Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Bluegoat]

mail.white-rabbit.ca/churchsites/www.westernorthodox.ca/index.htm

I’m not sure if that’s their main website (because I thought I remember they got a new website but I could be wrong) but this is a western rite Orthodox monastery in Canada.

I can’t get the link to work. Do you remember their name?

Edit:
I found it - it is the blog that Harpazo linked to!

It’s quite interesting. Practically speaking, if I make a change I will go to the little OCA parish. They are small and new and mostly converts, and the priest was an Anglican.

But I find it very difficult to think of all non-Orthodox as being somehow outside the Church. And more practically, my Anglican parish may be going through difficulties in the next few years as worldwide Anglicanism changes, and I find myself wondering what my duty is there. And I like the parish very much, and my husband would be staying there.

It makes me sound very wishy-washy, but there you go.

 

[Bluegoat]

As I said, I don’t have a problem worshiping as an Eastern Christian. I’d be sorry to give up Charles Wesley, but as it stands I long for Byzantine liturgy. Practically speaking, one can’t have everything at once. So I’m happy to worship in the style of whatever parish is close to me.

That being said, the possibility of Western Orthodoxy is an important theological issue for me in considering the claims of Orthodoxy. If Orthodoxy really is the true Church, then Western Orthodoxy ought to be possible. But I have real problems with the claim that Orthodoxy is the true Church (as opposed to the Church with the best doctrine and liturgy).

On a practical, local level, a major factor in my reluctance to become Orthodox is the fact that I live in a heavily Catholic town, with two Catholic parishes just down the road from me. When triumphalist Catholics use Catholic numbers and ubiquity as a knock-down argument that the Roman Communion is truly the Catholic Church, I can argue the case against them. But this fact on the ground does mean something. I find it hard to accept the idea that Rome is not part of the Church, whatever may be true of the rest of us.

If I don’t become RC, I’m more likely, at least for the time being, to go on being Anglican while trying to promote those aspects of Anglicanism closest to Orthodoxy. If I were to move to a place where there was a local Orthodox parish, and where the historic Anglican bishop in the area was not in compliance with the Windsor Report (that’s the simplest way of putting it that I can manage–I’m willing to expand if you need me to), I’d be much more likely to become Orthodox. But would the Orthodox have me on those terms?

But back to your question–founding a local Western Orthodox parish (even if feasible) would be horrifying to me, because it would be further splitting the Christian community in my town. And that, again, is the bottom line of why I’m not Orthodox–the ecclesiology implied in the previous sentence is probably not compatible with Orthodoxy.

Edwin

I’m with you on the Windsor Report.

But what do you mean about splitting the Christian population, specifically? Are there no Orthodox parishes there at all? How would having two Orthodox parishes be splitting? Do you think of the two Catholic parishes as having split the Catholic population? I am a bit confused.

Personally, I am in a similar place in the other direction. If the Protestants are right, than certainly Catholics are part of the Church, as are Baptists, and who knows, maybe even Christian Scientists.

But if the Catholic/Orthodox vision is real, I am sure the true Church is not the Catholic one. There was a while when I was considering that, but I just can’t see any way to make that work.

 

[Contarini]

But I find it very difficult to think of all non-Orthodox as being somehow outside the Church. And more practically, my Anglican parish may be going through difficulties in the next few years as worldwide Anglicanism changes, and I find myself wondering what my duty is there. And I like the parish very much, and my husband would be staying there.

With the appropriate gender change (“my wife would be staying there”), this paragraph describes my position exactly!

Edwin

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

From what I can tell on their website and your descriptions, they are not Orthodox. They list no bishop or canonical jurisdiction. This group is no different than any “Old Catholic” group or some such. This Archbishop Paul, from what I can tell, is no Archbishop at all.

