EDITOR’S NOTE (Markos). A statement was released from the conclusion of the “10th Synaxis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate”. While there is certainly a lot to unpack from this statement, and while there will be a lot of discussion going on for many days about some of the views and details announced, we can probably classify most of these points into 2 categories:
=================
RAPID DEVELOPMENTS – Meeting of the Patriarchate: Proposal for a Common Easter of Orthodox and Catholics – Are they on the way to the Union?!
More detailed
The announcement of the Patriarchate in detail:
At the invitation and under the chairmanship of His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Mr. Bartholomew, the venerable Hierarchy of the Ecumenical Throne, with the participation of the High Priests of the Autonomous Churches under its normal protection, met in the Synaxin. of Finland and Estonia, in the City of Constantine, from the 1st to the 3rd of September 2024.
The Synaxis, which began with the usual introductory speech of His Holiness and with the rebuttal of the first of the Hierarchs of the Throne Rev. Metropolitan Elder of Chalcedon, Mr. Emmanuel, included the following five thematic sessions, dedicated to the study of issues related to the life and witness of the Holy Christ the Great Church in the contemporary world, with a pan-Orthodox and pan-Christian scope:
(a) “Orthodox and inter-Christian relations”, with remarks referring to the effects of the unfolding bloody war in Ukraine for ecclesiastical affairs in that country and in the Baltic States, as well as for Western Europe, so called, ” Orthodox Diaspora”. This was followed by speeches on the course of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches and on the contribution of the Church of Constantinople to the Council of European Churches and to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Dialogue Forum in Europe.
(b) “Normal liturgical issues”, where issues were developed regarding observed deviations from the standard and liturgical tradition of the Holy Church of Christ the Great, as well as cases of incitement through the use of general information media.
(c) “The Mother Church in the contemporary world”, with presentations on the very topical issue of artificial intelligence (AI) in general, and with reference to the Church, and its care in the face of the doubts and spiritual searches of today’s young people .
(d) “Church and geopolitical issues”, with a presentation of the genesis, development and application of the theory of the so-called “Russian world”. Indescribable was the condemnation by the Hierarchy of the Throne of his ideology and the transformation of the Church into a secular institution and its instrumentalization for the promotion of state interests, as well as the continuing war in Ukraine after the unprovoked invasion of of the Russian Federation on the territory of a sovereign state.
The assembled Hierarchs turn their thoughts and prayers to the millions of our brothers in Ukraine and pray to the Lord of Peace for the immediate end of the war and the establishment of a just and stable peace in winter-stricken Ukraine, but also in the long-suffering Middle East and also to the Holy Land, where the seat of the Palaifat Patriarchate of Jerusalem is also located. Also, the members of I. At the Synagogue, they also prayerfully remembered the other ambassador of the Patriarchate of Antioch and prayed for the peaceful situation in Syria and Lebanon.
At the end of this session, the relevant Letter of His Beatitude, the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, Mr. Theodore II, dated August 31, was read to inform the Seventh Hierarchy about immorality and all contrary to the sound ecclesiology of the Moscow Patriarchate’s invasion of the canonical territory of the pontificate Church of Alexandria and the caused division and scandal of the people of God in Africa.
The Synaxis unanimously and unanimously condemned the above illegal actions of the Church of Russia and expressed its undivided support to the troubled Patriarchate of Alexandria and to the tested Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
(e) “Orthodox monasticism and mission”, referring to the Orthodox mission to the Antipodes and to Orthodox male and female monasticism in the 21st century, as well as to the relations of the Mother Church of Constantinople with St ros.
The participants praised the excellent organization of the Synagogue, the topicality of the discussed topics and the fact that they demonstrated the truly ecumenical dimension and responsibility of the Great Church. The Synaxis functioned as a forum for dialogue and an opportunity for comprehensive discussions, which were fueled by the current issues and the quality and high level of the presentations.
