Patriarch Kirill strengths his position within the Orthodox Church and casts his eye towards Rome

[Marcarios]

This is a perfect example of why there should be a seperation of Church and State. Seriously, Unity of the Church between Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, should not be dictated by The Moscow Patriarchate, or Putin. especially in this day and age.

Im Orthodox and im sure for whatever reasons the Pope wont elevate the Ukranian Catholic Churchs Metropolitian to a Patriarch, however as we are living in the modern times now, that is his perrogative and their’s.

The Meddelsome Secular State should be done away with,The World Over .!
“The New World Order is the New World DISORDER!”

The State has impeded unity among Christians and non Christians seeking freedom for too long. Ceasear is dead.

Ukraine is its own country like Georgia and the other former bloc countries, neo imperialists and their thinking have no place in the world we live in now or in the Church .

The World was involved in two world wars for this imperialist clap trap.

 

[Hesychios]

Rome is not going for communion for the sake of control. In fact, Rome has been wiling to go back to her role in the first millennium if that is what it takes to achieve unity

I disagree.

Rome is not willing to actually return to a role of the first millennium until it repudiates Papal universal jurisdiction as a dogma.

Something like that is not negotiated. One does not say “I will give up this belief if you concede …” . It just doesn’t work that way, one either believes something or one does not. It is not bartered away for some other gain, ever.

Therefore it is incumbent on the Papacy to develop it’s belief system away from universal jurisdiction on it’s own, no quid pro quo. No gentleman’s agreements or anything like that. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will move it to do so, perhaps there will be some kind of miracle … or perhaps not.

I don’t think it can do that on it’s own, it lacks the ability, it lacks the desire and it lacks the resolve. So it is not even possible for the Papacy to reproduce the communion of the first millennium. It cannot return to it’s role of the first millennium, not by changing it’s arrangements with the Eastern Catholics and not by any agreement with the Orthodox.

It has to believe it does not have universal jurisdiction, because it made what would be church discipline into dogma it has to somehow un-dogmatize it.

… Thats a lot to give up. .

Indeed.

 

[Pork_Roll]

Something like that is not negotiated. One does not say “I will give up this belief if you concede …” . It just doesn’t work that way, one either believes something or one does not. It is not bartered away for some other gain, ever.

I don’t think it’s as black and white as that. First off, the orthodox have no official answer to what a unified church should look like. It’s Rome which offers a model, or at least is willing to offer a model. It’s theoretical that Rome and the orthodox could return to a 1st millennial structure without resorting to either side having to completely repudiate its theological developments. There are already agreements between catholic churches and some orthodox to share communion.

If the Russians want to make a big deal out of the filioque or purgatory they will. I don’t personally understand it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t think it’s as black and white as that. First off, the orthodox have no official answer to what a unified church should look like. It’s Rome which offers a model, or at least is willing to offer a model. It’s theoretical that Rome and the orthodox could return to a 1st millennial structure without resorting to either side having to completely repudiate its theological developments. There are already agreements between catholic churches and some orthodox to share communion.

If the Russians want to make a big deal out of the filioque or purgatory they will. I don’t personally understand it.

And in what way is the Orthodox Church disunified? I would say that Rome offers homogeneity more than unity, and the two are very different concepts.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I disagree.

Rome is not willing to actually return to a role of the first millennium until it repudiates Papal universal jurisdiction as a dogma.

Something like that is not negotiated. One does not say “I will give up this belief if you concede …” . It just doesn’t work that way, one either believes something or one does not. It is not bartered away for some other gain, ever.

Therefore it is incumbent on the Papacy to develop it’s belief system away from universal jurisdiction on it’s own, no quid pro quo. No gentleman’s agreements or anything like that. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will move it to do so, perhaps there will be some kind of miracle … or perhaps not.

I don’t think it can do that on it’s own, it lacks the ability, it lacks the desire and it lacks the resolve. So it is not even possible for the Papacy to reproduce the communion of the first millennium. It cannot return to it’s role of the first millennium, not by changing it’s arrangements with the Eastern Catholics and not by any agreement with the Orthodox.

