Of course, those requesting autocephaly in Ukraine are either present uniates, or former and future uniates. Not a single Orthodox is requesting autocephaly in Ukraine.
Phanariote's decease
Sort:
DmitriyVP wrote:
Please write in a few words in English the essence of this material (#14)
Thank you.
It is difficult to analyze dogmatic and scientific theological issues even in Greek which is my native dialect although I am a theologist with a master's degree in doctrin. These are difficult issues and they need too much attention. Something that seems to be lacking in this particular issue where political ambitions prevail.
Although I have a very time-consuming program, at some future point I will try to convey to you in general what the article you are interested in and obviously can not understand with the program of automatic translation.
DmitriyVP wrote:
Anastasios написал:
Until then, it would be good to remain in communion and communication between us, not to be selfish and to put the good of the Church above all other, whether nations are or whatever.
to put the good of the Church above all other is to keep our faith pure and not to associate with the schismatics!
If we want to keep our Faith pure, then we should not fall into the heresy of the nationalism.
IF (I dont know so I say IF) the Russians want to run a church in another state for political and nationalistic reasons, then they are falling into the schism.
Unfortunately it is a fact and not a hypothetical academic debate that in Ukraine became a civil war.
Half of the Canonical Orthodox community in Ukraine love Russia and the other half hate it.
Those who hate Russia believe that their church is controlled politicaly by Russia which intervenes, so they demand their independence. Thus, they are dissociated from the normal administration, they make one of their own (schismatic) and request their own Autokephalous from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which is responsible for it.
Autokephalous has been given to many national states and we can not deny it to Ukraine because it does not like Russia, or Skopje because it does not like Serbia, or Cyprus because it does not like Greece, or Greece because it does not like the Ecumenical Patriarchate!!!
Schism is not a heresy and is solved by a political-administrative decision.
The problem here is not the acceptance of schismatics but the way the Ecumenical Patriarchate tries to integrate them into our Church.
He is not a Pope of Rome to decide on his own, but the Patriarch of New Rome (Constantinople) who ought to express the will of the Church through a Synod.
64idi0t wrote:
Mr. Anastasios,
You failed to read the part of my third post that Phanariotes are officially like heathen and tax-collectors to me. Only Orthodox are brothers of mine.
Phanariotes can stick "the ancient explanation" of autocephaly dating back to documents dated 1976(!) of Metr. Hieroties to the place of body never reached by the light of the Sun.
I am aware that Greek Church is strangled by Phanar, I'm aware Phanar appoints cca 1/3 of her bishops. But nobody can be forced to be free, so I respect the Greek choice.
Present mess can be resolved only by anathema against Bartholomew, Zizioulas and Elpidoporos of Bursa.
Serbian Church has still not ceased commemoration with Phanariotes and I am itchy to move to Moscow.
My brother in Christ 64idi0t if you see a very poor ancient church who strugles to survive in an antichristian muslim environment and state, as tax-collectors, I dont blame you but it makes me very sad.
The word "heathen", however, is too heavy and it is competent to render it to the Ecumenical Patriarchate without a universal Ecumenical Synod, and unfortunately many orthodox national churches do not want to be done if they can not impose their views.
The Greeks want to be free in an Ecumenical Church that does not separate the churches nationally but unites us all in the body of Christ and not to be enslaved to the heresy of nationalism. Just like the ancient Church. That is why it does not rebel further against the Mother Church of Constantinople. I remind you that the Greek autocephalous church was the first guerrilla and schismatic church and that example follows now the Ukrainian nationalists.
Serbian Church acts very wise. There is a problem and must be solved by a Synod rather than by an autonomous anathema of each local church.
RussIvan wrote:
Anastasios, please note that Kontantinopol is trying to give the autocephaly not to the canonical Ukrainian church, but to a bunch of nationalist schismatics headed by Denisenko. This is the main problem for everyone.
It's a vicious circle.
The Ukrainian nationalists are calling for ecclesiastical autocephalous because they think that the Russian nationalists intervene in their church, and on the other hand the Russian nationalists do not want to give the Ukrainian nationalists autocephalous in order not to lose them from their control.
For an "external" observer, the problem is not Ukraine's autocephaly but the way it has been. For me both Moscow and Constantinople do not act for the sake of Faith but by executing commands from political pressures.