In his closing speech, His Holiness reminded the Seventh Hierarchy that during the last ecclesiastical year, at the end of May 2025, the official celebration of the 1700th anniversary of the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council will take place in Nicaea, Bithynia. ῇ with the participation of His Holiness Pope Francis in person . The current Synaxis of the Hierarchy of the Throne was dedicated to this historical anniversary, a fact which was expressed by the choice as the central motto of the Synaxis of the hymn from the Vespers of the Sunday of the Holy and God-bearing Fathers gathered in Nicaea him, the Who, among others, also dealt with the issue of the regulation of the date of the celebration of Easter: “following their ancient doctrines, certainly believing we worship, … in one Godhead, Triad omousion”.
In this spirit, it is expressed in the name of Easter, in the Easter, in Easter, in the Eastern and Western Christianity, not to be a successful one, The year, in accordance with the Easter of our Orthodox Church.
This was followed by the rebuttal of the first of the present Metropolitans of the New Countries, Rev. Metropolitan Didymoteichos, Orestiad and Souflios Mr. Damascene. The works of the Synagogue were concluded with the usual final sequence.
In the Patriarchate, on September 3, 2024
Celebrating Pascha with the Western churches would not be a bad idea. The question is, are we going to follow their calendar and they will follow ours?
ANAXIOS!
Marcos, once again you present faulty information. Where you present the faulty information to deceive or out of ignorance , I took the time to read the canons of the Council of Nicea and there is no mention of date of Easter as you erroneously stated.
Additionally , the emperor Constantine convened the council and was a primary spokesman -this was done before he was baptized. Yes, a pagan was leading the discussion and praying with the participants. When St Constantine was baptized, shortly before his death, he was baptized by Eusebius an Arian bishop. St Jerome confirms that Eusebius was an Arian . Finally, a canon states that the Cathari, a group of heretics, were not required to be rebaptized, in fact their clergy were accepted . Church history is messy and produces inconsistency.
I find no problem with attempting to find a common date for the Paschal celebration with the Catholics but affirm that the Orthodox practice makes the most sense.
JESUS is LORD.
I agree that the Orthodox date for Pascha is the most accurate. We follow the Jewish Passover by a week. After all, Jesus went to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover and that’s when He was captured, tortured and crucified. It makes the most sense
RESPONSE BY MARKOS
Congratulations on taking the time to read the specific “20 Canons” of the 1st Ecumenical council.
We have written in the past about the technical Greek word Κανων vs. Νομος, so we won’t reiterate what was already discussed, but there is a new twist to discuss here. Did you bother to read about the rest of the Ecumenical Council decisions too, or were you looking at merely a “specific slice of the pizza”?
Is the Symbol of Faith that was agreed upon in the 1st Ecumenical Council not considered Dogmatic enough for you, to have become a prerequisite to every Orthodox Catechism & Baptism, which is a widely known mandatory component of our Church’s “Canonical, Universal Pre-Baptismal & Baptismal process” to become Orthodox?
Was the calculation of date of Pascha also not agreed upon at that Council? Is not the chart reflecting the calculation of dates of Pascha frequently referred to as the “Πασχαλιος Κανονας” (or Κανονιον) in our Liturgical books, even though it wasn’t listed as one of the “20 Canons” (Κανονες) in the “slice of the pie” that you read? Unfortunately, you are stepping upon linguistic banana peels, not readily differentiating between the variant technical use of two words that frequently are translated with the same spelling in English… “Canon” (Κανων) and “Canon” (Κανονιον). Nevertheless, you’ll need to solve that “linguistic gap” problem on your own. And by the way, in the future it may be beneficial to also read sources such as St. Fotios’ Nomokanonion book, as well as the Δωδεκαβιβλος by St. Dositheos of Jerusalem
Now that this misunderstanding has been cleared up, let’s proceed to the next ones. concerning St. Constantine, his baptism, the Council, etc…
1) Most patristic sources agree that after the year 312, when he saw the vision of “εν τουτω νικα” and subsequently was victorious in battle with the sign of the Cross on his soldiers, St. Constantine not only became “friendly towards Christianity”, but several of the sources also specify that he did become an official Catechumen, too. St. Paul also had a vision on the road to Damascus, and until he was baptized, he was certainly a Catechumen too, for at least a few hours / days / weeks / etc before he was formally baptized. Whether or not St. Constantine was considered a Catechumen for more time (years) by the Church is irrelevant, because the Church historically has always prayed for and WITH the ranks of the Catechumens since the early days. As a result, to call him a “pagan” after the year 312, (especially by the year 325 when the Council was convened) may be inaccurate, if not ignorant.