In Christ,
Andrew

I have a booklet by them, some 150 to 200 pages long, describing their history, how they were established by the Patriarchate of Moscow, and the succession of ordination of their Bishops. Currently they have a few dozen Bishops in North and South America. But I have no idea what are the criteria for other Orthodox Churches to recognize them as canonical. This is where the Catholic position is clear to me (any Catholic organizations must be recognized by the Pope - Old Catholics are not Catholic because they are not recognized by the Pope). The Orthodox criteria are unclear to me and I’m convinced the various Orthodox groups disagree among themselves regarding these criteria - see the disagreements regarding the canonical recognition of autocephalous Ukrainian EOC (recognized by the EP, not by MP) and the Autocephalous EOC of Cyprus and OCA (recognized by the MP, but not by the EP).

 

[Contarini]

But what do you mean about splitting the Christian population, specifically? Are there no Orthodox parishes there at all?

Not in my town. There are three in Fort Wayne, about a 45-minute drive away. (Actually there are four, maybe five–there are three functioning canonical parishes, a traditionalist Old Calendar parish, and an apparently defunct Romanian parish about whose status I’ve been unable to get clear information so far.) My reluctance to drive to Fort Wayne to church stems from my baptismal ecclesiology and my generally localist ideology, not from laziness (I drive to Fort Wayne quite frequently as it is).

How would having two Orthodox parishes be splitting? Do you think of the two Catholic parishes as having split the Catholic population?

I most certainly do. The existence of these two parishes is, in my opinion, a serious argument against the claims of Catholicism. There are two parishes practically a stone’s throw from each other because the Germans and the Irish couldn’t get along in the 19th century. So the Irish and other non-Germans founded their own parish. And since they were doing so out of ethnic rivalry, they built a church that was even bigger and grander than the impressive but simple German church. So there are two beautiful Catholic churches a few blocks from my house, and little more than a block from my Episcopal church! Three liturgical churches in easy walking distance! For someone who grew up in the Baptist-infested woods of East Tennessee, it’s paradise!

But if the Catholic/Orthodox vision is real, I am sure the true Church is not the Catholic one. There was a while when I was considering that, but I just can’t see any way to make that work.

If I had to choose between triumphalist Catholicism and triumphalist Orthodoxy, the latter would win easily. But Catholicism at its best has an impressive flexibility and breadth and generosity.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Not in my town. There are three in Fort Wayne, about a 45-minute drive away. (Actually there are four, maybe five–there are three functioning canonical parishes, a traditionalist Old Calendar parish, and an apparently defunct Romanian parish about whose status I’ve been unable to get clear information so far.) My reluctance to drive to Fort Wayne to church stems from my baptismal ecclesiology and my generally localist ideology, not from laziness (I drive to Fort Wayne quite frequently as it is).

Yes, I understand this, I had a similar issue when I was living in a small town. However, what I think is that if Orthodoxy is true, this means it needs to missionize at least in the sense of making itself available to people. But this has been true of the Church in many instances, and those don’t invalidate its claims to universality.

I most certainly do. The existence of these two parishes is, in my opinion, a serious argument against the claims of Catholicism. There are two parishes practically a stone’s throw from each other because the Germans and the Irish couldn’t get along in the 19th century. So the Irish and other non-Germans founded their own parish. And since they were doing so out of ethnic rivalry, they built a church that was even bigger and grander than the impressive but simple German church. So there are two beautiful Catholic churches a few blocks from my house, and little more than a block from my Episcopal church! Three liturgical churches in easy walking distance! For someone who grew up in the Baptist-infested woods of East Tennessee, it’s paradise!

Ah, yes, we have similar things in the Anglican Church here. Until recently we had two Anglican parishes in the area my church is in, one was high and the other low. The low parish has now moved to a suburb where there was no local church.

However, I do think that parishes have a kind of ideal size, and it is ok to split ones that have become too large. And there will be times that population shifts leave things a bit off.

So, as far as the Anglican parishes I mentioned - if both were full, as long as they were co-operative together, I don’t see that as a problem. Even if people chose one or the other because they preferred the style of worship.