I think that if the Canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine had been free from Moscow to seek autocephalous, Constantinople would have given it and the matter would be resolved with Christ's love.
But, the main problem is political games.
64idi0t wrote:
Of course, those requesting autocephaly in Ukraine are either present uniates, or former and future uniates. Not a single Orthodox is requesting autocephaly in Ukraine.
When the Bulgarian church recognized the schismatic Skopjans, the Patriarch of Serbia did not interrupt any relationship with them. This way does not help solve the problem.
Mr. Anastasios,
You present misinformation either deliberately or out of ignorance.
FYI, it was not the Church of Greece that was "the first guerilla and schismatic" church. In modern times, it was the remainder of Serbian church (Patriarchate of Pec) that Phanar annulled twice during Ottoman yoke, that first went under anathema of Phanar, somewhere around 1804.
In absolute times it were Bulgars that first went "the first guerilla and schismatic", at the time of Basil the Bulgaroktonos. Serbs were part of Bulgaria at that time.
The synod anathemazing Bartholomew need not be ecumenical at its convoqation. Its results will be recognized by all Orthodox. Those who wouldn't recognize it wouldn't be Orthodox. Constantinopolis should be demoted to around 8th or 9th place in dyptich by the same synod because it is not "a Royal city" anymore, which was the reason for its elevation by the 28th canon of Chalcedon.
Mr. Anastasios,
I am not aware that Bulgarians entered into communion with schismatic hierarchy. All what was reported was that they had accepted to communicate their requests to Phanar.
Besides, it were not Bulgarians who were dissiminating heretical teachings for decades. It were Phanariotes who were doing it.
Anastasios написал:
RussIvan wrote:
Anastasios, please note that Kontantinopol is trying to give the autocephaly not to the canonical Ukrainian church, but to a bunch of nationalist schismatics headed by Denisenko. This is the main problem for everyone.
It's a vicious circle.
The Ukrainian nationalists are calling for ecclesiastical autocephalous because they think that the Russian nationalists intervene in their church, and on the other hand the Russian nationalists do not want to give the Ukrainian nationalists autocephalous in order not to lose them from their control.
For an "external" observer, the problem is not Ukraine's autocephaly but the way it has been. For me both Moscow and Constantinople do not act for the sake of Faith but by executing commands from political pressures.
I think that if the Canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine had been free from Moscow to seek autocephalous, Constantinople would have given it and the matter would be resolved with Christ's love.
But, the main problem is political games.
There are no "Russian nationalists." There is a canonical Ukrainian Church (2/3 of believers), it stands for peace and harmony between our peoples, it does not require any autocephaly. The gathering of Mr. Denisenko (who is not even a Christian, so is under anathema) is the political project of the Ukrainian authorities, who hate Russia and support nationalism. They are supported by America, and now Constantinople. So yes, the main problem is political games, but the Russian Church does not participate in this, but on the contrary denounces and opposes
RussIvan wrote:
...So yes, the main problem is political games, but the Russian Church does not participate in this, but on the contrary denounces and opposes
Brother, don't forget Poroschenko is an uniate. His "sukha pravoslavna" (sp?) remarks are well known, while there are footages of him partaking communion at uniates. Fitting company for Bartholomew.
Anastasios wrote:...
For me both Moscow and Constantinople do not act for the sake of Faith but by executing commands from political pressures.
...
This is a false narrative that Phanariotes will be resorting to. Falsely equalizing our Orthodox Russian brothers and Prouniate Ukrainian schismatics.
Pathetic.
RussIvan написал:
There are no "Russian nationalists." There is a canonical Ukrainian Church (2/3 of believers), it stands for peace and harmony between our peoples, it does not require any autocephaly. The gathering of Mr. Denisenko (who is not even a Christian, so is under anathema) is the political project of the Ukrainian authorities, who hate Russia and support nationalism. They are supported by America, and now Constantinople. So yes, the main problem is political games, but the Russian Church does not participate in this, but on the contrary denounces and opposes
Аминь.
64idi0t wrote:
Mr. Anastasios,
You present misinformation either deliberately or out of ignorance.
