church. Moreover, for example, in the case of the Ukrainian Church, the Greco-Catholics are authentic successors of the Church of the region, could very well claim the patriarchy in Kiev. Therefore, it does not make the slightest sense to encourage Eastern Catholics to leave their respective particular churches to join churches that are not in communion.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic


I know that the Filioque is dogma in the Catholic Church. But it can be "developed" to avoid the issues that divided the Church in the past. If as Swan has said here the Filioque can be "recast" as Maximos the Confessor understood it, then there could be no problem.

The removal of the Filioque from the Creed, however, is a different matter not having to do with dogma, but with canonicity. For Rome to remove the Filioque does not imply it is rejecting it - only going back to how the Nicene Creed was used for the first millennium.

Alex


Yes, I believe that would not be a big problem for Rome, because the Creed was used in the past without the term. However, if it is an occasion for doctrinal relaxation or dubiety it is not something that must be sought.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/16/19 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Santiago Tarsicio
[quote=Utroque]
St. Pope Paul VI and His Holiness, Patriarch Athenagoras mutually lifted the Anathemas imposed in 1054. This in itself establishes a kind of Communion.

It was a symbolic act, it effectively changes almost nothing.


It was most certainly not symbolic anymore than the imposition of such is or was symbolic.


Originally Posted by Utroque

Rome readily accepts that Catholics of any rite may approach the chalice for communion in any Orthodox Church, but we know this is not accepted or reciprocated by the Orthodox.

This does not proceed, the catholic who does so is in grave sin. A Catholic can only seek the sacraments in an orthodox church only when he is in need and is physically or morally unable to receive from a Catholic minister.
The Church understands that Orthodox Christians, because they are not in communion with the legitimate bishops and because they are in error in the faith, use the sacraments improperly.

But the Church, being a merciful mother, wants to rescue those children who lost themselves, she will always seek communion.



Come, Brazilian brother! Even though there are restrictions, Rome does readily permit "communio in sacris" with the Orthodox brethren. I'm not sure what you mean by "morally unable", but with the scandalous behavior of some RC priests and prelates, perhaps that would be close to moral inability.
Grave sin? Lord, have mercy! Beyond the refusal to accept the Primacy of Rome as Catholics understand this, there is no "error in the faith" among them, and to say that the use the Sacraments improperly is an insult.



Originally Posted by Utroque

The fact is, there just is not enough documentary evidence from the first millennium to establish who is right on the issue of Primacy in the Church. There is weight on both sides and both are Orthodox, although there are no first millennial denials of Roman Primacy that I know of. We all need to be "tested" given the critical times in which we breathe.


For the Roman Catholic Church the Roman primacy is manifested in the Scriptures, in the Councils, in the Fathers, etc., and to end the doubts the dogma was solemnly defined in the First Vatican Council - so that there is no turning back in this matter.


The Primacy of Peter may be found in Scripture, but that that Primacy has been assigned to Rome is not found there. That it is an ancient and deeply held belief of the Roman Church, and that has been affirmed by some Fathers is without question. Many are silent. I know of no Ecumenical Council within the first millennium that made any clear statement that would affirm the Roman claim. On the other hand, the Orthodox east has preserved a concept of Synodality that has recently been awakened in the Catholic west. In any case, the issue is part of the blessed dialogue that's going on. You might give it a chance.


Originally Posted by Utroque

Last evening I went to a beautiful Akathist at the Greek Orthodox church just down the street. I cried at the beauty; but, more,I cried at the separation of our churches. Why cannot we be in communion? Is it because that ancient old Roman liturgy is just too plain and simple, and the Orthodox are afraid that they would be overrun by sheer numbers? No, they would not. It is Rome that would be the richer, and she wants to be.Why? Because she has passed the test, but she need not give herself away. I would like to see Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome be put to the "test" by casting aside their "latinisms" which the Orthodox perhaps as more an obstacle than the "Filioque" and such! This is the "Why" of an old man still waiting.


Sorry, but this seems wishful thinking. The unity of all Christians is certainly desirable, it is a scandal that is disjointed, but unity only in truth - being realistic, I do not see how it is possible for the Church to undermine its own doctrine to please Christians who are in error, this would be a very scandal greater and would only interest the devil.


Please do not be sorry for my wishful thinking. I always make sure that it is more than that. One does not make things happen by proposing their desirability. The Akathist Hymn and short Compline at St. Vasilios last night was truthful and beautiful, and without error. Amen
Posted By: Santiago Tarsicio

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/18/19 12:27 AM

Utroque,
Hello brother, Christ lives!

Originally Posted by Utroque
It was most certainly not symbolic anymore than the imposition of such is or was symbolic.


