ΕΑΝ ΠΡΟΤΙΜΑΤΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΠΑΤΗΣΤΕ ΤΗ ΣΗΜΑΙΑ ΣΤΟ ΚΑΤΩ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΟΘΟΝΗΣ
By Markos (Helleniscope’s Religion Editor)
There is no true Orthodox Christian alive who would NOT like to see the day when the “unity of the Faith” is achieved.  There is no doubt about this.  However, the path to such a Unity must first center on Dogma and Truth, and on their full and unconditional acceptance by those who are not currently aligned with the Truth.  The path to true Unity starts with defining who has the True Faith, and who doesn’t.  Two variant truths cannot coexist as both being “true” as a matter of logical principle.  Plain and simple, with no complications or exceptions.   The path to Unity is NOT “ignoring” differences & Canons of the Church, and CERTAINLY NOT compromise of the Orthodox Faith and Tradition.  The path to Unity of the Faith does NOT go through the heresy of “Syncretism” (focusing only on “similarities” and totally ignoring “differences”)…
Jesus Christ did not use the term “False” in vain when he spoke of “False Prophets”.  The Church Fathers did not waste their time when they set Canonical boundaries to protect the True Faith from pollution and corruption.   St. Basil did not waste his words when he carefully defined for us in his 188th letter what a Schism, Heresy, and Illegal Congregation each are.  St. Mark of Ephesos did not waste his words when he insisted that the Latins are Heretics, and not Schismatics. The Canons of the Ecumenical Synods are clear, and they apply to all clergy and lay people, and they explicitly forbid “common prayer with heretics”.
Yet, sadly, what we saw in Constantinople was just that.  “Common prayer” with the Papists, and others.  Yet, nobody is going to be deposed (per the Canons), nor will any violator resign on his own…
And while the Greek media (and others) are playing along with the propaganda machine, trying to point at Pope Leo XIV saying “look…he didn’t recite the Filioque” and passing it on as some sort of “Orthodox diplomatic victory”, they totally ignore the fact that Rome has accepted and actively used two official Creeds for several centuries now, especially visible in Uniate ridden territories where the Papists “mask” themselves as Orthodox, but pledge allegiance to a single “supreme Pope of Rome”…Thus, a Pope reciting the Nicene creed is actually not a surprise, and we trust the readers won’t “take the bait” on that propaganda.
What would have been a surprise, and a REAL STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, but did NOT happen in Constantinople this weekend, would have been for the Pope to recite the proper Nicene Creed, and declare to the entire Roman Catholic world that the Filioque will NEVER be used again…that would have been a REAL STEP towards the Unity of the Faith – A RETURN OF POPE LEO TO THE PRACTICE AND DOGMAS OF ROME AT THE TIME OF THE 7 ECUMENICAL SYNODS….A RETURN TO THE DOGMAS PRACTICED AND BELIEVED BY HIS OWN PREDECESSOR LEO III… Not the deceptive charade the globe witnessed.
Instead, we just witnessed what appears to be another unfortunate step towards a false Union with Rome…rife with compromises, violations of multiple Canons (common prayer with, receiving blessings from heretics, etc), by a significant number of “Orthodox” clergy, even bishops seen on video bowing as the Pope of Rome walked by (a first clear indication that they are accepting “subjugation to the Pope”)…As a result, for those who pay attention to Ecclesiastical history, this sad sight is far more reminiscent of Ferrara 1439 than it is of Nicea of 325 AD…And if history is on its way to repeat itself, further fragmentation and Schism within Orthodoxy is around the corner….

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

48 COMMENTS

  1. I have to say I really only think any fake union would only involve those in the Ecumenical Patriarchate and some in the Patriarchate of Alexandria.

    This event was largely ignored by literally every single other Church.

    IMHO the only split in Orthodoxy that will come from this will be within *only* the Greek speaking Churches.

    The Church of Greece and Cyprus is going to have to make a decision one way or another. Staying silent on 30+ years of Bart errors has gotten them to this spot.

    Bart sees himself as “Pope of the Greeks” and this schism will only be affecting them as Bart is largely ignored by all the non-Greek Churches. It’s going to be a rough ride for the Churches of Greece and Cyprus and parts of Alexandria.