It has to believe it does not have universal jurisdiction, because it made what would be church discipline into dogma it has to somehow un-dogmatize it.

Indeed.

The Catholic Church has already said they are willing to investigate and conclusively define the role of the Pope in the first millennium. The caveat of course is they haven’t said conclusively if they will accept it. Probably more discussions. But its a step. What has Russia done except threaten to get off the table they never really sat around on?

 

[Hesychios]

Its not as if the UGCC isn’t holding dialogues with her sister Orthodox Churches of Ukraine. Last time I checked, the Kiev Patriarchate and the UGCC has excellent relations.

I wish Alex were active here, he could give is a little perspective on that relationship.

But I do not think the Rome is happy with this dialog with any Orthodox (canonical or otherwise) without the active participation of Rome itself. Usually Rome controls the process on behalf of everyone under it’s wing.

It’s not that I do not sympathize with them, I do, but I am not personally affected whether the Ukrainians get a Patriarch or not, if they got one I’d be happy for them because they are happy. But to be honest the church is not well served by the multiplication of patriarchs, Orthodox or Catholic. It is an honorific only and not really necessary if they have a Metropolitan. What the church needs … what it deserves … is autocephaly, with or without the fancy titles.

Every Orthodox church has a primate, with potentially the same powers no matter what title is carried, powers which are going to be whatever the synod as a whole mutually agrees to (there are dependent churches, like in Japan and Finland, as well as Ukraine which one can argue deserves autocephaly whether it has a ‘Patriarch’ or not). Poland, the Czech and Slovak church, Cyprus and some others are all ‘headed’ by Metropolitans, but their churches are self governing so the Metropolitan has the same role as a Patriarch.

In the Papal communion (can I call it that? I mean the communion centered on the bishop of Rome), the canons approved by Rome make a distinction between a Major-Metropolitan and a Patriarch and it all boils down to how much ability to act independently is conceded by the Pope to each type, there is no autocephaly possible. This is in contrast to the Orthodox way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I wish Alex were active here, he could give is a little perspective on that relationship.

sainteliaschurch.blogspot.com/2011/05/heads-of-ugcc-and-kyivan-patriarchate.html

And here in North America…
dormition.ca/NWEparchy/docs/BishopsEncounter2011.pdf

But I do not think the Rome is happy with this dialog with any Orthodox (canonical or otherwise) without the active participation of Rome itself. Usually Rome controls the process on behalf of everyone under it’s wing.

That is a bit narcissistic view of Rome. Do you see Rome as nothing more than power grabbers?

It’s not that I do not sympathize with them, I do, but I am not personally affected whether the Ukrainians get a Patriarch or not, if they got one I’d be happy for them because they are happy. But to be honest the church is not well served by the multiplication of patriarchs, Orthodox or Catholic. It is an honorific only and not really necessary if they have a Metropolitan. What the church needs … what it deserves … is autocephaly, with or without the fancy titles.

It serves the need of the Church where most people are persecuted not only religiously, but also politically.

Every Orthodox church has a primate, with potentially the same powers no matter what title is carried, powers which are going to be whatever the synod as a whole mutually agrees to (there are dependent churches, like in Japan and Finland, as well as Ukraine which one can argue deserves autocephaly whether it has a ‘Patriarch’ or not). Poland, the Czech and Slovak church, Cyprus and some others are all ‘headed’ by Metropolitans, but their churches are self governing so the Metropolitan has the same role as a Patriarch.

In the Papal communion (can I call it that? I mean the communion centered on the bishop of Rome), the canons approved by Rome make a distinction between a Major-Metropolitan and a Patriarch and it all boils down to how much ability to act independently is conceded by the Pope to each type, there is no autocephaly possible. This is in contrast to the Orthodox way.

For the most part I have never seen Rome meddle in UGCC affairs the way some Orthodox and even some Latin Catholics here assert. Even if Rome does have that theoretical authority to control each and every Church, if she is genuine in her desire for unity, she will not do anything that will force the schism of Churches already in communion with her.

