I've read that Russian Church stopped to commemorate Patriarch Bartolomew of Constantinople during Divine Liturgies
concelebrations with Constantinople's bishops now is prohibited and all dialogue commissions, episcopal assemblies etc. are suspended
this was announced to the press by Metropolite Ilarion (Alfeev)
(I have a source but it's not in english)
these measures are reaction to what is going on in Ukraine
does this constitute a schism?
Other urls found in this thread:
patheos.com
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
taize.fr
patriarchate.org
abcnews.go.com
twitter.com
Not really.
The ukraine thing is a clusterwinnie the pooh, but its just politics, and 2 sees getting butthurt at each other like this isnt unprecedented.
No, not at all. If they break communion then they are in schism.
I thought that not commemorating Constantinople was already breaking communion, but I don't know much about how orthodoxy works
No, it just shows his displeasure with Constantinople. Basically like a couple that will not talk to each other for awhile after an argument but having left each other.
not*
Rome vs constantinople 2.0
Schism after schism now?
I hope they get along and begome gatholic
I hate this filter
No.
Jerusalem and Antioch broke communion with eachother, but they are not in schism.
There are other and bigger problems in the Catholic church currently, but still for this kind of jurisdiction problems you can really benefit from having a Pope.
There's some controversy from what I understand over the status of the Ukrainian EO church; basically should it be it's own thing, or should it be part of the Russian sphere. Constantinople is for the former and the Russians say the latter, unsurprisingly. Given the "Ukraine" bit you can certainly guess that a fair amount of secular politics are informing the various entities. Not to mention a veritable turf war (brewing behind the scenes for a time) between the classical center of the Eastern system, and the "third Rome".
I expect Constantinople will win out in the end, what the Russian church does in response is anyone's guess. They haven't fully split yet however, so perhaps cooler heads will prevail. It would come at expense if that does not happen; this is one of the best times in history for the Eastern church to grow into areas it previously had little activity in, a schism would likely cripple that opportunity.
a new word has been added to my vocabulary
Hierarchs ceasing commemoration and refusing to have joint services does not mean that all bishops cannot have joint services or that laypeople are affected in any way at all.
It's just them saying "f you, we won't pray for you at liturgy anymore until you fix this mess".
It can only be called a "schism" if all bishops of both particular churches cease mutual commemoration and eucharistic communion, but even then it doesn't necessarily affect laypeople unless there start to be anathemas, as long as both churches stay in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy.
For comparison: in 1013 or 1014 the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople ceased mutual commemoration in the dyptichs. This was not a schism. In 1054 the churches of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other. while remaining in communion with the other churches. This was a schism, but it was internal to the Church. In 1204 the Eastern churches all excommunicated Rome because of the sack of Constantinople. This was a schism, and Rome became a schismatic church due to being out of communion with the rest of the Church, but it was technically not heretical yet since anathemas were not formally pronounced against it. Then anathemas were pronounced in the later part of the 13th century and that is when Rome was formally considered to be completely outside of Christ's flock.
Another example: the current schism between Antioch and Jerusalem. Bishops cannot have joint services, but priests still can celebrate the Liturgy together, and laypeople are unaffected. It is a schism, but it is internal to the Church.
TL;DR it's not a schism. But it could degenerate into one, like what happened between Rome and Constantinople.
I'll also note that the issue between Constantinople and Moscow is ecclesiological - what primacy entails (if it entails anything at all) and how to apply canons economically.
See this article (by a Catholic): patheos.com
Not yet.
At the time of this announcement the final decision was still under discussion. I don't know why bishop Hilarion was so in a hurry making premature announcements.
No, but we are moving in this direction.
I find this unlikely. Moscow is pushing hard for an pan-Orthodox council who will decide about the problems in Ukraine. Constantinople, however, wants to act unilaterally and this isn't something the other Churches will like.
Precisely. And there are also the violations of the Orthodox canons by Constantinople. Moscow already protested that Constantinople admits the second marriage for the clergy. If Moscow decides to play the anti-ecumenical card, this can easily lead to an internal schism within the see of Constantinople.
