| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy Metropolitan Anthony of Borispol: Our faithful feel betrayed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate Metropolitan Anthony of Borispol, chancellor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, answered questions from the Romfea Greek church news agency. The text of the interview is published on the website of the UOC Synodal Information and Education Department. - Your Eminence, on November 13, the Bishops’ Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church took place. What are the principal results of this Council? - First of all, the Bishops’ Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has testifies to and re-affirmed the internal unity of our Church. We know that representatives of our state, who have advanced the idea of autocephaly, have promised to the Ecumenical Patriarch that from 20 to 25 bishops of our Church will allegedly come to the so-called ‘uniting council’ intended to create a new ‘united church’. If not twenty but at least ten bishops will come for sure – this is something of which they in Fanar were sure. In our mass media, it was written that Metropolitan Emmanuel of France was secretly present in Kiev in these days to prepare the so-called ‘uniting council’. Actually, it was only one bishop, namely, Metropolitan Simeon of Vinnitsa, who refused to sign the decision of the Bishops’ Council. This position of Metropolitan Simeon has provoked strong protests among the clergy of his diocese (nearly 50 priests in the city of Vinnitsa protested, and a multitude of lay people supported them). Therefore, Metropolitan Simeon, even if he himself refused to sign these decisions, had to make an official statement that, despite all of this, the decision of the Bishops’ Council is obligatory for the whole Ukrainian Church including the diocese of Vinnitsa. He said that because he realized there is a risk of losing his diocese which does not support him in this matter. |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf 1Chronicles 1Corinthians 1 Esdras 1 Kings 1Maccabees 1 Peter 1 Samuel 1 Thess 1 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2Chronicles 2Corinthians 2 Esdras 2Maccabees 2 Peter 2 Samuel 2 Thess 2 Thessalonians 2 Timothy 3Maccabees 4 Maccabees All African Conference of Churches Add Esth The Additions to Esther Baruch Bel and the Dragon century Committee Colossians Daniel Deuteronomy Ecclesiastes Ephesians Esther Exodus Ezekiel Father Galatians Genesis Greek Orthodox Youth Organization Graduate Theological Union Habakkuk Haggai Hebrews Isaiah Judges Judith Jeremiah Joshua Lamentations Let Jer The Letter of Jeremiah Leviticus Septuagint Malachi Matthew National Council of Churches Nehemiah New Revised Standard Version Numbers Obadiah Orthodox Church in America Oxford English Dictionary Old Style, Julian Calendar Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute Patriarch Philemon Philippians Prayer of Manasseh Proverbs Psalms quod vide, which see (single occurrence) which see (multiple occurrences) Roman Catholic Church Revelation Romans Revised Standard Version Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America Ben Sirach Song of Thr The Song of the Three Children Susannah University of California-Berkeley Ukrainian Orthodox Church UOC-KP Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kievan Patriarchate World Council of Churches Wisdom of Solomon Zechariah Zephaniah Introduction The Orthodox Church may simply be described as God’s embassy to creation, wherein God reveals his will, humanity finds its rightful citizenship, and the cosmos is redeemed. An embassy fully and adequately represents its home country: Even its soil is considered to be that of its sovereign nation. Still, by definition it exists in a foreign land, does not fully encompass the homeland, and equips its citizens to live in a strange place, while providing them safe haven, a refuge. Embassies exist in many different nations, speaking their languages and functioning within their cultures, while always representing the interests of the one sovereign or president. Ambassadors and liaisons do their work in various ways in each foreign land, but the citizenship and interests they maintain are solely those of their mother country. In all these particulars it is so too with the Church. |
| From June 27 to July 4, 2014, the 13th All-Diaspora Russian Orthodox Youth Conference was held in the city of San Francisco, CA. It ran concurrently with a great spiritual event in the Russian diaspora—the 20th anniversary of the glorification of St John of Shanghai and San Francisco the Miracle-worker, as well as a regular session of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Photo: www.synod.com The conference, held under the aegis of the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God “of the Sign,” included youth from 11 countries. The forum included lectures, discussions and workshops. Resulting was the development of the following planned projects: a social database, a Russian youth camp, an Orthodox theater, a festival of Orthodox youth, a youth club dedicated to St John of Shanghai and San Francisco, a tutorial center for Orthodox youth, a center for moral and informational support, and Orthodox cafe, and service in support of sick children in orphanages. Lying at the foundation of these programs are love for one’s neighbor and the desire for Orthodox Christian youth to help and support people in various ways. The projects were presented to a wide audience which included the conferees as well as hierarchs and clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The conference members visited soup kitchens for the needy and homeless, a senior home and the chapel of St John of Kronstadt. The aim of these visits was to study the experience of organizing such institutions. The young people participated in the 20th-anniversary celebrations of the canonization of St John, the preacher and teacher of love and mercy, during which the episcopal consecration of Archimandrite Nicholas (Olhovsky), the caretaker of the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God, as Bishop of Manhattan. The main conclusion of the conference participants was the need to unite Orthodox youth around the idea of charity and mercy. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy Metropolitan Onufry on the fate of canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine The information and education department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has published an interview given by His Beatitude Onufry, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine, to Pastor and Flock magazine. - Your Beatitude, according to the Ukrainian Constitution, Church is separated from state. When in the early 20 th century the Bolsheviks adopted this law, many believers perceived it as a serious religious catastrophe. However, as it very soon became clear, the Bolsheviks separated Church from state only to busy themselves with her destruction. Later, in the early 90th, the situation changed as the communists went down from the historical arena and a time of restoration came for the Church. And here the law on the separation of Church from state played to some extent a positive role: the Church could develop in a necessary direction almost without any pressure from the authorities. But now when the authorities seek to influence the solution of church problems, how would you comment on the developments? Can the government help create ‘a One Local Church’? And how should a believer react to all this? - The law on the separation of Church from state is a fruit of revolutionary transformations carried out in the early 20 th century. The Bolsheviks separated the Church from the state in order to show that the country adopted a new, atheistic way of development. This law was also necessary to the Soviet power to untie its hands in its struggle against the Church until her full destruction. And this struggle was waged under the slogan: ‘The Church is an enemy of the state’. However, the Lord, Who does everything for the good of His faithful, ordained that the separation of Church from state became a new stimulus for her powerful development. And we humbly thank the Lord for this mercy to us, unworthy children of His holy Church. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy His Holiness Patriarch Kirill sends messages in connection to bill No.8371 considered by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine DECR Communication Service, 19.10.2023. On October 19, 2023, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’ sent messages to the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches, several religious leaders, and leaders and representatives of international organizations. The Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church shared with them his anxiety over the discriminatory bill being considered by the Ukrainian Parliament, Patriarchal press service reports. On October 19, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine passed in the first reading bill No. 8371 aimed at the ban of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The bill provides for the prohibition through judicial procedures of every religious community on the territory of Ukraine in the instance when it is ‘affiliated’ with foreign religious organizations. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill noted in his message that ‘without sufficient clarifying the notion of this ‘affiliation,’ the afore-mentioned bill empowers the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience with the right of judgment on any concrete case. This service is headed by a person hostile towards the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and, being guided by criteria known to nobody, it will carry out the so-called “religious expertise” in cases on which the court will rule. One does not have to be a lawyer to understand that the proposed scenario opens up great possibilities for the most varied wrongdoings.’ ‘The initiators and supporters of the passing of this bill in Ukraine include top-level government officials, deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, radical politicians and public figures. They do not hide the fact that the bill is directed against the largest religious community of Ukraine and is aimed at the liquidation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a centralized structure with each of all its dioceses, parishes and monasteries and convents,’ His Holiness stated. |