 

[Hesychios]

The Catholic Church has already said they are willing to investigate and conclusively define the role of the Pope in the first millennium. The caveat of course is they haven’t said conclusively if they will accept it. Probably more discussions. But its a step.

I would like to see a quote on this point, to read what exactly was said. These things are always crafted very carefully, so one must study the text carefully.

It is my understanding that Pope John Paul II has asked for common reflection on the mode of exercise of papal primacy, not a definition of the papacy itself. It has already been defined for us very clearly and as far as I can tell there is no offer to change that.

Unless the Papacy is actually redefined to remove universal jurisdiction, everything else is just a footnote or an opinion. We all know this.

As to what Russia has done, it needs actually to do nothing.

Russian Orthodox did not redefine the Papacy, Rome did. Russian Orthodox can only wait until it is redefined back to it’s original state by Rome. No one can do it for them, the Vatican has too do this for itself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would like to see a quote on this point, to read what exactly was said. These things are always crafted very carefully, so one must study the text carefully.

It is my understanding that Pope John Paul II has asked for common reflection on the mode of exercise of papal primacy, not a definition of the papacy itself. It has already been defined for us very clearly and as far as I can tell there is no offer to change that.

Unless the Papacy is actually redefined to remove universal jurisdiction, everything else is just a footnote or an opinion. We all know this.

As to what Russia has done, it needs actually to do nothing.

Russian Orthodox did not redefine the Papacy, Rome did. Russian Orthodox can only wait until it is redefined back to it’s original state by Rome. No one can do it for them, the Vatican has too do this for itself.

I’m not talking about redefining the Papacy, but Russia needs to do something to show they are serious about unification. The only thing they have shown so far is they do not want a Patriarch in Kyiv that is in communion with Rome. If Russia doesn’t think they should do anything, then fine, don’t. But don’t force Rome to do her bidding and threaten they will not talk about unification when she doesn’t want to do anything. If she doesn’t want to do anything, then she shouldn’t ask for anything.

 

[Hesychios]

That is a bit narcissistic view of Rome. Do you see Rome as nothing more than power grabbers?

I disagree, it is only doing what it thinks it should do, I wouldn’t call Rome narcissistic. Your interpretation of the situation is not mine, but I am only relating what other Eastern Catholics have said on the subject.

Rome simply likes to control the discussions with other churches. It (to some extent at least) tends to bypass the EC in dialogs with Orthodox, and tends to discourage independent actions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I disagree, it is only doing what it thinks it should do, I wouldn’t call Rome narcissistic. Your interpretation of the situation is not mine, but I am only relating what other Eastern Catholics have said on the subject.

Rome simply likes to control the discussions with other churches. It (to some extent at least) tends to bypass the EC in dialogs with Orthodox, and tends to discourage independent actions.

I will admit that my knowledge on the matter is limited. But the interactions between the UGCC and the different Ukrainian Orthodox factions has so far hasn’t had any reaction from Rome. Truth is I bet we’re closer to reunification with the UAOC and UOC-KP than any of the Churches in the Orthodox communion (if I may call them that). I think the only block is that the UOC-KP and UAOC seeks recognition from Constantinople. But I’m pretty sure Rome will welcome them with open arms if they want to become part of the UGCC.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I’m not talking about redefining the Papacy, but Russia needs to do something to show they are serious about unification. The only thing they have shown so far is they do not want a Patriarch in Kyiv that is in communion with Rome. If Russia doesn’t think they should do anything, then fine, don’t. But don’t force Rome to do her bidding and threaten they will not talk about unification when she doesn’t want to do anything. If she doesn’t want to do anything, then she shouldn’t ask for anything.

That’s sad news for me.
Ther will be no union but with Rome. whatever is takes, With no conditions attached. that is what it is for Africa, China, America and Russia is no more no less than the others.
I requires a great degree of humility…
But if they do not unite with Rome, they will go nowhere. the ceremonies may be beautiful, the devotion great but they are separate from the foot.