2) Concerning St. Constantine “convening” the Council. Per Patristic commentary, ALL Ecumenical councils were convened by Emperors…that is a big distinction from other Councils. (See St. Nikodemos’ footnotes in the Pedalion).
3) Concerning St. Constantine being “the primary spokesman” at the council…Eusebius of Kaisaria (Not Eusebius of Nikomedia) states in his “Life of Constantine”(3,13) that St. Constantine «παρεδίδου το λόγο τοις προέδροις» …so your attempt to portray the emperor as the “primary spokesman” is not accurate.
4) Concerning St. Constantine’s baptism by Eusebius “the Arian”… Eusebius of Nikomedia ended up ultimately signing the condemnation of Arianism at the 1st Ecumenical Council, but Constantine did in fact send him to exile for a fair amount of time due to his defense of Arius during most of the Synod. It is not clear as to why Arius was defrocked officially, but Eusebius signed and avoided defrocking as a result. Even today, we see many Orthodox “bishops” that technically are still Canonical because the Synod has not defrocked them, meaning their mysteries are still valid, but privately and often publicly they exhibit heretical demeanor. There is no reason why this was not also the case back in the day. However, you still need to be very careful of your sources…for many years, the Arians spread propaganda that still proliferates today that ONLY Eusebius of Nikomedia baptized St. Constantine. This propaganda was precisely in order to “legitimize” Arianism on on more “solid footing”. However, in the monumental work of St. Dositheos of Jerusalem called Δωδεκαβιβλος, in Book 1, Chapter 20, Paragraph 6 (Δοσιθεου Δωδεκαβιβλος, εκδοσεις Ρηγοπουλου, τομοι Α&Β σελ 214-217), there is a clarifying detailed discussion about “Περι διαφορων και γνωμων πολλων που εβαπτισθη ο μεγας Κωνσταντινος, και παρα τινων, και περι των εν Ρωμη και Αρελατω Συνοδων.” As it turns out, the history of the matter is that “some wanted to prove that St. Constantine was baptized in Nikomedia”, others that “he was baptized in Rome”, and yet the other Eusebios of Kaisaria wrote that he was baptized in a suburb of Nikomedia, and by multiple bishops at that. Here is an interesting extensive quote for your further edification:
“…τριτον, οτι ου λεγει τον Νικομηδειας Ευσεβιον βαπτισαι τον αγιον, ουτε μην ολως μνημην ποιειται αυτου, αλλ’οτι ο Κωνσταντινος συγκαλεσας τους Επισκοπους κοινως αυτοις διηλεχθη περι του βαπτισματος, και οτι ουκ εβαπτισθη προτερον, οτι εβουλετο απελθειν και βαπτισθηναι εν τω Ιορδανη ποταμω. Οι δε Επισκοποι κοινως τα νομιμα τελουντες, θεσμους επληρουν θειους, και των απορρητων μετεδιδοσαν, οσα χρη προδιαστειλαμενοι. το δε οσα χρη, δηλοι το ουχ απλως και ως ετυχε βαπτισθηναι, αλλα ΚΑΤΗΧΗΘΕΝΤΑ ΥΠΟ ΤΩΝ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΩΝ, τα περι του βαπτισματος δηλονοτι, ως ο Σωζωμενος φησι βιβλιω δευτερω, κεφαλαιω εσχατω. Ουκ ην δε η τοτε παρακολουθησασα τω Βασιλει κατα το εικος κοινοτης των Επισκοπων αιρετικη, αλλ’η ορθοδοξος και ομοπιστος αυτω, και μαλιστα οι εγκριτοι των εν Κωνσταντινουπολει παρευρεθεντων Επισκοπων ησαν οι ακολουθησαντες αυτω. Εστι δε ειπειν και τουτο, οτι Νικομηδειας Ευσεβιος απο των συγγραματων αυτου εκριθη Αρειανος, και ει εβαπτισθη υπο του Νικομηδειας Ευσεβιου ο μεγας Κωνσταντινος, εγραψεν αν τουτο Ευσεβιος εις καυχισιν αυτου, ΑΛΛ’ΟΥΚ ΕΓΡΑΨΕΝ, επειδη ΟΥΚ ΕΒΑΠΤΙΣΕ ΑΥΤΟΝ Ο ΕΥΣΕΒΙΟΣ, ΑΛΛ’Η ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΩΝ ως ειρηται…
5) As for your mention of the Cathari, sure…what exactly is the big news you are proclaiming with this point? The Church put Canons in place as to discern which of the heretics would be received with baptism, which with only Holy Myrrh (Chrismation), and which with a simple recitation of “rejection of their false dogma and acceptance of the Orthodox faith”…so what’s your point? The Cathari fell under one of those categories. That’s not big news here.