If I had to choose between triumphalist Catholicism and triumphalist Orthodoxy, the latter would win easily. But Catholicism at its best has an impressive flexibility and breadth and generosity.
Edwin

Yes it does. I think we will have to wait and see if Orthodoxy can manage the same. I am inclined to think it may actually have more potential this way, since it understands the Church to be constituted at the local level in a way I find lacking in Catholicism.

 

[Contarini]

Ah, yes, we have similar things in the Anglican Church here. Until recently we had two Anglican parishes in the area my church is in, one was high and the other low. The low parish has now moved to a suburb where there was no local church.

In Morristown, NJ, near where I used to live, there were two Episcopal parishes very near each other. Apparently the reason was originally pew rentals, though now the main difference is that one is a fairly typical moderate-liberal Episcopal church, while the other is a wacky, experimental, ultra-liberal church where they don’t use the Nicene Creed!

However, I do think that parishes have a kind of ideal size, and it is ok to split ones that have become too large. And there will be times that population shifts leave things a bit off.

So, as far as the Anglican parishes I mentioned - if both were full, as long as they were co-operative together, I don’t see that as a problem. Even if people chose one or the other because they preferred the style of worship.

I have rather draconian views on this. I think that ideally all baptized Christians in a given geographical area should worship at the same altar on Sunday, and anything short of that is a defective expression of Christian unity. I think that picking your church based on the style of worship is a particularly insidious and deadly form of consumerism in the church, unless of course you believe that a church’s defective worship makes it not truly part of the Universal Church.

When I say this, I am condemning my own predilections as much as anything.

Yes it does. I think we will have to wait and see if Orthodoxy can manage the same. I am inclined to think it may actually have more potential this way, since it understands the Church to be constituted at the local level in a way I find lacking in Catholicism.

I agree that that’s true (though ironically, my agreement with this aspect of Orthodoxy is one of the reasons I can’t bring myself to leave my local parish and become Orthodox!), but I think that some of the breadth of Catholicism comes from the reliance on union with the bishop of Rome as the mark of Catholicity. Lacking this, the Orthodox put more emphasis on exact adherence to Tradition. This is what RCs typically mean when they say the Orthodox are “stagnant.” That isn’t how I would put it. But I think David Hart was right when he suggested that actually the Papacy is a force not so much for preservation of orthodoxy as for diversity and development. At least, that’s how it looks when you compare Rome with the East. Obviously it looks differently if you compare Rome and the Protestants!

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

From what I can tell on their website and your descriptions, they are not Orthodox. They list no bishop or canonical jurisdiction. This group is no different than any “Old Catholic” group or some such. This Archbishop Paul, from what I can tell, is no Archbishop at all.

In Christ,
Andrew

It looks like vagantes, from the website.

 

[searn77]

I can’t get the link to work. Do you remember their name?

Edit:
I found it - it is the blog that Harpazo linked to!

It’s quite interesting. Practically speaking, if I make a change I will go to the little OCA parish. They are small and new and mostly converts, and the priest was an Anglican.

But I find it very difficult to think of all non-Orthodox as being somehow outside the Church. And more practically, my Anglican parish may be going through difficulties in the next few years as worldwide Anglicanism changes, and I find myself wondering what my duty is there. And I like the parish very much, and my husband would be staying there.

It makes me sound very wishy-washy, but there you go.

I’m not sure if you found the same website I did as the website I linked isn’t a blog, but like I said I could’ve sworn they got a new website so maybe you found their new website.

Anyways there name is “Our Lady of Glastonbury Orthodox Church.” Their address is 390 Cannon Street East, Hamilton. & they’re served by the monks from Christ the Savior (aka Christminster) monastery. Try this website:
www.westernorthodox.ca/

I just found Christminsters website which looks like the new website that I saw before:
christminster.org/

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m not sure if you found the same website I did as the website I linked isn’t a blog, but like I said I could’ve sworn they got a new website so maybe you found their new website.