Can anyone provide non biased sources on this?
By this I mean not those english russiaboo sites that are always posted here.
I hope the Putin church leaves the Orthodox Church. At least until they repent.
Too kek
Non-biased? You won't find any on anything. View both sides and see if claims on either side are valid.
Is that a real tweet?
It's a joke account.
First part "You, there, stop m-b-ting" is obviously fake. No Churchmen in the East would use the word m. publicly (it is kind of taboo).
Second part: "The Holy War has begun" is genuine. According to Kirill it is about the war against terrorism. The original context, however, was such that many considered this spoken specifically about the war in Syria.
I assume you are using "Catholic" in the very lightest of terms, given the nature of the site…I've taken the liberty of archiving it.
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
Honestly with 5 pages, you should have made an executive summary of the whole affair, since most anons aren't going to bother spending a lot of time on a modernist Catholic site. Glancing through the article, the overall issue sounds more or less like what I said it was in my first post here, although a little more fleshed out.
If you can all get them in the same room together for more than 15 minutes. 2016 wasn't exactly the most productive event, I'm not sure what the appetite is to repeat that so soon even with a potential crisis looming.
They might not like it, but I can't see it going any other way really.
Personally I was being polite when I said schism would harm Eastern expansion prospects. If the Ukrainian deal goes through, the Russian church would lose a lot of ground. Certainly any question of a "Third Rome" would be done, unless something really extraordinary happened to change that. And then you have the situation internally to Constantinople, which you just brought up. With all the potential chaos that could be brought to bear, Orthodoxy would be in quite a state.
That's not even talking about how that could affect secular Russian/Turkish relations, since there is an issue of national prestige to consider; Constantinople is also Istanbul, after all, and a damaged Russian Patriarchate wouldn't be a good development for Moscow. That's quite enough to get them to butt heads, and it wouldn't help that the relations between the two nations are somewhat schizophrenic anyway these days…
Rome was one of five pentarchs
Russian Church is just a late church with privilege below five cities. I doubt that it will take any ind of serious forms
There was a priest who publicly yelled at someone to stop fapping. No, it wasn't an insult, it was about taking a communion…I think.
The Moscow Patriarchate is the biggest for number of believers and is using this numbers to punch far above its formal status.
The EP may be the first but he has much less than Moscow in terms of territory and faithfuls under his direct jurisdiction.
For Moscow losing Ukraine is like losing an arm. It would make them far weaker.
Don't take for granted that all Russians will follow Kirill. A new patriarch can be appointed to Russia if he decide to schism himself.
You guys are living in another world. If you were Orthodox you would know how little prestige Bartholomew has because of his violation of the Orthodox canons (mostly due to ecumenism, but not only).
(you)
american """orthodoxs""" ladies and gentlemen
Huh? I'm Orthodox. No one really cares about His Holiness Bartholomew, even people under the EP (except for bishops, of course). He's seen as an ecumenist, a wannabe Pope, and he has not much influence worldwide compared to Patriarch Kyrill.
I like him though.
...
I'm not American. I'm French and my parish is Russian but under the EP.
This is interesting. I have the impression there is only one place where Bartholomew can find some support: in certain circles in Western Europe.
The bishops under the EP are obviously supportive of him (in fact this bishop used to be our church's bishop) but nobody seriously cares about the EP otherwise, not even laypeople.
That wouldn't impress me since orthodox became schismatic basically because of politics, so dividing themselves further because of politics is only natural. If they cared about Christ more than they cared about politics they would be in communion with Rome.
tigga, this the same crap that led to the Great Schism, on both sides.
If the Catholic church cared more about Christ than raping little kids….
I'll take a little territorial jurisdiction drama over pedophile satanic clergy every day
Look, Cathbro! There are some powers of this world that want to overthrow any authority that claims to be godly. (2 Thess. 2:4) They have already infiltrated the Vatican. So for any Catholic from now on there are only two choices:
1. to become infected with the liberal filth coming from the Vatican; or
2. to be one of the few remaining traditional Catholics, looking with suspicion to anything coming from the Vatican.