    • You don’t have to become a POLITICIAN to protect the Church from hostile politics. You have to become a righteous BISHOP! And if you do not, as a bishop, protect the Church, God will step in to protect the church in your place, and then woe to you, Mr. Bartholomew and his supporters.
      “And to the angel (bishop) of the church in Pergamos write,
      These things says He who has the sharp, two edged sword: I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is (Islam). And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam (Freemasonry), who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel … and to commit sexual immorality (gay marriages etc.)Thus, you also have those (bishops, priests and lay persons under you) who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (active in LGBTQ), which thing I hate. REPENT, or else I WILL COME TO YOU QUICKLY AND WILL FIGHT AGAINST THEM WITH THE SWORD OF MY MOUTH.” Revelations 2:12-46
      In other words, the Lord, Himself, will rectify what the bishop does not rectify. The Lord will not leave his Church. The Lord is longsuffering and gives people time to repent, even a hierarch, but He will not leave his Church in the hands of Satan. He promised that He will build His Church, and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against her.

  3. In my opinion, the most important line in this joint declaration is “we reject any use of religion and the name of God to justify violence.”

    This is particularly relevant today in regards to both Zionism in the Middle East, as supported by many Protestant Christians, and the Russian World ideology that fuels the war in Ukraine, as supported by the Moscow Patriarchate.

    Everything else in the document is simple gesturing and a show of good will between Orthodox and Catholics. However, this is vitally important today to protect the Church from hostile political forces, as U.S. representatives are now calling for an investigation into ROCOR. The Greek Archdiocese, thankfully, is under no threat of being investigated for Russian influence. St. Sophrony of Essex commented that one of the main roles of bishops in current times is primarily to protect the Orthodox Church from hostile politics.

    • Joseph – I have to remind you something that I have noted COUNTLESS TIMES in my articles about Ukraine: Bartholomew was warned very strongly by a senior Greek diplomat NOT to proceed to give “Cacocephaly” to Ukraine because it would cause violence. In his first official announcement of granting “Cacocephaly”, Bartholomew specifically warned against the use of violence, proving that he was aware. Yet he preferred the money of corruption (and he limited himself to just a warning). Hi fight with Poroshenko about the money has marked the history of the Patriarchate in dark colors. The disgust of the faithful was so loud that in one instance, Bartholomew ridiculed himself throwing candy to children in Istanbul and explaining that “Poroshenko donated the candy to him!!” The whole world was laughing at him and he was as callous as one can be!!!
      In the years that followed Bartholomew and the Archons pretended that they do not know about the violence against the UOC and rendering themselves to little “Deep State pawns”. They are now simply lying and they have lost all credibility.

      • Helleniscope, the violence against clergy and churches in Ukraine is horrific and deplorable. There is a recurring theme, though. That violence is primarily conducted by young men. Why is that? The conscription age in Ukraine is 25. Of course these young men are angry that they will have to go to war against Russia when they turn 25. Yet do they take their anger out on the Zelensky government? No, apparently not. Rather, what we are witnessing, over and over again, is that they are taking their anger out on their local church whose canonicity still comes from the Moscow Patriarchate.

        What does the Zelensky government want from the UOC to end the ban? Here it is:

        “According to Viktor Yelensky, DESS head, the UOC must make public letters in which it notifies of the withdrawal of its representatives from the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and all governing bodies of the ROC. Additionally, the UOC must inform the Local Orthodox Churches that it is no longer part of the ROC.”

        https://spzh.eu/en/news/81750-dess-explains-how-uoc-can-prove-its-break-with-roc

        The question I have is: why doesn’t the UOC comply with this request? It doesn’t sound like a particularly difficult request to comply with.

        • Joseph: Brave young man should be in the war defending their country. Only cowards stay home to beat up old church ladies. But the communists stole churches, put priests in prison, and beat up anyone that stayed in their way too, so what do you expect from power hungry, corrupt barto? He is denying that it the violence exists–just like the communists. Same tactics!