Anyways there name is “Our Lady of Glastonbury Orthodox Church.” Their address is 390 Cannon Street East, Hamilton. & they’re served by the monks from Christ the Savior (aka Christminster) monastery. Try this website:
www.westernorthodox.ca/

I just found Christminsters website which looks like the new website that I saw before:
christminster.org/

It says they are part of the "Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia "?
They seem to have a lot going on too!

They are a two day drive from me though.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m convinced the various Orthodox groups disagree among themselves regarding these criteria - see the disagreements regarding the canonical recognition of autocephalous Ukrainian EOC (recognized by the EP, not by MP) and the Autocephalous EOC of Cyprus and OCA (recognized by the MP, but not by the EP).

The Ukrainian Orthodox are not recognized by anyone, unless you mean the two national Churches they have in the America’s, which are under the EP, and recognized by all. The Church of Cyprus has universal recognition and is the only Church outside of the original five which is recognized by a Council. The OCA is recognized universally as being Orthodox, what is not agreed upon is whether or not it is Autocephalus or Autonomous, an academic distinction when the Mother Church says the former (since the only distinction between the two is that the Mother Church appoints a leader, the Greeks essentially recognize Moscow as having this right, while Moscow acknowledges having no such right).

Orthodox usually move together in recognition.

 

[Nine_Two]

It says they are part of the "Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia "?
They seem to have a lot going on too!

They are a two day drive from me though.

Presently ROCOR and AO are the only jurisdictions which have Western Rite Churches. Officially the use of the Western Rite has been approved in the OCA, but no Parish that I’m aware of has ever been set up.

 

[KyivAndrew]

The Ukrainian Orthodox are not recognized by anyone, unless you mean the two national Churches they have in the America’s, which are under the EP, and recognized by all.

Yes, and as I mentioned on another thread, that is the sad part about Orthodoxy that, despite what is said, it is surely not immune to political and secular questions or power politics entering into questions of canonicity. The noncanonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) has 14 million believers in Ukraine compared to the canonical Russian Orthodox Church’s 9 million in Ukraine. The latter is euphemistically called Ukrainian Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate) and is supposed to have “autonomous” status but it really doesn’t as became clear when the Patriarch of Moscow went to a meeting with the current President of Ukraine, without bothering to inform the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP) Sabodan to come with him.

To have 14 million Orthodox children, women, men, grandparents in Ukraine be called “schismatics” by world Orthodoxy and their sacraments invalid startles many. After all, they share the same tenets as Orthodoxy. Indeed, much is made of Russia being the most Orthodox country in the world but this year’s statistics for Easter attendance show 11.9 million attendees in Ukraine to 8 million in Russia, and Russia is almost three times the size.

The only reason this Orthodox Church of 14 million is not recognized canonically is Politics, not religion. The Patriarch of Moscow comes to Ukraine preaching not so much of Christ but of the need for Ukraine to be in the “Russkyi Myr”, or the Russian world, which is basically a throw-back to the idea of “Holy Russia” during the Tsars. Most Orthodox in Ukraine have no problem with this as long as it stays in Russia. The problem is it does not, and apart from accepting Moscow as boss, the Russian Orthodox Church demands that the faithful in Ukraine read from the same historic, cultural, linguistic script as does the hierarchy of the Church in Moscow. I think the Patriarch of Moscow actually once blessed Russia’s nuclear arsenal which missiles are aimed at us truly. The role is not just religious but political.

Ukraine by any measure should have its own Autocephalous Orthodox Church so that people feel they are going to Church on the sabbath and not for political lessons on the Russian world.

Two years ago, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople apparently came very close to taking the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) under his wing as are the Ukrainian Orthodox here. Indeed, the Ukrainian Orthodox in our country resolved at its Sobor that:
Whereas the XX Sobor rejoices that the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is being revitalized, but is saddened that it is divided into three branches, and reiterates that Ukraine, as a sovereign state, must have a unified Orthodox Church headed by the Patriarch of Kyiv and All Ukraine
web.archive.org/web/20050214180234/www.uocc.ca/resolutions-a.html

That’s from the Orthodox Church in our own country.