Well, I think that from the Catholic point of view the excommunication of Cerularius did not immediately implicate entire territories of the Eastern world. Legend has it that Cardinal Humberto after informing Cerularius of his excommunication, followed for Kiev where it was normally received by the metropolitan of the Rus of Kiev. I think that the Eastern world has fallen into schism as the Orientals have been acquainted and taking sides in the matter.

Now, the joint declaration of Paul VI and Athenagoras says:

"They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion."

"Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-v...-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html

What changes effectively with this? It seems to me only one: "let's forget the struggles of the past and dialogue civilly from now on."


Originally Posted by Utroque

Come, Brazilian brother! Even though there are restrictions, Rome does readily permit "communio in sacris" with the Orthodox brethren. I'm not sure what you mean by "morally unable", but with the scandalous behavior of some RC priests and prelates, perhaps that would be close to moral inability.
Grave sin? Lord, have mercy! Beyond the refusal to accept the Primacy of Rome as Catholics understand this, there is no "error in the faith" among them, and to say that the use the Sacraments improperly is an insult.


The primacy of Rome is an important issue, but I would say that it is not the only one.

Elias Zoghby (Archbishop Greek-Melkite) proposed inter-communion among the churches, but the proposal was rejected by both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, for this is impossible without unity in the faith. If the proposal were implemented, a new church would be created that is neither one nor the other (or one would absorb the other).


Originally Posted by Utroque


Please do not be sorry for my wishful thinking. I always make sure that it is more than that. One does not make things happen by proposing their desirability. The Akathist Hymn and short Compline at St. Vasilios last night was truthful and beautiful, and without error. Amen



Certainly they are beautiful, what is beautiful and true came from the one Church of Christ.
Posted By: SwanOfEndlessTales

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/18/19 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Swan - Christ is in our midst!

With respect to the Filioque, I would agree with you. But would Orthodoxy? Rome would, of course, say it already understands the Filioque in the way St Maximos the Confessor did smile .


At the Council of Florence St. Mark of Ephesus proposed St. Maximus' letter as a basis of agreement, but the Latins at the time refused to consider it and insisted on the "eternal spiration from the Father and Son as from one principle."

Quote
Many EC Churches do not use the Filioque and have moved in their outlet from one where they saw its formal removal as a way to be ecumenical toward the Orthodox. However, today there would be those EC's who would also urge the Latin Church to drop it because it was not in the original Nicene Creed and presents an unnecessary canonical impediment to Orthodox-Catholic relations. RC theologians in dialogue with Orthodox theologians, as I've heard them myself, will affirm that Rome should move to restore the Creed to is earlier form. However, your position is most ecumenical!


Of course if the Catholics want to just drop the filioque, that makes things easier but if the mere presence of the term was not enough for St. Maximus to declare the Latins heretical then I don't feel a need to insist on it now. I think we should all take a step back from the 9th century polemics and realize we have no idea what anyone was talking about!

Quote
As for St Photios, he is also beginning to appear in the calendars of EC Churches, notably the Ruthenian Catholic one . . . Suffice to say that I would be very afraid to even bring up what you've said about him to any Orthodox priest and to very many EC priests of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" theological perspective. But what you've more than earned my respect as an independent thinker sir.


I'm not crazy about the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" thing. It strikes me as unprincipled and flakey. If you want to be in communion with Rome, own it, accept their dogmas- don't to pretend to be something else.

Quote
As for what I noted with respect to a reformed and universal Petrine Ministry, I don't believe I've said anything novel and have outlined, albeit sparsely, the general principle of that primacy as it was understood in the first millennium. I am happy to stand corrected otherwise. The Petrine Primacy does exist in Orthodoxy today and it is exercised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. There have been rumblings from the ROC denying this, but it has yet to flesh out their view ecclesiologically.


The EP has essentially asserted universal jurisdiction for itself (see their latest letter to the Church of Albania.) Universal jurisdiction, by any bishop, was not a generally accepted concept in the first millennium and it is definitely not Orthodox. Believe me, the objections are far from restricted to the ROC. The Phanar has now fomented a churchwide crisis and I hope a council will be convened soon to correct its error.

Quote
Finally, the issues surrounding the Ukrainian situation is often treated by who I will call "disconnected outsiders" as simply a game of ecclesial chess between Moscow and Constantinople with the Ukrainian Orthodox notably absent from the board moves.