| Thomas E. FitzGerald 8. TOWARD GREATER UNITY AND WITNESS The quest for greater administrative unity among the Orthodox jurisdictions in America found concrete expression in the establishment of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA) in 1960. Building upon the tradition of the earlier federation, SCOBA began to oversee the various inter-Orthodox activities and to coordinate ecumenical witness, which was born during the 1950s. It also became the focal point of efforts to establish a Provincial Synod of Orthodox Bishops, which would better serve the needs of Orthodox faithful and better reflect the organizational principles of Orthodox ecclesiology. 237 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SCOBA About two years after his arrival in this country to become head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in 1949, Archbishop Michael (Constantinides) convened a meeting of Orthodox bishops on 12 March 1952. Participating in this historic gathering were Metropolitan Anthony (Bashir) of the Syrian (Antiochian) Orthodox Archdiocese, Metropolitan Leonty (Turkevich) of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (Metropolia), Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) of the Russian Orthodox Synod Abroad, Metropolitan Markary (Illinsky) of the Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Moscow, Bishop Orestes (Chornak) of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic diocese, and Bishop Bogdan (Spilka) of the Ukrainian Orthodox diocese. The latter two jurisdictions were dioceses of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, like the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, 238 The meeting was significant if only because the heads of the three Russian Orthodox jurisdictions met together. There were intense rivalry and disputes between these jurisdictions resulting from divergent claims of authority in America and very different understanding of the authority of the Patriarchate of Moscow. The Exarchate was directly responsible to the Moscow Patriarchate. The Metropolia was in formal schism from the Moscow Patriarchate since 1924 but open to some form of mutual recognition. The Synod Abroad had only recently established its headquarters in New York as hundreds of its members came to the United States fleeing from further Communist advances in the Balkans and the Far East. The Synod Abroad was composed of Russian exiles who were staunch monarchists and who claimed that the Moscow Patriarchate had no authority because of cooperation with the Communist government. In addition to these significant differences, each jurisdiction saw itself as the rightful and canonical continuation of the old Alaskan mission. |
| ROC Holy Synod Holds Two-Day Session A number of important decisions have been made concerning the internal and external activities of the Russian Orthodox Church. Photo: foto.patriarchia.ru A number of important issues concerning the internal and external activities of the Russian Orthodox Church were resolved by the Holy Synod under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia at a two-day session on September 23 and 24, 2021. The session took place in the Throne Hall of the Patriarchal and Synodal Residence in the Danilov Monastery in Moscow. Permanent member of the Synod, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine, took part in the meeting via video communication. During the session, the Synod discussed the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to the capital of Ukraine, which took place on August 20-24, 2021. The Synod considered the arrival of Patriarch Bartholomew to Kiev without an invitation from the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine and the legitimate bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a gross violation of the canons and noted its purely political nature, revealing the dependence of the Patriarch of Constantinople on forces external to the Church. The Synod noted that by supporting the schism in Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew lost the trust of millions of believers and no longer has the right to speak on behalf of the entire world Orthodoxy and represent himself as its leader. The Synod confirmed the loyalty of the Moscow Patriarchate to the canons and generally recognized principles of inter-Orthodox cooperation, and also stressed that the responsibility for undermining church unity rests entirely with Patriarch Bartholomew as a result of his anti-canonical actions. The Synod expressed support to His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry, archpastors, pastors and the entirety of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in their standing for the truth, in loyalty to the canonical unity of the Church. |
| “It Is Not Too Late To Stop” A Sorrowful Reply to Patriarch Bartholomew Concerning His Anti-Canonical Actions in Ukraine Source: DECR In reply to a letter of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, in which he informed of the “reinstatement” of the Ukrainian schismatics in their “rank,” of the “annulment” of the document which is three hundred years old and indicates the transfer of the Kievan Metropolia to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, of the organization in Kiev of a “local council” of the non-canonical groups admitted to communion, and of the intention to grant “autocephaly” in the next few days to the institution established at this gathering, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia sent a message, in which he expressed his deep pain, astonishment and indignation over the anti-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. HIS HOLINESS BARTHOLOMEW PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE Your Holiness, It was with the feeling of great pain, astonishment and indignation that I read your letter in which you informed me of the recent actions of the Church of Constantinople: of admitting to communion the uncanonical communities in Ukraine; of “revoking” the Letter of Patriarch Dionysius IV of Constantinople