The fact that the office of the Patriarch of Moscow is also political, imho, is that the leader of Ukraine and the Donetsk mafia clan with a criminal record like Victor Yanukovych (who tried to falsify Ukraine’s election in the Orange Revolution) gets awarded one of Russian Orthodoxy’s highest awards by the Patriarch. Patriarch Kirill complains of consumerism, but says nothing about the fact that the bureaucrats and members of Parliament in Moscow and Kyiv are multimillionaires who live high on the hog by milking the common Russian or Ukrainian person dry. He says nothing because some have argued he is part of this oligarchic ruling class with the K.G.B. man Putin in Moscow. Why doesn’t the Patriarch of Moscow demand that the old K.G.B. haunt, the Lubyanka, where hundreds of thousands of Orthodox and Catholics were tortured or died, be smashed to the last stone and that Lenin be removed from Moscow? Nothing. Nothing on the corrupt oligarchs running Russia or Ukraine (corruption being the major scourge for the poor average law-abiding Ukrainian or Russia).

I repeat, the main reason the biggest Orthodox Church in Ukraine (Kyivan Patriarchate) is noncanonical is because of political decisions made in Moscow, not on any redeeming spiritual imperative.

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, and as I mentioned on another thread, that is the sad part about Orthodoxy that, despite what is said, it is surely not immune to political and secular questions or power politics entering into questions of canonicity. The noncanonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) has 14 million believers in Ukraine compared to the canonical Russian Orthodox Church’s 9 million in Ukraine. The latter is euphemistically called Ukrainian Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate) and is supposed to have “autonomous” status but it really doesn’t as became clear when the Patriarch of Moscow went to a meeting with the current President of Ukraine, without bothering to inform the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP) Sabodan to come with him.

To have 14 million Orthodox children, women, men, grandparents in Ukraine be called “schismatics” by world Orthodoxy and their sacraments invalid startles many. After all, they share the same tenets as Orthodoxy. Indeed, much is made of Russia being the most Orthodox country in the world but this year’s statistics for Easter attendance show 11.9 million attendees in Ukraine to 8 million in Russia, and Russia is almost three times the size.

The only reason this Orthodox Church of 14 million is not recognized canonically is Politics, not religion. The Patriarch of Moscow comes to Ukraine preaching not so much of Christ but of the need for Ukraine to be in the “Russkyi Myr”, or the Russian world, which is basically a throw-back to the idea of “Holy Russia” during the Tsars. Most Orthodox in Ukraine have no problem with this as long as it stays in Russia. The problem is it does not, and apart from accepting Moscow as boss, the Russian Orthodox Church demands that the faithful in Ukraine read from the same historic, cultural, linguistic script as does the hierarchy of the Church in Moscow. I think the Patriarch of Moscow actually once blessed Russia’s nuclear arsenal which missiles are aimed at us truly. The role is not just religious but political.

Ukraine by any measure should have its own Autocephalous Orthodox Church so that people feel they are going to Church on the sabbath and not for political lessons on the Russian world.

Two years ago, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople apparently came very close to taking the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) under his wing as are the Ukrainian Orthodox here. Indeed, the Ukrainian Orthodox in our country resolved at its Sobor that:
Whereas the XX Sobor rejoices that the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is being revitalized, but is saddened that it is divided into three branches, and reiterates that Ukraine, as a sovereign state, must have a unified Orthodox Church headed by the Patriarch of Kyiv and All Ukraine
web.archive.org/web/20050214180234/www.uocc.ca/resolutions-a.html

That’s from the Orthodox Church in our own country.

