D
Diak
Guest
Just looking at the Church of Bulgaria, she was frankly considered “uncanonical” for decades. By the strict Cyprianic view, any uncanonical Church cannot posess grace. On paper this lasted from the excommunication of the establishment of the Bulgarian hierarchy in 1872 by Patriarch Anthimus until I believe the end of World War II when Bulgarian autocephaly and “canonicity” were formally recognized by the EP. So essentially the Bulgarian Church did not posess grace for the first nearly 80 years of its existence? I don’t believe that.
The case of +Patriarch Filaret illustrates this as well, as the MP consideres him a layman. The Ukrainian Orthodox in North America were also considered “uncanonical” until a group of parishes were granted recognition by Constantinople. Did anything change liturgically, theologically or dogmatically? Of course not.
I personally knew of ROCOR priests and some older Patriarchal priests back then who would not commune those in the OCA and vice versa. The acceptance of the Tomos of Autocephaly of the OCA is another case in point. The OCA was considered uncanonical by some particular Orthodox Churches.
What changes other than one Church giving in and saying another Church is “canonical”? In the case of the KP she has never ceased to affirm the Seven Councils, uphold Orthodox dogma or celebrate Orthodox liturgy.
I would posit the much simpler thing is to have a higher arbiter of primacy rather than the continuous fracturing of Orthodox jurisdictions and very subjective positions of “canonicity”. As Protobresbyter Alexander Schmemann stated more than once during his lifetime, “For nothing can justify the bare fact: Our Church is divided.”
The case of +Patriarch Filaret illustrates this as well, as the MP consideres him a layman. The Ukrainian Orthodox in North America were also considered “uncanonical” until a group of parishes were granted recognition by Constantinople. Did anything change liturgically, theologically or dogmatically? Of course not.
I personally knew of ROCOR priests and some older Patriarchal priests back then who would not commune those in the OCA and vice versa. The acceptance of the Tomos of Autocephaly of the OCA is another case in point. The OCA was considered uncanonical by some particular Orthodox Churches.
What changes other than one Church giving in and saying another Church is “canonical”? In the case of the KP she has never ceased to affirm the Seven Councils, uphold Orthodox dogma or celebrate Orthodox liturgy.
I would posit the much simpler thing is to have a higher arbiter of primacy rather than the continuous fracturing of Orthodox jurisdictions and very subjective positions of “canonicity”. As Protobresbyter Alexander Schmemann stated more than once during his lifetime, “For nothing can justify the bare fact: Our Church is divided.”