        • The only difficult request to comply with is the request to follow the Canons and Traditions of the Church. Every Tomos issued in the past included the fine-print that stipulated Pan-Orthodox acceptance (in a future Synod) is mandatory for the tomos to be valid. Usually, on a Pan-Orthodox level, the Autocephalous Churches recognized new Churches quickly. In this case of the Ukraine, on a Pan-Orthodox level, the Churches were largely asking Constantinople NOT to issue the tomos…therefore, Constantinople violated the Traditional and Historical principles of “Pan-Orthodox acceptance” of any new tomos, as well as the principles governing jurisdictional ownership that Bartholomew himself signed in ink both in 1992 and 1997 in his letters to Moscow, and introduced Schism by “legitimizing” deposed clergy of a Schismatic “Illegal Congregation”. So now you are asking why not comply with such a decree? Do you really think that Helleniscope readers have a short-term memory leak problem, such that you can keep spewing the same propaganda over and over again?

          • Markos, the method that Patriarch Bartholomew used in giving autocephaly to Ukraine was similar to how Moscow gave autocephaly to the OCA in 1970. In both examples it was done unilaterally, and in the case of the OCA, all of the other Local Churches that had jurisdiction in America said, “please don’t do it”. Also, Serbia, as we know, has unilaterally granted autocephaly to Macedonia, despite objections coming primarily from Constantinople and Greece.

            There really is no consensus on how autocephaly should be granted, because it hasn’t been brought up in an Ecumenical Council. There was an attempt to bring up the topic at Crete, but it was actually Moscow that blocked it from discussion.

          • Joseph,

            More nonsense from you, eh?

            The communist regime for 70 years was not exactly the most legitimate regime, especially the corrupt Philaret’s signature on that 1970 “tomos” (we know what happened to him eventually)….and by the way, nobody recognizes OCA as an “Autocephalous Church”…they are merely tolerated as a historical offshoot of Moscow from a dark era…so your comparison is once again quite flawed.

        • A secular state should not be regulating the internal affairs of a church. (That goes for every state without an established Church, but we are talking about Ukraine right now, so no “whataboutism”.)

          Why would any Orthodox Christian support such meddling?

    • Joseph,

      Did Bartholomew do anything to prevent the violent expulsion of the monks at the Kievan Lavra Caves, or the violent takeovers of church buildings, imprisonment of clergy, etc, all actions that is a direct result of Constantinople’s “tomos” to Epiphanios? (A.k.a. “in the name of religion”)
      Go sell your hypocritical propaganda elsewhere…we’re not buying it.

  5. Joseph:

    “However, this is vitally important today to protect the Church from hostile political forces, as U.S. representatives are now calling for an investigation into ROCOR. ”

    Very few representatives, so be careful of the lies. They are probably as corrupt as barto and have the same masteres. It is the arhons and barto that should be investigated. They are playing both sides! That is what Judahs do! The archons and barto are puppets and if anyone is a traitor, it is them as a whole, lobbying for russian banks. Why blame Rocor of ties with Russia, when the archons are in bed with the Russian banks?!?

    But hey, where there are scandals after scandals, you have to pretend it’s someone else’s fault to redirect the heat that is coming upon you, right? Blame the russians, blame Rocor, blame all the other OCs, blame everyone but yourself. I don’t remember a pope at Nicaea meeting, you know, the real historic meeting! Not the circus that we had recently. Ask yourself who was present at Nicaea. Anyone infallible around there back then? But hey for all the bribes barto got, now he has to deliver. His masters are asking him for something back! The scandals barto and his minions are involved in reminds me of the scandals of the vatican. No wonder the two are hanging out!
    https://spzh.eu/en/news/89325-several-phanar-archons-in-us-lobby-on-behalf-of-russian-banks-uoj-reports

    • JK,
      Dialogue with heretics has its limits…and the wisdom of limitation has been set by St. Paul in his letter to Titus:

      A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject (KJV)