Now, the very same forces that infiltrated the Catholic church, are doing the same with the Orthodox Church. If we lived 50 years ago, I could understand you ridiculing the way the Orthodox Christians treat His Holiness. But today? Today it should be obvious even for a Catholic that this is the way Christ preserves his Church pure. The enemies of the Church must be very upset by the fact that there is no single point of failure in the Orthodox Church.
How do we know Bartholomew is really a wannabe Pope and it's not just one big russian propaganda?
Is he an ecumenist? Even Kyrill was accuse of being an ecumenist only because he met the Pope in Cuba, and he had to do a speech against ecumenism to calm people. Russians and pro-russians converts would call you an heretical ecumenist just because you acknowledge catholics are still christians.
It's like you guys take the most narrowminded anti-west option by default, no matter the context.
I wouldn't put it in this way but in part I agree.
Kyrill is best buddy with Putin, Putin is at war with Ukraine, then Ukrainians hate Kyrill too. It's a natural consequence of being involved with politics.
Ok but it's not "a little" territorial jurisdiction drama, it's pretty big. And it happens all the time.
Yeah, I wish I could believe this comforting black and white story.
The EP has been claiming for a while that he is the head of the Church, that without a primate the Church cannot live (and the church to hold the primacy today is that of Constantinople), and that him alone can definitely confirm the autocephaly of another church. Many Orthodox see this as Papism - Jesus alone is the head of the Church and no Patriarch has a different prerogative than the others.
Not criticizing the Muslims and Jews and Catholics at every opportunity makes him an ecumenist to most people I guess.
However Catholics are indeed not entirely Christian.
Off-topic, but the Cuba issue really bugs me. So many international prelates have let the problems there slide to get on the good side of the Castros in the past. Even though they are sort of gone recently, when will someone call a spade a spade?
What exactly constitute schism then? Excommunication? But isn't breaking off communion excommunication?
Not being a sperg = ecumenist
Good to know, these people should form a Church entirely based on autistic schreeching as proof of Orthodoxy
It an exaggeretion with a bit of truth in it. Not only Russian though, many Orthodox countries have critisize him for the same reasons.
Greeks will do the same. It's not a Russian thing. Orthodox people are afraid of the west and for good reasons.
Political drama is never going to cease in the church. People use to fight in the streets over metropolitan elections 40 years ago. It's bad of course but it's a human weakness. The important thing is to get past those issues quickly.
Yes, he is and he seems to be proud about this shame.
The Orthodox canons do not permit common prayers with heretics.
Canon 11 of the Apostles: "If any one, even in the house, prays with a person excommunicate, let him also be suspended."
Canon 45 of the Apostles: "Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who only prays with heretics, be suspended"
Canon 65 of the Apostles: "If any one, either of the clergy or laity, enters into a synagogue of the Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deprived and suspended."
Are there ecumenists in the other Churches? Certainly there are, but they are not announcing this with pride.
Excommunication on Catholics has been lifted by Athenagoras I
The mutual excommunication between Rome and Constantinople was lifted 50 years ago.
guys… what does EP stand for?
Ecumenical Patriarch (Bartholomew)
The canons exist to be interpreted by the bishops, and as far as my bishops are concerned, they do not understand Catholics to be heretics in the sense meant by the canons of the apostles. Remember these canons had docetism and gnosticism in mind. A modern interpretation of the canons simply makes economical application of them, both because Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, and most Protestants aren't as far off the trail as Gnostics, Jews, and Docetists were, and because nowadays the Orthodox in the West have many heterodox friends and relatives and it would make for a very difficult situation if kinship with them were not permissible anymore.
That meant nothing, because the schism of 1054 meant nothing. The real division between East and West happened in 1204, and besides, lifting the excommunication of 1054 does not mean lifting the renewals of this excommunication that happened, as well as the mutual anathemas that would later come in the 13th and 15th centuries. Catholics are still heretics.