And now, back to our main topic:
However, nobody is allowed to change the calculation of the date of Pascha, except for another Ecumenical Synod. That’s exactly why “unilateral decisions” on Church Calendar topics such as those fueled by Patriarchs Meletios Metaxakis and his “friendly LOCAL Synods” in years past result in ecclesiastical Schism. For those (including clergy) who applaud arriving at “common date” in the manner that Bartholomew suggests (by sitting down with the Pope unilaterally, absent of an Ecumenical Council), why don’t they simply consider joining the Vatican ahead of time and leaving the rest of us who prefer Orthodox Tradition alone? The road is wide open and the “dogs are tied”, as the Greek saying goes. We have suffered enough Schism already…
Εσύ ρε παιδί μου , κάνεις την τρίχα τριχιά ……
I agree with you JK… the Catholic Church should celebrate Easter on the same date as the Orthodox Church… and for all the right reasons Bobbi Karp layed out ! Makes all the sense in the world! And bonus time…it will isolate the Heretic Church of Zion, the Evangelical Protestant Church… as exactly what they are .. false prophets of Zionism , not Christianity ! Hillarious , I wonder if the Protestants know, they are not in line with the Chosen peoples religious celebration dates , like the Orthodox Church! Which begs the question, how is an alleged Jewish Zionist leader of Ukraine able to change the Christmas date of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Ukraine ..to the “Protestant date of America” ?
What do you think JK and Bobbi… makes sense to me and apparently you! And I am sure Catholics , being told, that they are the ones out of line with both Orthodox and Jewish calendars ..will embrace this change!
This is not the time, since it is unlikely that several traditionally Orthodox nations would not be joining in this move. Think of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Bosnia, and Serbia. Also, there is the matter of the “New Countries” referenced at the end of the article. I believe that is a reference to northern Greece, which was liberated after 1830.
Additionally, here in the US, having most Easters on a separate date gives the opportunity to encourage Protestant and Catholic visitors to come to our Easter services, giving increased opportunity for conversions.
At this point just let them do it. Draw a clear-cut line in the sand and let things play out.
If they choose to start celebrating Pascha with the heterodox then it will only be them that does so. It will be a clear demarcation that the EP is no longer Orthodox. It’s de jure right now, why not make it de facto. The Greek parish in town will celebrate Pascha with the Roman Catholic and Protestants while the other Orthodox parishes in town will celebrate with the rest of the Orthodox world.
It’s time to cut off the rotten EP vine and let the rest of the Orthodox world go along with the salvation of souls. For too long the Orthodox hierarchs from the other jurisdictions have remained silent.
I know it’s wrong to pray for the demise of someone, but, may God free us of Bartholomew and his EP minions.
It is somewhat surprising and disappointing that the “New Lands” bishops went along with this as the Church of Greece takes a much stronger stance.
Αυτό δεν είναι πρόβλημα αλλά ασπίδα για την σωστή Ορθοδοξία.