FYI, it was not the Church of Greece that was "the first guerilla and schismatic" church. In modern times, it was the remainder of Serbian church (Patriarchate of Pec) that Phanar annulled twice during Ottoman yoke, that first went under anathema of Phanar, somewhere around 1804.
In absolute times it were Bulgars that first went "the first guerilla and schismatic", at the time of Basil the Bulgaroktonos. Serbs were part of Bulgaria at that time.
The synod anathemazing Bartholomew need not be ecumenical at its convoqation. Its results will be recognized by all Orthodox. Those who wouldn't recognize it wouldn't be Orthodox. Constantinopolis should be demoted to around 8th or 9th place in dyptich by the same synod because it is not "a Royal city" anymore, which was the reason for its elevation by the 28th canon of Chalcedon.
Brother 64idi0t for this is the need for dialogue to deposit our evidence and reach the Truth. If I blocked you directly because of the offensive and racist title of your forum we would miss the opportunity of this very interesting dialogue.
As a Greek I am ashamed of our rebellion against the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but the political conditions of that time led to this solution because it was under Turkish control as the Ukranians now claim to be the Archbishop of Kiev under Russian. It would really be a great pleasure to know that my ancestors were not the first to create an Autocephalous Church as you claim, which to me is very sad, but the evidence I quote proves the opposite.
The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Orthodox_Church
The Ottoman government restored the Bulgarian Patriarchate under the name of "Bulgarian Exarchate" by a decree (firman) of the Sultan promulgated on February 28, 1870.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Orthodox_Church
The government declared the church to be autocephalous in 1833 in a political decision of the Bavarian Regents acting for King Otto, who was a minor. The decision roiled Greek politics for decades as royal authorities took increasing control. The new status was finally recognized as such by the Patriarchate in 1850, under compromise conditions with the issue of a special "Tomos" decree which brought it back to a normal status.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Greece
Autocephalous is something permissible but not perfect and blessed, like the third marriage. It makes me very questionable and I am very curious to know how a Serb believes that the Greek nationalists should be "liberated" by the Turkish Patriarch of Constantinople, but the Ukrainian nationalists must remain under the sovereignty of Moscow. Should Skopje nationalists also be liberated from Serbia?!
The subject of Bartholomew, which can be condemned for his abnormal energies, is irrelevant to the ecclesiastical issue of hierarchy within the Church. The archbishop of Kyiv must first mention the Ecumenical Patriarch and then of Moscow.
Take great care that in your attempt to condemn the papal actions of Bartholomew you are falling into the heresy of the ethnonationalism.
PS: Please correct the forum title.
Anastasios wrote:...
Brother 64idi0t for this is the need for dialogue to deposit our evidence and reach the Truth. If I blocked you directly because of the offensive and racist title of your forum we would miss the opportunity of this very interesting dialogue.
As a Greek I am ashamed of our rebellion against the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but the political conditions of that time led to this solution because it was under Turkish control as the Ukranians now claim to be the Archbishop of Kiev under Russian. It would really be a great pleasure to know that my ancestors were not the first to create an Autocephalous Church as you claim, which to me is very sad, but the evidence I quote proves the opposite.
The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Orthodox_Church
The Ottoman government restored the Bulgarian Patriarchate under the name of "Bulgarian Exarchate" by a decree (firman) of the Sultan promulgated on February 28, 1870.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Orthodox_Church
The government declared the church to be autocephalous in 1833 in a political decision of the Bavarian Regents acting for King Otto, who was a minor. The decision roiled Greek politics for decades as royal authorities took increasing control. The new status was finally recognized as such by the Patriarchate in 1850, under compromise conditions with the issue of a special "Tomos" decree which brought it back to a normal status.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Greece
Autocephalous is something permissible but not perfect and blessed, like the third marriage. It makes me very questionable and I am very curious to know how a Serb believes that the Greek nationalists should be "liberated" by the Turkish Patriarch of Constantinople, but the Ukrainian nationalists must remain under the sovereignty of Moscow. Should Skopje nationalists also be liberated from Serbia?!
The subject of Bartholomew, which can be condemned for his abnormal energies, is irrelevant to the ecclesiastical issue of hierarchy within the Church. The archbishop of Kyiv must first mention the Ecumenical Patriarch and then of Moscow.