 

[Formosus]

I will admit that my knowledge on the matter is limited. But the interactions between the UGCC and the different Ukrainian Orthodox factions has so far hasn’t had any reaction from Rome. Truth is I bet we’re closer to reunification with the UAOC and UOC-KP than any of the Churches in the Orthodox communion (if I may call them that). I think the only block is that the UOC-KP and UAOC seeks recognition from Constantinople. But I’m pretty sure Rome will welcome them with open arms if they want to become part of the UGCC.

That seems a bit of an exaggeration. Further, would Rome really accept them with open arms? If they are concerned about us being a patriarchate because of Russia, then they definetly wouldn’t want to accept a bunch of non-canonical orthodox who Russia believes are under their jurisdiction.

Further, as close as we are witu the KP and uaoc and the Ukrainian orthodox under the ep in NA/SA, I doubt they would want to become Catholic. I think at best the easternizing party in the ugcc may consider joining a united canonical Ukrainian orthodox jurisdiction.

 

[Diakonia]

Moscow is playing the political game again to prevent the official declaration of the Patriarchy in Ukraine. Its time for the Pope to take a tough stand on this, like the SSPX. Give Russia a deadline to start heading towards communion, or give UGCC the Patriarchate it so deserves. Moscow is just using the Pope’s desire for communion as a way to block the Patriarchate without even taking a step towards communion. Like the SSPX situation, they should show that they are willing to take that step towards communion, or let Rome do what it wants to do with Kyiv.

‘Give Russia (the MP) a deadline to start heading toward communion …’ Are you dreaming? Is that how you believe communion is achieved?

Communion between the Catholic Church of Rome and any of the Churches of the Orthodox Communion is not akin to an issue betwen the Vatican and a bunch of renegade Catholics who wandered off on their own a few decades back.

As to something you said further down the line - and which I’m not inclined to go hunting for at the moment - Rome does not intend or want to enter into communion with any one Church or Patriarchate of the Orthodox Communion. To do so would provoke an incredible backlash across Orthodoxy.

While Rome accepts the decisions of individual clergy or laypersons - and even small groups of the same - to enter communion with it from Orthodoxy, it has no interest or intent in splitting the Orthodox Communion. It is for this reason that various agreements, formal and informal, have spoken against prosletyzing directed at such.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That seems a bit of an exaggeration. Further, would Rome really accept them with open arms? If they are concerned about us being a patriarchate because of Russia, then they definetly wouldn’t want to accept a bunch of non-canonical orthodox who Russia believes are under their jurisdiction.

Further, as close as we are witu the KP and uaoc and the Ukrainian orthodox under the ep in NA/SA, I doubt they would want to become Catholic. I think at best the easternizing party in the ugcc may consider joining a united canonical Ukrainian orthodox jurisdiction.

Will Rome deny anyone who wants to come into the Catholic communion? Assuming the UAOC or the UOC-KP says they want to become Catholic, will Rome deny them that just because they are not Canonical or that because they should belong to Russia?

‘Give Russia (the MP) a deadline to start heading toward communion …’ Are you dreaming? Is that how you believe communion is achieved?

Communion between the Catholic Church of Rome and any of the Churches of the Orthodox Communion is not akin to an issue betwen the Vatican and a bunch of renegade Catholics who wandered off on their own a few decades back.

As to something you said further down the line - and which I’m not inclined to go hunting for at the moment - Rome does not intend or want to enter into communion with any one Church or Patriarchate of the Orthodox Communion. To do so would provoke an incredible backlash across Orthodoxy.

While Rome accepts the decisions of individual clergy or laypersons - and even small groups of the same - to enter communion with it from Orthodoxy, it has no interest or intent in splitting the Orthodox Communion. It is for this reason that various agreements, formal and informal, have spoken against prosletyzing directed at such.

But the issue here is that Rome is leaving her own Churches in communion with her high and dry because a huge Church not in communion with her isn’t making any strides towards communion, yet is making ridiculous demands. Like I said earlier, if Russia doesn’t want to do anything, then its okay. But they shouldn’t ask for anything as well.

