www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Patriarch Kyril visits Ukraine

"The patriarchal seat will never be moved back to Kyiv"

The patriarchal seat can not be "moved back" to Kyiv because it was never there to begin with. Kyiv had a Metropolia under the omophor of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Let's just explore this for a moment...
For the sake of Unity within all of the churches who claim "Kyiv/Kiev" as it's Mother City, and the Moscow Patriarchate claiming Kiev for its own, then why couldn't the See be moved? Doesn't Moscow claim Ukraine as its canonical territory?

By moving the See, it preserves the idea of the historical origin of the three Slavic churches...Russian, Ukrainian and Bylo-Rus. It would also allow these three churches to share governance without prejustice. The only other alternative would be to recogize the Kyivan Patriarchate and call it a day.

Ray

Slavopodvizhnik asks us the above question. The difference is that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have ecclesiological differences, which lead to different ways of doing things. Emmanuel Milingo may do as he pleases, but claiming to start his own Roman Catholic Church would not be likely to accomplish much. Patriarch Filaret, on the other hand, is following a well-established precedent in Orthodox practice in Eastern Europe.

Fr. Serge

The Bulgars set the precedent, way back in the 9th-10th centuries.

"Patriarch Filaret, on the other hand, is following a well-established precedent in Orthodox practice in Eastern Europe."

How so?

The Bulgarian Church, which StuartK refers to, proclaimed it status as a Patriarchate in circa 910 and it wasn't until 927 that Constantinople recognized it as such. This was brief and the Byzantines conquered Bulgarian and Macedonia in 1018 and reduced the patriarchate to the rank of autocephalous archbishopric.
This is from CNEWA history of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Also interesting to note is this.

"Bulgaria regained its independence in 1186 with the establishment of the second empire based at Turnovo. After lengthy negotiations the Bulgarian church recognized the supremacy of the Pope in 1204. But this agreement ended in 1235 when the Bulgarian Emperor made an alliance with the Greeks against the Latin Empire in Constantinople, and the Byzantine Patriarch recognized a second Bulgarian Orthodox patriarchate in return.

Turnovo was conquered by the Turks in 1393 and the Bulgarian lands were absorbed into the Ottoman Empire. The Bulgarian church was integrated into the Patriarchate of Constantinople which replaced the higher clergy with ethnic Greeks. This situation continued until the 19th century when rising Bulgarian nationalism compelled the Ottomans to allow the reestablishment of a national Bulgarian church as an autonomous exarchate in 1870. Constantinople reacted strongly and declared the Bulgarian church schismatic in 1872. This rift continued long after Bulgaria became a principality in 1878 and an independent kingdom in 1908. It was only in 1945 that the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized the Bulgarian church as autocephalous and ended the schism. The Metropolitan of Sofia assumed the title of Patriarch in 1953 and he was recognized as such by Constantinople in 1961."

CNEWA-Bulgarian Orthodox Church [cnewa.org]

Was the Bulgarian Church being led by a defrocked heirarch?

Depends on who you asked.

Was the leader of the Bulgarian Church at the time considered defrocked? In the opinion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, yes they were Schismatics.


Why was Filaret excommunicated? Because he became the leader of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kievan-Patriarchate). CNEWA- The Ukrainian Orthodox Church- Kievan Patriarchate [cnewa.org]

The similarities, historical are there.

Good discussion. Praying for a reunited Church!

More succinctly, for the purposes of the present discussion: the ROC excommunicated the head of the UOC-KP (as distinct from the suggestion that an excommunicate former bishop of the ROC formed the UOC-KP, which reverses the order of events).

hawk

There were also a lot of rumors about criminal activity and malfeasance on the part of Filaret, but nothing every came of it, leading me to see it as classic Soviet-style desinformatsiya.

Actually, former Metropolitan Filaret Denisenko was defrocked prior to his association with the schismatic KP. He was only excommunicated after the KP was in existence. So, as it stands, the first heirarch of said organization is, in fact, a laymen, and thus, devoid of Episcopal Grace. And as of now, an excommunicated layman, and thus outside of the Grace of the Church. May God have mercy on him and lead him back to the Church.

Alexandr

There were rumors aplenty regarding various sordid dealings of the former Metropolitan, but without proof, there is no need to go into them here. Suffice to say that his schismatic activities are enough to condemn him without the need for idle speculation regarding sordid matters.

Alexandr

I remember the identical statement regarding Dionisije of the Serbs in the diaspora. Dionisije then proceeded to create a hierarchy out of ... well, a source which also lacked the Good Churchkeeping seal of approval.

But time is a great healer. A few decades later, Dionisije had gone off to his reward (concerning which we shall not speculate!) and Patriarch Pavle of Serbia, newly-elected to that position, decided that it was time to reconcile the matter. With the aid of the Ecumenical Patriarch the schism was indeed reconciled, nobody had to be "reordained)", let alone remarried or rebaptized, communion between the two sides was restored, and a pastoral patience was applied to give time for reconciliation on the local level. Thanks be to God!

This is not intended as a defense of the person of Dionisije.

Fr. Serge

There is no doubt the former Metropolitan Filaret Denisenko is a barrier to any hope of reconciliation between the the two Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. Perhaps, when he is "gone off to his reward (concerning which we shall not speculate!)" then a serious dialogue about an united autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church can be had.