No, there won’t be any actual union. Right now, bishops of both Catholics and Orthodox are trying to make some kind of diplomatic peace. Moscow is fully onboard with doing this also, but now separately from the Phanar. That’s not a bad thing either. However, when the Catholics start feeling threatened by the Orthodox (it’s coming), the Pope will easily drop the diplomacy and label the Orthodox as schismatics and declare war against them.
Yes, Moscow may be on board – but I am fairly sure they would insist in keeping with Orthodox synodic traditions. And this is our bigger problem – the fact that Bartholomew is acting like a one-man ruler.
The bigger problem for the last thousand years has been the Pope of Rome. It was the Pope of Rome who originally supported the Unia in Ukraine, and it is largely because of that Unia that a separate Ukrainian identity exists today. Ever since, Ukrainians have been estranged from Russia.
In 1946, the Moscow Patriarchate attempted to reverse the Unia at their highly controversial Council of Lvov. It was really a fake council initiated by Joseph Stalin, where the Uniate bishops were locked up, and the Moscow Patriarchate then ordained two laymen as replacement bishops to head the council. That council banned the UGCC, and declared the Uniate clergy as automatically Orthodox by the simple approval of a document. This is a prime example of the Moscow Patriarchate’s willingness to accept schismatic clergy without re-ordination and by the stroke of a pen. Strangely enough, the Moscow Patriarchate has never recanted it either, even though it turns out that the Council of Lvov was largely unsuccessful.
In the late 1980’s, with glasnost and perestroika, the UGCC re-emerged with the support of the Ukrainian government. The UGCC began reclaiming (or seizing) Orthodox churches that had been formerly Uniate. So this phenomenon of church seizures by local villagers in Ukraine is sort of embedded into their grass-roots national consciousness. It’s not a new thing at all.
So what is the Orthodox solution to the Ukrainian identity that was created by the Pope’s Unia? We can observe that the approach of Moscow’s 1946 Council of Lvov obviously didn’t work. Later, we can see that Patriarch Alexy II’s granting of wide autonomy to the Ukrainian church in 1990 only resulted in a major schism that still hasn’t gone away. Now, it could be argued that Russia’s current approach is simple annihilation, an attempt to destroy the Ukrainian identity by war. That later approach, however, is doomed to fail, much like any unsuccessful attempt at genocide.
The more balanced Orthodox approach would be to offer Ukraine autocephaly in such circumstances. That’s something that the Pope of Rome simply doesn’t do. The autocephalous churches ecclesiology stands completely against the papal model. However, to this day there has been no such offer of Ukrainian autocephaly forthcoming from the Moscow Patriarchate.
Your position assumes that Ukraine was and is under Moscow Patriarchate. UOC has declared a status of autonomy from Moscow, esp. after 2022. The intervention of Bartholomew where he had no business to intervene (according to his own official letters and statements) complicated the matter further because it introduced politics in purely ecclesiastical matter.
Joseph,
There appears to be a slight problem with this specific conclusion you posted…
“…This is a prime example of the Moscow Patriarchate’s willingness to accept schismatic clergy without re-ordination and by the stroke of a pen….”
