Ιn Estonia, Ethnophyletism Returns With A Vengeance!..

Markos, I hear your complaints, but I believe the things you mention, or allude to, are not reasons why the Russian Church has broken communion with the Phanar. I believe it is only the Old Calendarists that invoke your complaints as sufficient reason for breaking communion, and they have not just broken communion with the Phanar, but also with all the recognized Local Churches, including Russia.

The Russian Church has a long history of accepting Uniate clergy into the Orthodox Church without ordination. Historically, this practice was considered rather questionable by the Phanar. However, Patriarch Bartholomew has openly stated that he now accepts the Russian Church’s practice.

Joseph,

There are many practices perpetrated over the centuries by various Patriarchates that are “questionable”, depending on who is “doing whatever they want” at the helm… and that includes 70 years of communist-imposed “agent-bishops” in Moscow…an era of questionable “bishops” (including Philaret and his concubines/offspring), whose actions you are trying to “normalize” in some way or another…you’ll really need a more reliable comparison point.

I haven’t seen “very recent history” of accepting legitimately “defrocked” clergy and their followers-turned-Uniate back into Moscow’s jurisdiction either, so twisting things the way you do is quite amusing at best…And for a question that is difficult to answer…before “accepting” a controversial practice that Moscow may have adopted in times past, why didn’t Bartholomew FIRST accept the scriptural verse that states “let your yes mean yes”, given that for 27 years he signed his own name consistently on letters to Moscow asserting that Philaret was a deposed schismatic and that Kiev was Moscow’s jurisdiction?

Besides, the decision to “accept” their ordination appears to have had more to do with a substantial monetary gift from Poroshenko than any imitation from Moscow based on what was reported in the media at the time…of course, that would be considered Simony, and by default these ordinations can easily be declared invalid by a future Synod as a result. It would be interesting if the recent efforts to expose government waste one day include the exposure of the Poroshenko money trail. That would be quite fun to “see”…

In the meantime, how many Russian metropolitans have been photographed or witnessed kissing the Pope’s ring over the years? Where did Bartholomew’s metropolitans “look up to” in order to learn, “accept” and imitate that practice? I’ve asked you in the past if you are in favor of Canons being applied…there exists a Canon regulating what happens to clergy who receive blessings from a heretic. Wanna explain to everyone here what it says?

Markos, the Russian Church’s practice of receiving anathematized and schismatic clergy without ordination, and not just Uniate clergy but also regular Roman Catholic clergy, dates back to at least the time of Tsar Peter the Great, and probably even further. Sure, canons could certainly be brought up that would require ordination, but for political reasons it was expedient for the Russian Church to waive those canons and use economia for their reception. It’s sometimes the case that the bishop’s decision of whether to strictly apply the canons or to waive them often boils down to the given political situation.

In other words, if the Russian Church wanted to receive the OCU by economia and without ordination of their bishops, it is not actually a problem for them to do so. History shows this. Yet for political reasons made evident by the current war in Ukraine, that would pose a problem for the Russian Church as it would go against the Russian State’s current interests. To be consistent here, the Russian Church is presently using ecclesial canons primarily to defend the interests of the Russian State.

Yes, bishops can change their minds, and they often do when the political circumstances change. Patriarch Bartholomew has said that he changed his mind about receiving the schismatics in Ukraine when war broke out in 2014.

As regards to allegations of simony, it is just allegations. Nothing has been proven. Patriarch Bartholomew says he only received chocolates from Poroshenko. Regardless, the sin of simony is on the clergy who commit it. That doesn’t by itself “invalidate” any sacramental act.

Remember also that Moscow’s autocephaly, granted in 1589 by Patriarch Jeremias II, was provided as part of a fund-raising mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The fact that he said that he received just chocolates from Poroshenko will forever stay as a prime example of his conniving and disgusting character. He has lost ALL credibility before people and his only remaining step is to approach with repentance God for forgiveness.

Helleniscope has uncovered forever Bartholomew’s true colors when we presented to him evidence of flagrant homosexuality of Emmanuel (then of France) and Maximos – among a myriad other sins. Instead of finding a form of punishment for them he inexplicably promoted them forever proving that he is leading a hellish institution.

Joseph,

You are referring to Moscow anathematizing, and Moscow re-accepting at a later date. That is not what is happening here.

In this case, Moscow anathematized, Constantinople concurred for 27 years, and due to “political” or “chocolate” pressures, they decide to “accept” while Moscow is obviously still “anathematizing”, and was the ORIGINAL “anathematizer”.

There is also a Canon on the books that clergy anathematized by Synod A cannot be accepted canonically by Synod B, unless (by a separate canon) Synod A somehow has turned heretical / schismatic itself. This violation alone (if you don’t like the Simony one) would also be a reason to depose all those bishops by a future Synod. The Church Fathers’ pen was much wiser than your “propagandist” pen, fortunately for all of us.

The comparison to Peter the Great or any “Uniate acceptance” action that was historically isolated within the jurisdiction of Moscow isn’t working, because the facts of the scenario is quite different in the current “tomos” situation. The flagrant violation of Canons and the obvious “flip-flopping” that Constantinople perpetrated cannot be ignored.

Markos, the Patriarch of Constantinople anathematized the Roman Catholics in 1054, am I right? So, how is it that the Russian Church can later decide to undo that anathema by themselves? That anathema wasn’t lifted until 1965, I believe, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, but apparently the Patriarch of Moscow had no problem lifting it by themselves hundreds of years prior and whenever they wanted to.