Take great care that in your attempt to condemn the papal actions of Bartholomew you are falling into the heresy of the ethnonationalism.
PS: Please correct the forum title.
The above is an example of uselesness of debating with a Fanariote.
The kid had read a bit of wikipedia and has immediatelly started to teach me about the subject, warning me about "the heresy of ethnosomething".
Autocephaly is like a third marriage ... because you say so? Lol. We should abolish Ecumenical Patriarchate at the Council.
Kid, you failed to read proper wiki pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitanate_of_Belgrade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Patriarchate_of_Pe%C4%87#Early_Modern_Period_(1557-1766)
I will neither partake communion nor even attend the services with Serbian Patriarchate until they cease communion with Phanariotes.
64idi0t wrote:
Anastasios wrote:...
Brother 64idi0t for this is the need for dialogue to deposit our evidence and reach the Truth. If I blocked you directly because of the offensive and racist title of your forum we would miss the opportunity of this very interesting dialogue.
As a Greek I am ashamed of our rebellion against the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but the political conditions of that time led to this solution because it was under Turkish control as the Ukranians now claim to be the Archbishop of Kiev under Russian. It would really be a great pleasure to know that my ancestors were not the first to create an Autocephalous Church as you claim, which to me is very sad, but the evidence I quote proves the opposite.
The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Orthodox_Church
The Ottoman government restored the Bulgarian Patriarchate under the name of "Bulgarian Exarchate" by a decree (firman) of the Sultan promulgated on February 28, 1870.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Orthodox_Church
The government declared the church to be autocephalous in 1833 in a political decision of the Bavarian Regents acting for King Otto, who was a minor. The decision roiled Greek politics for decades as royal authorities took increasing control. The new status was finally recognized as such by the Patriarchate in 1850, under compromise conditions with the issue of a special "Tomos" decree which brought it back to a normal status.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Greece
Autocephalous is something permissible but not perfect and blessed, like the third marriage. It makes me very questionable and I am very curious to know how a Serb believes that the Greek nationalists should be "liberated" by the Turkish Patriarch of Constantinople, but the Ukrainian nationalists must remain under the sovereignty of Moscow. Should Skopje nationalists also be liberated from Serbia?!
The subject of Bartholomew, which can be condemned for his abnormal energies, is irrelevant to the ecclesiastical issue of hierarchy within the Church. The archbishop of Kyiv must first mention the Ecumenical Patriarch and then of Moscow.
Take great care that in your attempt to condemn the papal actions of Bartholomew you are falling into the heresy of the ethnonationalism.
PS: Please correct the forum title.
The above is an example of uselesness of debating with a Fanariotes.
The kid had read a bit of wikipedia and has immediatelly started to teach me about the subject, warning me about "the heresy of ethnosomething".
Autocephaly is like a third marriage ... because you say so? Lol. We should abolish Ecumenical Patriarchate at the Council.
Kid, you failed to read proper wiki pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitanate_of_Belgrade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Patriarchate_of_Pe%C4%87#Early_Modern_Period_(1557-1766)
I will neither partake communion nor even attend the services with Serbian Patriarchate until they cease communion with Phanariotes.
Mr. 64idi0t you dont need to be insulting.
I am not o Fanariotes. I am Macedonian. Anyone who desagree with your personal opinions about eclesiastical matters is not a Fanariote and Fanariotes are not more a decease than Serbs, Russians, Jews, Greeks etc.
I have a master in Theology in the University of Thessaloniki and father Theodoros Zisis you mentioned in #6 was one of my profesors. Whats your degries? I used wiki not because it is scientific but because it is easy. So did you so dont blame me!
The autokephalous starts not when it is declared by a local church but when it is accepted by the Church. Thats why Greece's started in 1850 and not in 1833.
The ethnonationalism (εθνοφυλετισμός) is a condemned heresy by a panorthodox Synod. If you egnored it read more and be more hamble in the future. If you dont accept it you are a heretic which is more bad then scismatic.
If you dont communion with your Serbian Patriarchate you are a schismatic. You could make your won autokephalous but it would be catastrophic for YOU not the Orthodox Church.
PS: This team accepts not only Orthodoxs and we respect the diferent opinion, but we will not tollerate insults.
Anastasios wrote:
...