In 1946, ROCOR was alive and well in the USA, and they were not in Communion with Moscow, for known reasons, and it is also known what Moscow did with OCA in the interim…So in general, actions of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1946 under Stalin cannot possibly be considered “historical benchmarks” of “prime examples” or “precedent” that would stand the test of time… Remember that Filaret himself was a “happy KGB Metropolitan of the Moscow Patriarchate” with concubines, offspring, and lavish apartment life in Moscow before the collapse of Communism, and a return of “some” ecclesiastical order returned to the Patriarchate in Moscow (resulting in his defrockment of course)…
Also, it certainly wasn’t Patriarch Alexei’s granting of more autonomy that resulted in this [pre-existing] schism. Deep down, the “Unia” in an otherwise “Atheist Soviet Union” was “only on paper”… People in the 1990s reverted to whatever their grandparents told them that “they belonged to” prior to 1946…plain and simple…Polish/German/Russian DNA basically dominates those regions…affiliation with the either the Vatican or Moscow was what the grandparents knew from their ancestors…that’s a stronger cultural/social undercurrent than any Patriarchal letter or decree…of course, that’s precisely what you pointed out with your other statement “So this phenomenon of church seizures by local villagers in Ukraine is sort of embedded into their grass-roots national consciousness. It’s not a new thing at all”, but not 100% complete. A LOT of Church buildings were destroyed under Communism…these Uniates weren’t just forcefully “reclaiming” what previously belonged to them, but they were also confiscating additional buildings that didn’t belong to them to begin with…
Out of curiosity though, why don’t you also mention how ex-KGB Filaret showed up in the Washington beltway around 1990 after he no longer “had a job”,(looking for new bosses, perhaps?), and then “suspiciously” returned after a couple years to self-proclaim himself as “Patriarch of the Ukraine”? We can’t discount that certain governments would have loved to take advantage of the aforementioned social/cultural/Uniate undercurrents to sway these former USSR territories to benefit their interests?
Basically, Communism put the problems that the Vatican originally caused a few centuries earlier into a “deep freeze”, and never really solved them. But, because the Ukraine has some strategic and economic value, it has become “the land of opportunism” and the inhabitants are clearly being pitted against each other by the “overlords” of corrupt government officials in hopes of a “pay day” down the road…and right now, unfortunately, the only businesses making good money in the Ukraine these days are the undertakers.
Markos, the normal way of receiving Uniate clergy into the Moscow Patriarchate, since at least the time of Peter the Great, has been by confession and then vesting them in the altar after the Cherubic Hymn. This is, for example, how St. Alexis Toth was received into Orthodoxy from being Uniate. Re-ordination was not considered for the reception of Uniate clergy, even though as a group, they have been schismatic and graceless for hundreds of years. The 1946 Council of Lvov was actually not much of a departure from the historical practice of the Moscow Patriarchate, and it is a more current example of a group of Uniate clergy being received simultaneously into Orthodoxy.
Perestroika and Glasnost in the late 1980’s would later allow for the Uniates to have legal registration in Ukraine, essentially reversing the Council of Lvov. If you read the old pravoslavnie.ru stories from that time, the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine was subsequently overcome by violent church seizures by these newly proclaimed Uniates. Of course the MP strongly objected to these seizures by still defending their 1946 Council of Lvov as legitimate. However, there is now a general truce between the Uniates and Moscow, especially under Pope Francis. We don’t exactly read much about church seizures by the Uniates anymore, because now they are instead being seized by villagers who support an independent Ukraine and the OCU. The time may soon come, though, when those same villagers begin seizing the Uniate churches also and having them registered under the OCU. That will be interesting.
While the wide autonomy that was granted in 1990 to Ukraine by Patriarch Alexy II did not directly result in a schism (I was oversimplifying for sake of brevity), I believe it’s fair to say that his later refusal to grant the unanimously requested autocephaly in 1991 did in fact bring about a schism. Patriarch Alexy II insisted on autonomy, not autocephaly. It was a deal breaker for some. To this day, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onuphry references that 1990 granting of autonomy from Patriarch Alexy II as their canonical origin. As for the schismatics of that time, they rejected it. There hasn’t been communion between the two ever since.
Joseph,
There has not yet been an official “8th” Ecumenical Synod to update guidelines SPECIFICALLY about decisively and conclusively dealing with Roman Catholic and multitudes of Protestant heretical positions in a homogenous manner at a pan-Orthodox level…therefore variances across jurisdictions on receiving them into Orthodoxy can be observed today, and local Churches sometimes select differently based upon 3 “general processes/options” that Canons from prior Ecumenical Synods provide for in the case of “heretical converts”, based on “interpreting” which of the 3 earlier categories one of these “newer heresies” closest belongs to…That’s the reason for the observed variance, not only across Autocephalous Church jurisdictions, but also within the same jurisdiction “over the course of time”, depending on the level of conservativeness that the members of that Synod exhibit on the matter.