which had transferred the Kievan Metropolia to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate; of organizing in Kiev a “local council” of the uncanonical communities admitted to communion by you; and of intending to give in the next few days a status of an autocephalous Orthodox Church to the institution that you had established. The reunification of the schismatics with the Church would have been a great joy both for Orthodox Christians in Ukraine and for the whole Orthodox world had it occurred in compliance with the rules of the canon law, in the spirit of peace and love of Christ. However, the current politicized process of coercive unification is far from the norms and spirit of the holy canons. A great amount of lies has been piled up, and now violence is being inflicted on the true Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is the same Church of millions of the Ukrainian faithful that you recognized as canonical all the years of your service, until very recently. And now you pretend that it does not exist, that there are only some separate dioceses which have returned under your omophorion. |
| Orthodoxy has always formed a close bond with society and culture so that the faith is connected with life, not just with Sunday morning. Actually the modern nation state, with its sharply defined boundaries, is a relatively new development. Things were more flexible in ancient times. But Orthodoxy has associated itself with modern nations too. That’s why we have the national Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church and so on. However, patriotism can also be dangerous. Father Schmemann wrote in his Journal that one of the worst things that ever happened to Orthodoxy was its identification with modern nations, so that people cannot distinguish between the two – like those who think that to be really Orthodox you’ve got to be Greek or Russian or whatever, or like some evangelicals who can’t seem to separate their Christianity from Americanism (of a particular type). When my wife and I were first looking at Orthodoxy 30 years ago a Ukrainian Orthodox woman, a good friend (memory eternal, Helen+), asked me, “Why do you want to be Orthodox? You’re not Ukrainian.” Someone I know was interested in Orthodoxy and visited a Greek church, where the priest told him, “I’m glad you visited. Now go back to your own church where you belong.” This attitude is called Phyletism (“tribalism”): the odd notion that Orthodoxy is limited to a particular tribe or culture or nation. It was condemned at a pan-Orthodox council in Constantinople in 1872. The great danger of Phyletism is that it limits Orthodox people to one narrow national way of looking things. Orthodoxy is multi-cultural: for all the world, all peoples. Orthodoxy is super-cultural: wider, broader, deeper, higher, wiser than any one nation or culture. Our Lord Jesus made this clear regarding Jewish tribalism. How often he made foreigners the heroes: the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan leper who alone returned to give thanks, the Roman centurion of whom he said. “I tell you many will come from east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in kingdom of heaven, but the sons of Kingdom [the Jews, or us if we are unfaithful] will be cast out into the darkness”. John the Baptist warned,“If God needs sons of Abraham, he can raise them up out of these stones.” And so it is if God needs Americans… or if he needs Orthodox. Orthodoxy in America |
| Pretty soon, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is set to begin an information campaign of why its actions in Ukraine were justified, and how “bad information” in social networks is misportraying this master plan of creating unity and “peace and love in Christ”. It is likely what I have to say here will be received by some as “Russian disinformation”, but I will dare to make my opinion known to my fellow Orthodox Greeks and others, in hope it will at least make them think more deeply about the potential consequences of what just happened this January in the Phanar. 1. The Ecumenical Patriarchate stepped into a civil conflict at the invitation of just one of the conflicting parties. This is not a mediation, it is an act of taking sides. Therefore, the Ecumenical Patriarchate cannot call itself a mediator in a conflict, it is a co-belligerent. History has shown that foreign parties that become involved in a civil conflict will not be looked upon favorably by either side if the conflict ever resolves. 2. The level of the Moscow Synod’s involvement with the affairs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate does not affect either the day to day operations of the church, nor its strategic orientation. During the civil war in Ukraine, Metropolitan Onuphry called upon both sides to cease violence, whereas the schismatic jurisdictions that form the backbone of the new Ukrainian jurisdiction took a clear stance in the conflict and backed the new Ukrainian government’s assault on its own civilians in Donbass, with the false Patriarch Philaret (now carrying the honorary ‘patriarch’ title in the new church structure) calling for blood vengeance against the anti-government faction. This shows, clearly, that one side is more politicized than the other. There was no pressing need for the faithful of Ukraine to have a different church, the only reason for the existence of the schismatic jurisdictions was and remains political. There is no ‘loyalty to Russia’ required of the canonical Ukrainian church’s clergy or flock. |
|
|