Also, a priest put it like this to me - can we compare Protestants and Catholics to Jews and Gnostics when there is little to none in their worship services that is outright heretical? What issues can you find with the Mass other than the filioque?
Are you sure about this?
If this is so, then I can propose to my bishops to excommunicate yours.
Never mind, I'm joking. You do realise that this opinion is pretty marginal among the Orthodox Christians? The canons of the Orthodox Church are already interpreted by canonists as Zonaras, Balsamon, the recent saint Nikodim Milash and others. There are several saints giving voice against the common prayers and none saying this is ok.
Even the 'filioque' is not an issue. I've heard the Catholics use the Roman creed (often wrongly named 'Apostles creed') instead of the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Roman creed is Orthodox.
This, however, is irrelevant. The purpose of these canons is to remind with love to the heretics that they are not members of the One Holy Church.
My authority is not the saints, my authority is my patriarch, my bishop, and my priest. All three of whom are fine with prayer with Catholics.
What did your priest or bishop tell you? I can ask my priest about why we don't do things the same way then, especially since the canons of the apostles and the saints' interpretation of them forbid prayer with Catholics.
Long story short. The Jewish Chocolate king of Ukraine has ran out of money, even after taking all the pensions and sucking the Bank of Ukraine dry. Now he wants more money to suck. Since Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate is the largest there with thousands of parishes, monastics, it's the greatest target to bleed it dry. But how to take control of it? Easy, declare ONE Ukrainian orthodox under one patriarch Ukrainian patriarch. Namely some nobody who was kicked out from the church and made his own "orthodox" secular church few years ago and even was called heretical. The perfect candidate to force all of the churches be under his wing. So the Choco king decided to ask the Constantinople patriarch for his blessing to approve this decision.
Does it mean that every single Orthodox priest who married an orthodox with someone of another denomination is violating the canon since he prayed with them?
And every monastery that welcomes pilgrims from other denominations is also violating the canon since it allows them to see the services and pray in their presence? This would include Mt.Athos since it allows a small quota of non-Orthodox people visiting.
Since this obviously can't be true, I don't see how the canon can be interpreted in a way that the Patriarch is guilty merely by being present at a prayer.
The canon doesn't forbid Orthodox prayers when heterodox are present but do not participate. It forbids us to participate in the prayers of heterodox.
Does the canon forbid us to be merely present during the prayers of heterodox? Perhaps this is open for interpretation. Balsamon says yes, the canon forbids us to look indulgently to the prayers of heretics. St. Milash quotes Balsamon but it is unclear if he agrees with this interpretation. He says the purpose of the canon is to guard us from being indifferent to the faith.
Orthodox are separated Catholics
The Orthodox are the only Catholics. Separated? Maybe.
“I will make my dwelling among them
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them,
says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”
Orthodox and Catholics are like the schismatic kingdoms of Juda and Israel.
I'm in communion with the Catholic Church I can't buy into the exclusive claims of any of the two churches, no matter how much I try to convince myself.
The Spirit blows where it wishes. One Church has the fullness of grace, the others can still have extraordinary grace. Which one I don't know, history is far too grey on both sides.
This thread in a nutshell
saved
The following is my analysis of the "politics" behind all this.
One difficult problem for Bartholomew is that there are two schismatic Churches in Ukraine – the Kiev Patriarchy (KP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC). The current job of the two exarchs sent by Bartholomew is to talk with these two Churches in an attempt to reconcile them. The current head of the KP Philaret has the reputation of authoritarian and UAOC mistrusts him. Rumors say Bartholomew also mistrusts him. If the exarchs can't reconcile these two Churches, then Bartholomew will have to work with only one of them, most likely the KP.