The fact that the office of the Patriarch of Moscow is also political, imho, is that the leader of Ukraine and the Donetsk mafia clan with a criminal record like Victor Yanukovych (who tried to falsify Ukraine’s election in the Orange Revolution) gets awarded one of Russian Orthodoxy’s highest awards by the Patriarch. Patriarch Kirill complains of consumerism, but says nothing about the fact that the bureaucrats and members of Parliament in Moscow and Kyiv are multimillionaires who live high on the hog by milking the common Russian or Ukrainian person dry. He says nothing because some have argued he is part of this oligarchic ruling class with the K.G.B. man Putin in Moscow. Why doesn’t the Patriarch of Moscow demand that the old K.G.B. haunt, the Lubyanka, where hundreds of thousands of Orthodox and Catholics were tortured or died, be smashed to the last stone and that Lenin be removed from Moscow? Nothing. Nothing on the corrupt oligarchs running Russia or Ukraine (corruption being the major scourge for the poor average law-abiding Ukrainian or Russia).

I repeat, the main reason the biggest Orthodox Church in Ukraine (Kyivan Patriarchate) is noncanonical is because of political decisions made in Moscow, not on any redeeming spiritual imperative.

If you want to talk about the mistakes which the MP has made, you’re preaching to the choir. I take issue with a great many things they have done, however forcing things is not the proper way.

I honestly have a hard time seeing why it is such a big deal to see their membership of 14 million as schismatics when your own Church sees the 200 million+ (I’ve chosen a lower number for the sake of argument) of my own as schismatics. Clearly this schism needs to be solved, but ignoring it won’t do anything. It is very real.

And of course I recognize politics as happening within the Church, it is an unfortunate reality that when two or three are gathered, politics is there. (Forgive my hijacking of the bible.)

 

[KyivAndrew]

I honestly have a hard time seeing why it is such a big deal to see their membership of 14 million as schismatics when your own Church sees the 200 million+ (I’ve chosen a lower number for the sake of argument) of my own as schismatics. Clearly this schism needs to be solved, but ignoring it won’t do anything. It is very real.

I agree.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Clearly this schism needs to be solved, but ignoring it won’t do anything. It is very real.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, I agree.

In an ideal world everyone would sit down at a table and discuss things like grown adults. Sadly the whole reason Christ came is because we don’t live in an ideal world, and grown adults, as often as not, discuss things like children.

 

[KyivAndrew]

In an ideal world everyone would sit down at a table and discuss things like grown adults. Sadly the whole reason Christ came is because we don’t live in an ideal world, and grown adults, as often as not, discuss things like children.

Yes. And I will never use the word “schismatics” in discussing the Orthodox nor for that matter do I personally think that of Orthodox believers. They are part of my family (+ one grandparent).

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

The Ukrainian Orthodox are not recognized by anyone, unless you mean the two national Churches they have in the America’s, which are under the EP, and recognized by all. The Church of Cyprus has universal recognition and is the only Church outside of the original five which is recognized by a Council. The OCA is recognized universally as being Orthodox, what is not agreed upon is whether or not it is Autocephalus or Autonomous, an academic distinction when the Mother Church says the former (since the only distinction between the two is that the Mother Church appoints a leader, the Greeks essentially recognize Moscow as having this right, while Moscow acknowledges having no such right).

Orthodox usually move together in recognition.

Thanks for the corrections regarding the status of Ukrainian EOC and the Church of Cyprus. I didn’t drink enough coffee to fully wake me up when I wrote that post.

In fact I was thinking about the conflict between the MP and EP which forced the Russian delegation to walk out from the Orthodox-Catholic meeting at Ravenna in 2007. Now I tried to find this info and this is how it looks like: the Autonomous Estonian Orthodox Church (AEOC) is recognized by Constantinople, but not by Moscow. The OCA and Japanese Orthodox Church (JOC) are recognized by Moscow, but not by Constantinople. Constantinople expects that representatives of OCA and the JOC should not be present at pan-Orthodox functions. Moscow, in turn, expects that representatives of AEOC should not be present, as long as representatives of the OCA and JOC are excluded. Constantinople, in turn, disagrees with Moscow, believing that the EP has the right to grant autonomy to the AEOC even if Moscow disagrees, but Moscow has no right to grant autonomy or autocephaly to others (OCA, JOC) if Constantinople disagrees.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

interfax-religion.com/?act=documents&div=126

"27 May 2008, 12:33
Estonian church problem in light of negotiations between Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople on 26 March 2008 in Zurich. Statement by Communication Service of Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations

Delegations of the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople held negotiations on 26 March 2008 in Zurich to discuss their differences concerning the situation of the Orthodox Church in Estonia, which had forced the Russian Orthodox Church delegation to withdraw from the meeting of the Joint International Commission for theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, which took place on 8 October 2008 in Ravenna, Italy. The withdrawal was caused by the fact that a representative of Constantinople’s church jurisdiction in Estonia was invited to the meeting as a participant from the autonomous Estonian Orthodox Church that is not recognized in this canonical status either by the Russian Orthodox Church or other Local Orthodox Churches. The invitation had been sent by the Orthodox co-chairman of the Commission, Metropolitan John of Pergamon, Patriarchate of Constantinople, without any consultation with representatives of other Local Orthodox Churches.
…
It became impossible for the Moscow Patriarchate representatives to participate in the work of the Joint Commission in Ravenna because of the unilateral actions taken by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Those were deliberate actions to ignore the position of the Patriarchate of Moscow since the Church of Constantinople was aware of the Resolution on the Situation of the Orthodox Church in Estonia adopted by the Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000 and stating in its Par. 3 that representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church cannot participate in inter-Orthodox forums in which the so-called “Autonomous Estonian Orthodox Church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople” is officially represented.
…
Catholicos-Patriarch Iliya II of All Georgia stating that the canonical status of Orthodoxy in Estonia should be defined in bilateral negotiations between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow.
…
Earlier, in 1996, Patriarch Alexy received a number of responses to the notification he had sent out about the forced suspension of the Eucharistic communion with Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople because of his non-canonical actions in Estonia. At that time, Patriarch Teoctist of Romania expressed regret that the jurisdictional problem had not received a solution that would fully meet the need for canonical order and pastoral reality. In his reply, Archbishop Chrisostom I of Cyprus also stated his negative attitude to the recently-developed harmful situation in the Estonian Orthodox Church and the ensuing suspension of the Eucharistic communion. Catholicos-Patriarch Iliya II of All Georgia informed Patriarch Alexy that he considered it advisable to avoid unilateral actions before an appropriate negotiated decision was taken. Among precisely such actions, in the Moscow Patriarchate’s opinion, are the uncoordinated attempts to include representatives of a church structure, which has failed to gain common Orthodox recognition, in the circle of participants in various inter-Orthodox events.

The issue of church settlement in Estonia was central to a series of meetings between delegations of the two Patriarchates. The Moscow Patriarchate, on its part, has always been open to fraternal dialogue and search for mutual understanding in spite of the Patriarch of Constantinople’s actions which have brought a deplorable division into the life of the Orthodox faithful in Estonia. For seven centuries Orthodox communities there have been part of the Russian Orthodox Church which has built all the Orthodox churches there are there. Following the declaration of independence by the Republic of Estonia, the Moscow Patriarchate granted autonomy to the Estonian Church in 1920. But in 1923, Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople, in violation of sacred canons, declared this autonomous Church a metropolia of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 1940, the canonical relations with her Mother Russian Church were restored. The Estonian Church existed as a diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate till 26 April 1993 when Patriarch Alexy issued a Tomos granting her the status of a self-governed Church. But in August 1993, the Estonian Ministry of the Interior registered the Stockholm-based so-called Synod of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church consisting of one priest and a few lay people as the owner of the historical church property in the republic. Some other clergy and laity of the Estonian Orthodox Church joined this group. On 20 February 1996, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople issued a decree re-enforcing the 1923 Tomos of Patriarch Meletios establishing “an autonomous Estonian Orthodox Metropolia” in Estonia. **On February 23, the Patriarch of Moscow suspended the Eucharistic communion with Patriarch Bartholomew.

The restoration of communion was negotiated in April 1996 in Zurich.**"

continued…