      That is NOT what Constantinople has been exhibiting since Athinagoras and Vatican 2. Instead, we have seen a persistent and incremental trend of unilateral compromise over the last 60 years – unilateral on the Orthodox side, with relaxation of Canons that protected against the “dilution of the faith” specifically concerning the Standards and Controls of allowing Catechumens into Orthodoxy, as well as the “education of clergy” on the boundaries of Ecumenism compared to Titus 3:10. The reason for this compromise is simple….the term “Ecumenism” is a mask for the well-known heresy of Syncretism, which focuses on “similarities” and ignores “differences” in such “dialogues”, presenting the false illusion that “there is not much that separates us, and we should work on Union”…When such “dialogue based upon Syncretism” ignores the basic historical facts of the need for a REVERSAL of dogmatic deviation from Rome’s past (Filioque, etc) and a retun to the practices at the time of the 7 Ecumenical Councils (aka. a return to what Pope Leo III believed and practiced), how can you even claim this is a real dialogue? It’s a charade that can only lead to false Union and further Schism of the Orthodox Church in general.

      And especially in the Western Hemisphere, we have witnessed examples of the underlying mindset of Syncretism at work…we have witnessed the systematic “ignoring and abandonment of Canons and Tradition” devolve multiple GOARCH parishes (and clergy) to the point where certain parishes exhibiting a a mindset that resembles “Protestant Churches with icons” when compared to what a Traditional Orthodox parish would look like. The recent Dog Decree (elevating dogs to a status higher than human Catecumens in Liturgical practice by allowing them in the Nave during Divine Liturgy) is only one of many examples that we can cite. The lack of consistency, and variations of practice and preaching across GOARCH parishes cannot be “hidden”… for the record, OCA have developed a similar problem too in N. America since the 1960s, with an interesting statistical correlating observation that seems to depend on whether their clergy attended St. Vladimir or St. Tykhon historically…almost like a “tale of two Churches” when you observe reality on the ground…

      You may want to argue all day that St. Mark of Ephesus was at the “dialogue” of Ferrara for over a year of “dialogues”, and by extension try to claim that he didn’t follow Titus 3:10, but if you read Silvester Syropoulos’ account of what happened in Ferrara, you’ll realize that St. Mark did not spend the majority of his efforts in trying to convince the Pope (aka “the heretical man”) of anything, but rather spent the majority of his efforts trying to convince the Constantinopolitan delegation to NOT do what they eventually did…
      Therefore, your example is not very successful in this light.

      • Mr Markos, are you suggesting that in the 8-10 years of the Council of Florence St Mark engaged in dialogue with Catholics no more than twice. If he engaged more than twice, he should be excommunicated for not following the teachings of St Paul.

        • If you read what I wrote, you wouldn’t misinterpret what I said, and if you focus on Scripture, you will realize that “dialogue” is not the term used, but “counseling / admonition”…which means “attempts at correcting the heretic”…so you are misquoting things again as usual…

          St. Markos was consistent on two things:
          1) Insisting that the Pope was a heretic, not a “schismatic”, and he would say it to his face every time.
          2) He spent the majority of his efforts trying to keep the Orthodox delegation from “selling out the Church”…

          His main purpose was NOT to convert the Pope to Orthodoxy…he spoke when he had to, but that was to keep the Orthodox Church from being derailed by treasonous bishops…that’s exactly why the Pope said the famous “then we have achieved nothing”, when he asked “did Markos sign”, and the response was “no”…

        • JK,

          If you read what I wrote, you wouldn’t misinterpret what I said, and if you focus on Scripture, you will realize that “dialogue” is not the term used, but “counseling / admonition”…which means “attempts at correcting the heretic”…so you are misquoting things again as usual…

          St. Markos was consistent on two things:
          1) Insisting that the Pope was a heretic, not a “schismatic”, and he would say it to his face every time.
          2) He spent the majority of his efforts trying to keep the Orthodox delegation from “selling out the Church”…

          His main purpose was NOT to convert the Pope to Orthodoxy…he spoke when he had to, but that was to keep the Orthodox Church from being derailed by treasonous bishops…that’s exactly why the Pope said the famous “then we have achieved nothing”, when he asked “did Markos sign”, and the response was “no”…

    • Yes, St. Mark of Ephesus engaged in dialogue with Catholics, primarily at Ferrara-Florence, but he ultimately refused to sign an actual union document due to theological disagreements, mostly about the Filioque and the nature of purgatory.