PS: This team accepts not only Orthodoxs and we respect the diferent opinion, but we will not tollerate insults.
You have finally ceased calling me brother.
I respect Fr. Zisis, He is a Greek, not a Phanariote.
It is not "etnonationalism", but "etnophyletism" that is condemned as a heresy, not by a Pan Orthodox Synod, but by a Synod of Ecomenical Patriarchate. It relates to the situation when a Church "service" is denied to some Orthodox faithful because of his "ethnic"/"national" origin.
Serbia was "the first modern Church rebellion", because when we started The First Uprising in 1804 the Phanariote Bishop left with the Ottomans. That was a blessing. We got Metropolia some decades afterwards. That was much better than a Phanariote Bishop who sold his flock in present day Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to Franciscans in 17th century. They are now ultra-Nazis who exterminated some 700.000 Orthodox in ww2, when their priests excercised cannibalism of their victims. They were killing us because we were "Greeks" to them.
Not being in communion with Bartholomew, Zizioulas and Lambraniadis is a blessing to me, not a curse.
P.S. Who was the genious who compared autocephalia as an anomaly like a third marriage?
I forgot to mention: we were anathemized as a nation some time between 1804-1815 for our rebellion against the Ottomans by the Ecumenical (Phanariote) Patriarchate. The same happened to Greeks in their rebellion which was just a continuation of our rebellion.
64idi0t wrote:
You have finally ceased calling me brother.
It's sad but you've tried a lot and so I decided to satisfy your desire. Besides, my brothers are only those who have the same blood we receive in the common cup every Sunday in the Church. If you come out of the Orthodox Church by not being communed with your Patriarch, then you become a schismatic like the ones you hate in our distant Ukraine.
Your problem is not schism, nor freedom, since you are urging Greeks to be "free" from their mother church but blame the Ukrainians who want to be released from their own mother Russia and ask to breastfeed their grandmother in Constantinople.
You also avoid talking about Skopje because you do not want to release them. Let them free first and than come to teach me about rebelions and freedom!
64idi0t wrote:
I respect Fr. Zisis, He is a Greek, not a Phanariote.
It is not "etnonationalism", but "etnophyletism" that is condemned as a heresy, not by a Pan Orthodox Synod, but by a Synod of Ecomenical Patriarchate. It relates to the situation when a Church "service" is denied to some Orthodox faithful because of his "ethnic"/"national" origin.
Serbia was "the first modern Church rebellion", because when we started The First Uprising in 1804 the Phanariote Bishop left with the Ottomans. That was a blessing. We got Metropolia some decades afterwards. That was much better than a Phanariote Bishop who sold his flock in present day Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to Franciscans in 17th century. They are now ultra-Nazis who exterminated some 700.000 Orthodox in ww2, when their priests excercised cannibalism of their victims. They were killing us because we were "Greeks" to them.
Not being in communion with Bartholomew, Zizioulas and Lambraniadis is a blessing to me, not a curse.
P.S. Who was the genious who compared autocephalia as an anomaly like a third marriage?
Fr. Zisis is a Macedonian who grew up in Thrace.
If you read again #36 you will see the Greek word "εθνοφυλετισμός" which can be translated as etnonationalism.
If your church rejects the Synod, I would be very interested to know it, having deposited the evidence. As far as I know, it has been accepted by Orthodoxy as a whole, and is therefore considered to be of an Ecumenical standard. It relates to the situation of racism, something that you must be more careful because you are dangerously flirting.
Noone forse you to be in communion with Bartholomew, Zizioulas and Lambraniadis. I dont like them too but as long as they are not condemned by a Synod I wont leave the Church first.
They were killing you because you were "Greeks" to them and if you were Phanariotes to them they would love you?! They were racists and heretics, thats why they were killing you, and its not NOW but decades before.
The comparison of the autocephalia with the third marriage is something I made it up so that to make an example. I never said that it is an anomaly. I said that it is something permitable because of our fallen nature and not perfection. Perfection is everybody to be one.
The main problem is that Phanariotes are meddling in something that isn't their business at all, jeopardizing the lives of the faithfull of the cannonical church, proclaiming heretical "primus sine paribus" (copyright Elpidoporos of Bursa) doctrine on top of the heretical teaching on "God's personhood" (copyright Zizioulas of Pergamon).