 

[Warrenton]

II don’t think it can do that on it’s own, it lacks the ability, it lacks the desire and it lacks the resolve. So it is not even possible for the Papacy to reproduce the communion of the first millennium. It cannot return to it’s role of the first millennium, not by changing it’s arrangements with the Eastern Catholics and not by any agreement with the Orthodox.

The Catholic conception of the role of the papacy, and the Latin Church in general, will certainly be informed and shaped in part by the contributions of the Orthodox. That is why continuing discussion is important.

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

At the risk of derailing this thread - what is the formal relationship between the Russian government and Russian Orthodox Church? I know the Tsar was the supreme head of the Church in the old days, and that Soviet leaders used to interfere in episcopal elections, but how does the Church understand its relationship to the state, does it still preach unquestioning obedience as it did in Imperial times? How does the state understand it, is Russia an officially Orthodox country, does the government listen to the Church on moral or social issues? Does Putin expect Orthodox synods to bend to his will?

What goes on between the Russian Church and the Russian Government is up for debate. Many say they are still very close, while there are others who say that the Church and government are not so close.

As far as the Tsar being the head of the Church, this was introduced by Peter the Great, along with many other changes (Church Music, architecture, etc.) though, he put a Synod in place of the Patriarchate to make decisions on Ecclesiastical Affairs. Before Peter the Great the Russian Church was headed, as it is now, by the Patriarch.

Soviet leaders had their hands in a lot more than just Ecclesiastical Elections. They basically tried, and for the most part did, turn the Church into another arm of the Government. As for how far the Church allowed the government to influence it is something that is still debated.

I don’t think that the Church preaches unquestioning obedience to the Government. But, a lot of what the Patriarchate publishes sounds to be pretty reminiscent of the Communist Era Church. You have to understand that those in Ecclesiastical Authority in the Russian Church today, much like the government, were much the same as those who were in power during communism. The way a society thinks can not be changed over night.

I don’t think Putin would be foolish enough to think that any Synod would bend to his will. The Russian Church today seems to be given a great amount of freedom within the country to govern its own affairs.

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

I’m not talking about redefining the Papacy, but Russia needs to do something to show they are serious about unification. The only thing they have shown so far is they do not want a Patriarch in Kyiv that is in communion with Rome.

Well, doesn’t this tell you something? Personally, I don’t think the Russian Church wants anything to do with unity until they see that the Vatican is serious about making some very drastic changes. The Russian Patriarchate is even now playing its power-card within the Orthodox Church. Relations with Constantinople are strained because certain Local Churches are not recognized by both Patriarchates as being Autocephalous. Perhaps when things settle down in our own communion, can Russia really be looked to to offer hopes for Rome, but you’re not going to see anything serious come of this unification talk unless Rome can make some big changes, which I think Hesychios has quite rightly put it. In my opinion this isn’t just how Moscow feels, this is how many Orthodox feel, though the Bishops may espouse something different.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, doesn’t this tell you something? Personally, I don’t think the Russian Church wants anything to do with unity until they see that the Vatican is serious about making some very drastic changes. The Russian Patriarchate is even now playing its power-card within the Orthodox Church. Relations with Constantinople are strained because certain Local Churches are not recognized by both Patriarchates as being Autocephalous. Perhaps when things settle down in our own communion, can Russia really be looked to to offer hopes for Rome, but you’re not going to see anything serious come of this unification talk unless Rome can make some big changes, which I think Hesychios has quite rightly put it. In my opinion this isn’t just how Moscow feels, this is how many Orthodox feel, though the Bishops may espouse something different.

Thats fine. But they shouldn’t put their nose in Catholic affairs such as the Patriarchate in Kyiv for the UGCC. If they are not interested in union at this time, then they shouldn’t be taking interest in other Catholic affairs as well.

 

[Formosus]

Will Rome deny anyone who wants to come into the Catholic communion? Assuming the UAOC or the UOC-KP says they want to become Catholic, will Rome deny them that just because they are not Canonical or that because they should belong to Russia?

I would hope Rome would deny them to become Catholic because to accept them would be a return to the uniate model of the past. Of course this is all hypothetical since I seriously doubt the KP or uoac would have any interest in being in communion with Rome currently.