      The argument could possibly be made that St. Mark of Ephesus wouldn’t be known as a saint if he didn’t engage in dialogue with Catholics.

      • You have no idea what books St. Mark of Ephesus wrote on liturgics and other subjects, and even what byzantine music compositions he wrote, do you? He is definitely a major Church Father beyond his stance as a Confessor at Ferrara…

        You are subtly following the modern day Phanariotes and Fordhamites in trying to diminish the value of St. Mark of Ephesus, which includes a passive policy of not ever celebrating or emphasizing his feast day on January 19th…

  8. The council of florence lasted for several years; thus he daily engaged in dialogue. Actually, his major concerns were the philioque and the use of unleaded bread. Apparently, he wasn’t familiar with the passage in Titus quoted by Mr Marcos or purposely chose to not follow the directive.

    • As usual, due to your limited knowledge of Greek, you are misquoting Scripture again, in a very Protestant manner…νουθεσια doesn’t mean “dialogue”…I explained in the other response.

      • Markos, you quoted scripture and St Mark did follow the admonition of St Paul. According to your legalistic attitude toward Orthodoxy he should be excommunicated. St Paul said to warn/council someone 2 times. Surely St Mark exceeded the quota established by St Paul. I don’t question the sainthood of St Mark but according to your standards he should be excommunicated; be consistent. Additionally, I am not a Forhdamite or a protestant but feel to label me as you please. I assume it makes you feel better about yourself.

        • JK,
          Whenever you exhibit a Protestant mindset in a public forum, you will be labeled accordingly. That’s how it goes in the “public town square”…it’s not a matter of anyone feeling better or worse…if you don’t like the label, change what you present in public.

          Unfortunately, you keep missing the point, and twisting the plot…and now you are even inventing “rules” that don’t exist…

          First of all, even if we were to entertain that St. Mark of Ephesos actually engaged in dialogue with the Latin heretics with the intent of “changing the Pope’s mindset” more than twice, since when is there a canon of excommunication for those who don’t follow the advice of st. Paul in Titus 3:10? Are you delusional?

          But since it appears you require some “intellectual spoonfeeding” on this matter, let’s put things in order:

          1) Constantinople’s main strategic goal at Ferrara was to secure assistance against the Ottoman onslaught. The delegation did not go there because “the time was right for an Ecclesiastical Union”…it was an act of desperation…

          2) The “Path to assistance” that was offered by the Pope went through “Reunification” on the Pope’s terms. The delegation of metropolitans was there to “minimize the blow”, and St. Mark was a central pillar of “resistance to compromise”.

          3) It was already known that the sum of barriers to “Reunification” that had to be overcome with “dialogue” were both political AND dogmatic.

          4) The political “dialogues” have nothing to do with Titus 3:10. The dogmatic discussions do.

          5) St. Mark of Ephesos, the pillar of resistance to compromise, was insistent on the following points:
          a) The Latins are heretics, and not schismatics (per St. Basil’s definitions”
          b) On matters of Faith, there is NO COMPROMISE.

          6) Given that the rest of the delegation was eventually willing to compromise on dogma as well as on politics, it is clear from Sylvester Syropoulos’ accounts that St. Mark of Ephesos spent most of his time at Ferrara trying to keep the Constantinopolitan delegation from “selling out the Church”. This is the main reason St. Mark stayed in Ferrara that long…don’t you get it, JK?

          7) Every time that St. Mark of Ephesos addressed the Latins his message was according to his quoted statements in #5 above.

          8) As soon as the rest of the delegation started signing over subjugation to the Pope, what did St. Mark of Ephesos do? He stepped away from the entire Constantinopolitan delegation as well as the Latins without signing his name, EXACTLY ACCORDING TO TITUS 3:10…quite consistent with point #6 above, the moment St. Mark’s efforts failed and the rest of the Constantinopolitans capitulated, that was the “end of discussion”, and he “abandoned the heretics” (even the traitors of the Faith who previously were his fellow clergy)…

  9. Jeseph:
    The ouc is literally the “church” that will recognize antichrist as God. If you don’t believe me, read here, from their own “theologian”. They don’t even hide it! If you want to be in the church of antichrist, follow barto and ocu. We want to be with the canonical church, you know, the one that has always been persecuted, the UOC. The choice is crystal clear. So unless you want to follow antichrist and the predecessor minions, Stop Being Ignorant!