Nevertheless, the bishops will have to answer for their decisions if they end up selecting the “incorrect option” in these cases…
And until all Orthodox bishops are “on the same page”, the bigger and more immediate problem to focus on is to ensure that the individuals that they accept into Orthodoxy are NOT “luke warm”, because that causes “cracks in the foundation of our community’s faith”, spiritual confusion, dilution of tradition, and eventually results in additional schisms and even heresies in the future…(as we have sadly observed over the past 100 years for sure, especially in North America, where the pressure to “fill the pews” has visibly resulted in “laxed conversion & catechism criteria”)….That is the biggest practical threat here…did for example those Uniates that Moscow “accepted” over the centuries whole-heartedly reject and “spit upon” their prior “Uniate mindset & dogma” when they were accepted as Orthodox, or did any of them retain a “soft spot” for the Vatican, that perhaps they passed on quietly to future generations, to end up with the mess that we observe in the Ukraine today where prior to 2014, the “ex-KGB, ex-Communist Moscow Metropolitan Filaret” was claiming to be the “Orthodox” Patriarch of the Ukraine, and a lot of “confused” individuals followed him? If that’s not a classic example of a “false Prophet”, then what is?
Η Ορθοδοξία θα λάμψει στην Ρωσία
και θα διαλύσει την κόπρον του Αυγέα .
I don’t know church history or politics nearly as extensively as the rest of you, but from reading the article (thank you Markos) and the comments, what is becoming very clear to me, is this: if I, an unworthy sinner, am becoming sick and tired of the “orthodox” charades in our Church, I can only imagine how our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ must be feeling about all the phoney lip service He is getting. Escalating nausea will eventually lead to Emesis and a complete catharsis of His Church. He wants a PURE Bride, so get ready to become a remnant if you’re interested. Personally, I can’t wait to be done with Bart and his whole entourage. Maranatha!!!
Joey, thank you for the history you provided. I am confused at a seeming inconsistency. You state that the Uniates were graceless schismatics and yet the clergy were not re-baptized and re-ordained. Obviously, there was an acceptance of sacramental grace among the Uniates.
JK, thanks for bringing this point up. There is recognition of the sacramental form that is followed by the Uniates, but this is different from having the sacramental grace of the Orthodox Church. That sacramental grace is received when schismatic Uniates reconcile with the Orthodox Church. The grace of reconciliation is very powerful. Since the Uniates already followed the form, the Russian bishops decided all that was missing was the grace, and therefore a simple reconciliation with the Orthodox church provided all that was lacking.
There are other examples of schismatics who have closely followed the sacramental form of the Orthodox Church, though without possessing her sacramental grace. If the basis of the schism was entirely political and not theological, such as with the Uniates (who don’t use the filioque in their Creed anyways), then it would be conceivable that they could be received even without chrismation and re-ordination of their clergy. Again, the grace of reconciliation provides what is lacking.
In the case of the schismatic UAOC (Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church), they had an accidental instance where the sacramental form was not followed. This was their ordination of the UAOC bishop Vasily Bodnarchuk in 1990. This schismatic bishop Vasily was ordained only by his brother, Ioann, a former bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate. However, according to sacramental form there should be at least two bishops involved in an episcopal ordination. It turns out that the other “bishop” present at that ordination was a charlatan and impostor named Vikenty Chekalin, who fooled everybody into believing that he was a bishop of ROCOR. So, it turns out that the schismatic UAOC bishop Vasily was only ordained by one former bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate. Although by accident, the sacramental form here was not followed, and this was the main explanation why Filaret went into a schism with the UAOC and founded the so-called “Kievan Patriarchiate”. This “Kievan Patriarchate” was scrupulous in following the exact same rubrics and form as Moscow. However, when Constantinople would later reconcile with these two groups, the form of Vasily’s 1990 episcopal ordination (episcopal ordination by a singular bishop) was accepted, and historical examples of such exceptions to the rule were later provided. There are indeed other historical instances of Orthodox bishops who were ordained by only one bishop.