When Bartholomew decides with whom he is going to work with, he will have two options. First, to proclaim an autocephalous Ukrainian Church. And second, to make an Ukrainian branch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The first option is what the current President of Ukraine wants and he wants it soon, before the next presidential elections in Ukraine (March, 2019). Both schismatic Churches and the exarchs (who are born in Western Ukraine) are optimistic about the autocephaly, but I have the feeling that Bartholomew is going to disappoint them. Even if Bartholomew proclaims an Autocephalous Ukrainian Church, the autocephality is going to be meaningless unless the other Orthodox Churches acknowledge it. The President Poroshenko won't care who is going to acknowledge this Church, but Bartholomew does care. If the Ecumenical Patriarchate becomes the only Orthodox Church acknowledging the new Autocephalous Ukrainian Church, this is going to undermine the reputation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and to raise the authority of Moscow – an outcome that Bartholomew wants the least. And since Moscow is going to break the communion with any Church acknowledging the current schismatics, the choice that any Local Orthodox Church will have is simple: Moscow or an Ukrainian Church which isn't even supported by the majority of the Ukrainian Orthodox Christians.
The second option is what Bartholomew pushes. If the new Ukrainian Church is not autocephalous but autonomous under the Patriarch of Constantinople, then nothing depends on the other Orthodox Churches. Moreover, Bartholomew already tried this once. In 1993 he acknowledge an autonomous Orthodox Church in Estonia much to the dislike of the Russian Patriarch Alexy II who was born in Estonia. For a while he was very angry and broke the communion with Constantinople, but then he accepted the situation and now we have the unfortunate outcome of two parallel Orthodox hierarchies in Estonia.
Some say that the current situation in Ukraine is analogous to the former situation in Estonia but this is not so. One difference is that the Estonian politicians didn't want an autocephalous Church. They only wanted an Church undependent from Moscow. In Ukraine the situation is different. The President Poroshenko wants an autocephalous Church and even if he changes his mind (as all politicians do), it is uncertain that Philaret (the head of the Kiev Patriarchy) will agree to this.
The most logical option for Bartholomew is to wait the presidential elections in Ukraine and only then to proclaim an autonomous Ukrainian Church. In this case the communion between Constantinople and Moscow will be permanently severed. Another unfortunate outcome of this are future hostilities against the Orthodox Christians who are under the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. One specific of Ukraine is that most temples are not property of the Churches but of the municipalities so it is very easy to take the temples from one Church and to assign them to another.
Why did Bartholomew decide to act now, after all these years? He needed Moscow to participate in the pan-Orthodox council in Crete. But when Moscow decided to pull out, only days before the council Bartholomew was infuriated. Moreover, he is absolutely certain that Moscow is the reason that three other Orthodox Churches decided not to participate in this council. The Russian hierarchs tried to explain that there was no hidden plot to foil the pan-Orthodox council but Bartholomew doesn't believe. The irony is that in this case Moscow is completely innocent but nobody believes when they say they are innocent. (I am telling you this as a member of one of the Churches which did not participate in the council.)
Nice analysis, user.
me too, but basically everyone here knew that Moscow influenced our church to abstain so that then they could state "Hey, old churches such as Georgia, Bulgaria and so on refuse to participate. Who am I to Judge :DDD"
Here in Bulgaria there was an enormous pressure from the media to force the Church to participate in the council. When the Holy Synod decided not to participate, there were few strange days when we expected to be schismed by everyone so many Christians went to congratulate the bishops for their courage (they deserved this support because the media created the false impression that everyone was against this decision). When Moscow also decided not to participate all journalists were certain that our bishops are pawns of Moscow. They didn't allow us to have our little pride to be the first who decided not to participate.
Yeah I highly doubt Moscow is innocent, at the very least they are very stupid because if they had no interest in sabotaging the Council they should have participated.
It's like they did everything to be suspected.
Now it looks like a schism is happening:
patriarchate.org
abcnews.go.com
>"With its actions, Constantinople is crossing a red line and catastrophically undermines the unity of global Orthodoxy," said Alexander Volkov, a spokesman for Russian church leader Patriarch Kirill. The Russian church has said it will no longer regard the Ecumenical Patriarch as first among equals if the Ukrainian church is recognized as legitimate.
This is entirely political on both sides.
I hope Philaret will not become the head of the Ukrainian autocephaly recognized by Constantinople, since he's obviously in bad faith.
I also hope the russians will try to act exclusively out of religious concerns, and not because of Kremlin power games.