    • LOL, wow. If one actually studies the Talmud’s vision of the messiah, one quickly finds that the messiah of the Talmud is literally the Antichrist.

  11. Antiochene, that is what the holy fathers say, not me. There is no second coming of Christ. It will be antichrist pretending to be messiah, but it will be an imposter. There is no reason for Christ to come again since he already gave use everything, sacrificing his life. Who else would come to pretend he is God if he wasn’t? Read the article and then comment because you obviously did not.

    • Whatever do you mean, no second coming of Christ? It’s in the Creed,” He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead.”You are right; the unrepentant Jews will accept the antichrist as the messiah. But some remnant will come to the church at the end times. Your arguments against Mr. Lipper et al., are mostly on target. I had hoped that a brother cleric might respond to you, but nobody so far. Like Markos said, this is a public forum. I hope you will accept this correction in the spirit which it was intended.

      • Hieromonk Alexei, I am not referring at the Judgement day when Christ will come back to judge the living and the dead. That is not what the jews believe. They are waiting for a different messiah that will reside earth and imitate Christ, just like Christ was on earth for a while. The second coming will be about the judgement. Christ will not come back to teach and walk the earth as he did the first time.

  12. Josheph, OCA was NOT forced into autocephaly. Not the same thing at all! UOC did NOT ask for autocephaly and they CANNOT be forced to accept it. No one came to cut OCA’s churches with grinders and no one beat them to accept the autocephaly and no one put their bishops in jail over it. No, not even remotely close! Stop drinking the cool aid!

    • Sandy, the UOC was invited to accept autocephaly, not forced. The Ukrainian government is not presently forcing the UOC to accept autocephaly either. All that the Ukrainian government is requiring is for the UOC to further clarify that their canonical status does not come from Moscow:

      “the UOC is not being required to renounce Orthodoxy, change its liturgical language, switch to another calendar, join another church, or arbitrarily declare autocephaly.”

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/spzh.eu/en/amp-news/87769-yelensky-claims-uoc-conceals-requirements-of-his-agency-from-the-faithful

      • All this discussion id irrelevant. Why? It ignores that Russian Orthodoxy was established in Kiev ten centuries ago… Second, no matter what the end of the war is, even it is done with a peace deal (unlikely at this moment) the Ukro-Nazis will be forced to accept the basic principles of religious freedom established by the UN. How would you like any state (Greece, the US or any other) demanding the several Orthodox jurisdictions in America to declare that their canonical status does not come from the Constantinople Patriarchate which is controlled by the suppressive and dictatorial government of Turkey? Not to say anything about other governments…

        • Helleniscope, if the UOC claims they have separated themselves from the Moscow Patriarchate, as according to their meeting at Feofania Monastery on May 27, 2022, then why not fill out the necessary government forms to clarify this separation?

          Sure, governments are bureaucracies. They want forms filled out. I hate filling out forms as much as the next person. But if we don’t fill out the forms, as for example with our taxes, then we can end up in prison. Is prison worth it for not filling out the necessary forms?

          • Unfortunately it’s not about filling out forms but about dealing with Ukronazi violence. Evidence abounds. Why? Because they cannot overcome the fact that UOC is the overwhelming majority of Orthodoxy in Ukraine – over 70%. And this fact will not change no matter what they do. You cannot change a people’s tradition and thousand-year-old history. Only Nazis have this mindset. But they have lost the war and they will soon face the consequences of all losers. Along with the Bartholomew criminal gang of Instabul.

          • What exactly is written in those forms, Joseph?

            You are asking a rhetorical question, without supplying the critical details based upon which the reader can formulate a logical decision before answering that question…

            If, for example, the forms state…”and I agree to henceforth align with Joseph Lipper and accept his statements on Orthodox matters as being Patristically and Historically accurate”…I would never agree to signing that even if I agreed with the entire remainder of the multiple pages of other clauses… at the end of the day, an eternity in Hell for betraying Christ is far worse that spending the remainder of human life in an earthly prison…That’s how Ounoufry, and every Confessor of the Orthodox faith sees things.