Joey, I think the distinction you are making between form and grace is an artificial distinction. Form is meaningless without grace. The Pharisees were strident in their adherence to religious forms but were far from the kingdom Please read Isaiah 1:13 also 2 Timothy 3:1-4. God must be worshipped in spirit and in truth. Form has no value without grace.
Jk, the passages you bring up are exactly what I am writing about. “Vain oblations” and having the “form of godliness but denying it’s power”. The distinction of having form without the grace of the Church is a reality of schismatics outside the Orthodox Church. Some schismatics simply have better form though than others. That seems to be a consideration by the bishops in how schismatics are received into the Orthodox Church.
If we read about the reception of Protestant converts to Orthodoxy, the bishops pay attention to the form of Protestant baptism. For example, they note whether the baptism was done in the Name of Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, and whether it was a triple immersion, or whatever other criterion is important.
If the bishops are satisfied with the form used by Protestants, then they may decide the form doesn’t need to be repeated. This doesn’t mean that Protestant baptism is valid, legitimate, or sufficiently Orthodox either. It just means that they sufficiently followed the essential form of Orthodox baptism. The actual grace of Orthodox baptism is then given when the Protestant is received into the Orthodox Church, and in Russian practice this is often (but not always) simply through chrismation.
Joey, essentially what you are saying is that if a ritual is practiced in a particular form then the baptism is valid. I take it mean that there is grace in the protestant church and rebaptism is not required. Of course, if a group is not trinitarian or denies the divinity of Christ the baptism is rejected even if done in the correct form.
The problem nowadays is that autocephalous Churches seem to apply different standards on this topic, precisely because the specific forms of heresy today (Protestantism [including openly LGBT+ female ‘Priestess’ baptisms], Papism, and other sects did not exist during the times of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils. There were a couple “non-Ecumenical” Council determinations about receiving Roman Catholics, As a result, the bishops are trying to interpret based on precedent, but an Ecumenical Council is long overdue on this subject. It is an extremely “hard sell” to state that a LGBT “priestess / bishopess” has the grace of priesthood, and yet, today, some jurisdictions don’t “examine beneath the covers” to understand “who exactly” was the bishop in charge where the baptism in question took place. I feel that the Church Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils would have a strong opinion on some of these “very controversial sects”, that would be quite different from current practice…
Had Constantinople not undermined “the original proposed list of topics” assembled over 60 years prior, in order to create “a different agenda” in the otherwise failed 2016 council of Kolymbari, maybe we would have had some progress on universal Orthodox aligninment on this topic. Fr. Theodoros Zisis, professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, who was on the committees preparing the topics for 30 years released plenty of youtube videos in 2015 / 2016 where he explains exactly what “the original 60-year list of discussion topics” contained, and expressed his frustration at how this long-standing list was undermined in favor of “Constantinople’s different list”, which became a big factor contributing to a snubbing of major autocephalous Churches from attending. (The other major factor was the insistence upon a disproportionate “cap” on “voting” bishops, to ensure that Constantinople’s proposals would “pass” no matter what).
JK, there is grace everywhere. The whole universe exists by the grace of God, even the demons. However, the grace of the Orthodox Church is only received by her sacraments, and specifically what I am writing about here is the sacrament of being reconciled with the Orthodox Church.
It is not the tradition (or forms) that unite the Orthodox Church. There are many schismatic groups who are rigorous in their practice of traditional form, the Old Calendarists of Greece are just one example. Do you think a bishop’s anathema against schismatic groups has no power?
St. Nicholas Cabasilas points out that the unity of the Church is instead threefold: it is through the bishop, the altar (the hand of God in the church), and the saints. These are all interconnected. The bishops exist by being ordained at the altar and by the apostolic succession of the saints. The altar is consecrated by the bishop and the relics of the saints. The saints exist by receiving the grace of the Church in the sacraments of the altar and by their eventual glorification by the bishop. Together, this is the unity of the Orthodox Church in Christ. If one of these is dropped, then the whole unity falls apart. We can’t say that we don’t need the bishop, nor can we say that we don’t need the altar, nor can we say that we don’t need the saints.