Whether you agree with it or not, the logic of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (not the Ecumenical Patriarchate, by the way) is that the privilege granted to Moscow in 1686 of jurisdiction over Kiev was rescinded in 2018. As of 2018, according to Constantinople, Moscow no longer has canonical jurisdiction in Kiev. So again, according to that logic, the right to reverse an anathema made earlier by Moscow would then revert right back to Constantinople. I’m not trying to convince you here, but that is the logic as I understand it.

What are you even talking about Joseph?

When did Moscow restore Communion with the Vatican for anathemas to be “ceased” with the Roman Catholic Church? You clearly have no idea what the “ceasing of anathemas” (vs. lifting as you are referring to it) actually meant. Do you even know what the word really means in Greek, or where in the service books the collection of anathemas issued by the 7 Ecumenical councils exist, or are you even aware that they were traditionally read on the Sunday of Orthodoxy up until this “ceasing of anathemas”? Some jurisdictions still read them today, by the way.

But in order to “understand it” (the currently twisted logic you are referring to), you’ll probably need to take some Greek classes first, because I’m quite certain you haven’t really read the original 1686 documents Constantinople has been touting, and you are relying on an intentionally biased and corrupt synodal interpretation of them from the year 2018…

However, in the publication “Το Ουκρανικο Αυτοκεφαλο” by Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis (professor at the University of Thessaloniki), apart from an analytical breakdown and explanation of the REAL meaning of these words, there is a wonderful executive summary that presents an academic interpretation of these documents that differs from that which you are reading:

‘…Τα δυο εγγραφα που επικαλειται το Οικουμενικο Πατριαρχειο παρερμηνευονται και κακοποιουνται. Η υπαγωγη του Κιεβου στην Εκκλησια της Ρωσιας βασει αυτων ειναι ολοφανερη. Απο ΠΟΥΘΕΝΑ δεν προκυπτει οτι ειναι ΠΡΟΣΩΡΙΝΗ και οτι παραμενει το Κιεβο υπο την δικαιοδοσια της Κωνσταντινουπολης. Για αυτο και επι τρισημισυ τωρα αιωνες (1686-2018 [year of publication]) δεν διανοηθηκε η Κωνσταντινουπολη να την διεκδικησει. Μονο τωρα με την ΚΑΚΟΠΟΙΗΣΗ και ΠΑΡΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ των εγγραφων το επιχειρει, χαριζομενη στους Ουνιτες, στους σχισματικους και στους δυτικοπληκτους της Ουκρανιας, και διαιρουσα τους Ορθοδοξους…” (page 98)

Furthermore, it’s quite important to remind people of the contents of Bartholomew’s 1992 signed letter to Patriarch Alexei of Moscow where he agreed that Philaret is non-canonical, as well as the jurisdiction of Kiev belonging under Moscow:

“…Εις απαντησιν προς σχετικα τηλεγραφημα και γραμμα της Υμετερας λιαν ημιν αγαπητης και περισπουδαστου Μακαριοτητος, επι του ανακυψαντος προβληματος εν τη καθ’Υμας αδελφη Αγιωτατη Εκκλησια της Ρωσσιας, οπερ προβλημα ωδηγησε την Ιεραν Συνοδον αυτης οπως προβη, δι’ους οιδεν αυτη λογους, εις την ΚΑΘΑΙΡΕΣΙΝ του αχρι προ τινος εκ των τα πρωτα φεροντων Συνοδικου μελους αυτης Μητροπολιτου του Κιεβου κυριου Φιλαρετου, ΕΠΙΘΥΜΟΥΜΕΝ ΙΝΑ ΓΝΩΡΙΣΩΜΕΝ ΤΗ ΥΜΕΤΕΡΑ ΑΓΑΠΗ ΑΔΕΛΦΙΚΩΣ ΟΤΙ Η ΚΑΘ’ΗΜΑΣ ΑΓΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΜΕΓΑΛΗ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΑΝΑΓΝΩΡΙΖΟΥΣΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΑΚΕΡΑΙΟΝ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΙ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΜΑΤΟΣ ΑΠΟΚΛΕΙΣΤΙΚΗΝ ΑΡΜΟΔΙΟΤΗΤΑ ΤΗΣ ΥΦ’ΥΜΑΣ ΑΓΙΩΤΑΤΗΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣ ΤΗΣ ΡΩΣΣΙΑΣ, ΑΠΟΔΕΧΕΤΑΙ τα Συνοδικως αποφασισθεντα περι του εν λογω, μη επιθυμουσα το παραπαν ινα παρεξη οιανδητινα δυσχερειαν εις την καθ’Υμας αδελφην Εκκλησιαν…” (page 83-84)

And by the way, why don’t you also mention to the public how many times Kiev asked Moscow for Autocephaly (that obviously wasn’t granted), proving that apart from a strange time of anomaly when the Polish empire had conquered Kiev and the Uniates took over buildings, etc (just like the 4th Crusade took over Constantinople with Latin priests, etc for 57 years), the Russian Church canonical presence and jurisdiction in Kiev was always a de facto truth.

In short, and per the original Greek documents above, your logic above is flawed to the core, and you are spreading Uniate, twisted neo-Constantinopolitan propaganda that is not consistent with the facts of history.

And if you don’t Fr. Theodore Zisis for some reason, Fr. Gotsopoulos in another 2018 book titled Ουκρανικο Αυτοκεφαλο – Συμβολη στον Διαλογο reaches similar conclusions…

And if you don’t like fr. Gotsopoulos either, why didn’t Archbishop Anastasios of Albania who was theoretically a life-long friend of Bartholomew agree with Constantinople on this matter and vehemently protested the Schism that was brought about?