            Remember that this is a forced signature demand, and not the product of a voluntary document that is a result of honest negotations…it is a “one-way street”…Ounoufry never asked or desired to be joined to illegitimate Schismatics and Uniates, even if Constantinople decided to join them…

          • Markos, my news source is the Union of Orthodox Journalists, the one that aligns with the UOC and Metropolitan Onuphry. If there was something objectionable about the request being made by the Ukrainian government, it would certainly be published by this news source.

            “According to Viktor Yelensky, DESS head, the UOC must make public letters in which it notifies of the withdrawal of its representatives from the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and all governing bodies of the ROC. Additionally, the UOC must inform the Local Orthodox Churches that it is no longer part of the ROC.

            “‘In this case, the law [ban] will not be applied to the UOC,’ Yelensky said in a comment to the media.”

            https://spzh.eu/en/news/81750-dess-explains-how-uoc-can-prove-its-break-with-roc

            So what does the UOC find objectionable about this request? Well, if you read the whole article, the UOC bishop, Metropolitan Clement, is complaining that the request amounts to discrimination against the UOC:

            “Metropolitan Clement, head of the UOC’s Synodal Information and Education Department, responded to these requirements, noting that similar measures were not applied to hierarchs who joined the OCU.

            ‘”Neither Filaret nor Metropolitans Simeon and Oleksandr, upon leaving the UOC, have so far submitted any statements to the ROC. In this regard, the State Service should first be concerned with the situation in the OCU, clarifying evidence that proves its bishops have broken ties with the Moscow Patriarchate and left the ROC. Otherwise, the State Service’s requirements will only reflect a subjective selective approach, which may indicate discriminatory treatment of Ukrainian citizens based on their religious beliefs,’ stated Metropolitan Clement.”

            In other words, Metropolitan Clement objects that these requirements have not also been made on the OCU. Yet it should be obvious to anyone that there is no need for the OCU to fulfill any such a requirement. All the OCU bishops have already formally broken any canonical ties they previously had with the Moscow Patriarchate.

          • Joseph,

            All this “noise” is a futile attempt to keep the nasty law that Zelensky’s government passed on the books, by simultaneously providing an “out” for Ounoufry…that’ sbecause the “nasty law” is always a sticky point to the ongoing peace negotiations.

            Of course, Ounoufry doesn’t have to “take the bait” either…there is a ton of recent historical precedent with bad things happening to Orthodox groups that self-declare a “splintering off” the 14 Canonical Autocephalous churches (14, NOT 15)…so why would he do that? Just on that point alone, it doesn’t seem to be a good or “clean” solution, at the end of the day.

      • You are delusional Joseph. No one invited UOC to accept autocephaly because they do not want it. You can’t invite someone to accept something that they do not want. Barto signed the autocephaly in front of Poroshenko with no canonical UOC hierarchs present. That is not an invitation! Hundreds of thousands of UOC faithful were waiting outside to speak to Barto he hid from them and never got out of his car and signed this with Poroshenko which I remind you is not even orthodox! This is not an invitation, he is forcing his bogus autocephaly on a Church that does not want it. He has no right to do this! He should just pay the bribe back and become honest and dissolve his bogus OCU. They are NOT orthodox. THeir teachings are a heresy in itself, much worse than other schismatics: https://spzh.eu/en/zashhita-very/89407-american-orthodoxy-under-attack-a-ukrainian-scenario-for-the-usa

      • Joseph please do your homework and really find out who Yelenski is and what masters he served in previous administrations and during communism. He is not credible. Very corrupt!

  13. Sent the wrong link:
    https://spzh.eu/en/zashhita-very/89426-theology-of-the-ocu-do-christians-and-jews-have-one-messiah

    Unless you are waiting for the messiah of the Jews and you are confused about who Christ is, you know, the ONE that was crucified, your defense of Barto and OCU is undefendable. You are denying Christ Himself if you agree with the existence of OCU and what it claims. It is no longer a disagreement between me and you but a denial of your orthodox faith. So unless you are not orthodox, you have no excuse for the unexcusable.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here