I've already made my thoughts on the Ukrainian situation known. My point here is that, whatever one might think of the specific question of Ukrainian autocephaly, the unilateral and arrogant manner in which Constantinople has effected it is reprehensible and comes from an underlying ecclesiological principle that is not Orthodox.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/18/19 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by SwanOfEndlessTales

I've already made my thoughts on the Ukrainian situation known. My point here is that, whatever one might think of the specific question of Ukrainian autocephaly, the unilateral and arrogant manner in which Constantinople has effected it is reprehensible and comes from an underlying ecclesiological principle that is not Orthodox.


This action of the Ecumenical Patriarch is not some recent innovation. In rather recent times, the EP has rejected the autocephalous status of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) precisely because it was granted by Moscow and not Constantinople. Autocephaly has been granted a number of times by the EP, has made this known to all and nearly all in the Orthodox Church know this. Does not the term Ecumenical Patriarch imply some kind of primacy, and is not Primacy exercised in the Orthodox Church all the time? Your Canonical Territory or Mine?
Posted By: SwanOfEndlessTales

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/18/19 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by SwanOfEndlessTales

I've already made my thoughts on the Ukrainian situation known. My point here is that, whatever one might think of the specific question of Ukrainian autocephaly, the unilateral and arrogant manner in which Constantinople has effected it is reprehensible and comes from an underlying ecclesiological principle that is not Orthodox.


This action of the Ecumenical Patriarch is not some recent innovation. In rather recent times, the EP has rejected the autocephalous status of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) precisely because it was granted by Moscow and not Constantinople. Autocephaly has been granted a number of times by the EP, has made this known to all and nearly all in the Orthodox Church know this. Does not the term Ecumenical Patriarch imply some kind of primacy, and is not Primacy exercised in the Orthodox Church all the time? Your Canonical Territory or Mine?


This is conflating two separate issues which are 1. the EP's alleged prerogative of granting autocephaly; 2. the EP's alleged right to intervene within the canonical territory of other autocephalous churches. Both are debatable but they are different levels of power.

Regarding 1. Yes, for a while now, the EP has claimed the sole right, outside of an Ecumenical Council, to grant autocephaly. That this right is not universally accepted is proved by the ancient autocephaly of the Church of Georgia, which was granted by Georgia's mother church, Antioch. Nowadays the EP is claiming to have granted Georgia's autocephaly too but if you read the tomos the EP actually sent Georgia, it is worded more as a recognition of a historic fact. HOWEVER the EP had previously claimed that such grants of autocephaly always had to be done with conciliarity and pan-Orthodox consultation.

In the specific case of the OCA the MP of course exercised unacceptable unilateralism in declaring their autocephaly- something which Patriarch Athenagoras pointed out, saying that autocephaly should be granted only with the approval of the other Orthodox churches and the unanimous agreement of the hierarchy of the local church being granted autocephaly. Patriarch Athenagoras further goes to state that this autocephaly can only be given final legitimacy by a pan-Orthodox council.

In the case of Ukraine, the EP did not seek the approval of other Orthodox Churches, nor did it care about unanimity among the local bishops. And when several churches wrote to the EP, requesting a pan-Orthodox council to address the matter, the EP responded with a refusal to convene such a council, stating in its letter to Antioch that such a council would be pointless, as everyone would disagree anyway. And in their letter to Albania they wrote: "At the Phanar, we preach the genuine inheritance of ecclesiology because we draw from the wellspring of our Fathers and not from self-interest or other trivial motivations and political expediencies. Consequently, it is the responsibility of all others to assimilate these disclosed truths – not, of course, in order to validate them, inasmuch as they are already authentically validated by ecclesiastical practice, but rather to restore the precious and authentic experience of the Fathers, who hoped in God alone, to the proper and sanctified way." So the Phanar no longer feels any need to consult with its brother churches- it is their role to simply validate its decisions.

Regarding 2., in the aforementioned letter to Albania, the EP declares "the supervisory provision and protection of the Great Church of Christ intervenes – sometimes ex officio and out of obligation, at other times at the request of interested parties." In other words, the EP operates not only as an appellate court, receiving and resolving cases from local churches, but as holding the right to interfere in other churches as it sees necessary. This can hardly be distinguished from Rome's claim of universal jurisdiction. The only practical difference is that the other churches do not accept this and there is no mechanism in place to enforce the Phanar's will everywhere. Where the Phanar can act is where it has some friendly faction on the ground, and/ or a government willing to enforce its will, as in Ukraine. This is enough to cause plenty of chaos.
Posted By: theophan

Re: Pochaev Monastery - 03/18/19 04:35 PM

Christ is in our midst!!

This thread has moved far afield from the original topic. For that reason, I am closing it and asking the posters to consider opening new topics in the appropriate subfora.

Bob
Moderator
© 2020 The Byzantine Forum