| 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 Hilarion of Volokolamsk: Decision demanded by church canons was taken today A briefing for journalists was held after the session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church that took place in Minsk on October 15, 2018. Metropolitan Hilarion, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, told the mass media representatives about decisions taken at the session. “The decision on the complete cessation of the Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople was taken today. This is a forced decision, but our Holy Synod could not take another one as the logic of the latest actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople has led to it. Several days ago it was decided at the session of the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople that it restored in holy orders the anathematized leader of the Ukrainian schism Filaret (Denisenko) and the leader of another schismatic group. The decision was taken “to revoke” the act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 1686 on including the Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate and on establishing a stravropegia of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine. All these decisions are unlawful and canonically void from the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church which does not accept them and will not adhere to them. The schism remains a schism. Its leaders remain the leaders of schism, and the Church which recognizes schismatics and enters into communion with them excludes herself from the canonical space of the Orthodox Church. It is the main reason for which we have to break communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople which has completely identified itself with the schism. I would like to tell you that it is not the first case of this kind in the history of the Orthodox Church. Once the Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople fell into heresy which was condemned at the 3 rd Ecumenical Council and the Patriarch was deposed. A thousand years later the Patriarch of Constantinople signed a unia with Rome. This action was condemned by the heads of other Local Orthodox Churches. The Russian Orthodox Church also condemned it. As patriarch-uniat was elected and there was no canonical patriarch in Constantinople at that time, the Russian Orthodox Church independently elected her metropolitan and since then has begun to live as an autocephalous 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 DECR chairman attends conference on World Orthodoxy: Primacy and Conciliarity in Light of Orthodox Teaching On September 16, 2021, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relations, took part in the conference held by the Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission on the theme “World Orthodoxy: Primacy and Conciliarity in the Light of the Orthodox Teaching”, which took place at the St. Sergius Hall of the Cathedral Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. The conference is attended by members of the Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission, representatives of the theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church, university faculty, hierarchs and clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and guests from Local Orthodox Churches. Presenting his paper, Metropolitan Hilarion stressed in particular that the Orthodox teaching speaks about the unity and oneness of the Church proceeding from the Gospel and makes this characteristic the first in the rank of her properties. “Any threat to the unity of the Church is a threat to the Body of Christ, in which believers are united by one faith, the Eucharist and her Head - Jesus Christ”, the DECR chairman noted, “Precisely for this reason, the most tragic events in the history of the Church are schisms in which Christ-commanded unity is violated, the unanimous life in faith is lost, the union around the Eucharistic Cup ends, the apostolic succession in the hierarchy is upset, and a deep wound appears in the Body of Christ”. According to the hierarch, in the history of the Church there is a great deal of examples of how actions of her particular members led to tragic divisions with their consequences felt to this day. “These pages of church history could serve as a lesson and a warning against such actions in the present and the future. However, up to this day the unity of Orthodoxy is threatened not only from outside but also from inside, coming from those who seek to act contrary to the Orthodox teaching and canonical tradition. We can see such actions today taken by the Patriarchate of Constantinople”, Metropolitan Hilarion stated. |
| 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 Head of Russia’s MFA Sergey Lavrov’s interview towards DECR chairman Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk’s 55th birthday The minster of the foreign affairs of the Russian Federation’s interview with Rossiya 24 TV channel. - Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk will soon mark his fifty-fifth birthday. He is often described as your church ‘counterpart’. Do you think the Russian Orthodox Church needs her own MFA these days? - The designation ‘Department for External Church Relations’ speaks that Metropolitan Hilarion is engaged in contacts with his numerous counterparts. The canonical territories of the Russian Orthodox Church are much larger than those of Russia. For instance, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church enjoys a broad autonomy. Even contacts with her demand skills of dealing with external partners. This post is manifested in relations with Local Orthodox Churches and other Christian Churches (including the Vatican, with which His Eminence Hilarion maintains regular contacts), as well as with non-Christian religions. We not just welcome such dialogue but also actively support it. There is quite a number of inter-state and inter-government mechanisms called to promote the dialogue of civilizations. There is even a special structure in the UN - the UN Alliance of Civilizations headed by the former minister of foreign affairs of Spain. It is engaged in organizing contacts for promoting inter-confessional and inter-ethnic accord. In these efforts, the Russian Orthodox Church has something to offer. She is one of the most active parties in this field of inter-civilization and inter-confessional accord. There is another example of interaction between secular and ecclesial representatives - the World Conference on Inter-Faith and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue held every two years by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the UN Secretary-General. The next one is to be held in May 2022 in Sankt-Petersburg. We will actively cooperate with the Russian Orthodox Church to ensure the right approach to defining the agenda and for this forum to be used to the maximum for promoting the values reflecting Orthodox ideals so much in demand today. |
| Metropolitan Hilarion: If the Project for Ukrainian Autocephaly is Carried Through, it will Mean a Tragic and Possibly Irretrievable Schism of the Whole Orthodoxy Source: DECR Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relation, has given an interview to the Greek newspaper Ethnos tis Kiriakis. – Your Eminence, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has published for the first time some historical documents that prove that the Ukrainian Church has never withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical throne. We would like to hear your opinion on this problem. – The official site of the Patriarchate of Constantinople has published only two documents about a move of the Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate as its part, and it is not done for the first time, they are well known in our country and have been published since the 19 th century. Its preface abounds in inaccuracies and ungrounded conclusions. But we are glad to have a possibility for a discussion, though distant, and ready to broaden the academic outlook of our opponents. Now it is at least clearer what reasoning they wish to rely on. The first articles of leading Russian historians on the canonical unity of the Russian Church and transfer of the Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate have been published in a recent issue of the Department for External Church Relation’s journal Church and Time. Recently a new issue has come out with a substantial article by Mikhail Zheltov entitled ‘The Historical-Canonical Foundations of the Unity of the Russian Church’, which gives a detail account of the events of the year 1686 and demolishes ungrounded opinions of some biased researchers. These publications will continue so that the attentive reader could have an opportunity for making an objective evaluation of the arguments put forwards by the both sides. We will translate these academic materials into Greek as well. By the end of this year, we plan to publish a substantial study that includes hundreds of sheets of archive documents – many of them will be really publish for the first time. Some of them are already available on the Orthodox Encyclopaedia portal. Naturally, it is impossible to relate this body of testimonies in a brief interview. I can only say that allegations about a ‘temporary nature’ of the Metropolis of Kiev’s transfer to the Moscow Patriarchate come from a tendentious and scientifically unscrupulous interpretation of the documents signed by Patriarch Dionysios in 1686. Believe me we are ready for an objective and fundamental discussion. Moreover, we have proposed a serious dialogue on this matter to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a joint conference. So far no response. After all, the case in question is very important as it concerns many millions of Orthodox Ukrainians. |
| Bishop of the Serbian Church Speaks at International Conference on Violations of Believers’ Rights in Ukraine Source: DECR His Grace Bishop Joanikije of Budimlja and Niksic of the Serbian Orthodox Church delivered a speech at the international “Violation of the Rights of the Faithful in Ukraine” conference which was held in Moscow on May 29. Here is his full address: In the actions undertaken by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine to recognize and merge two groups headed by two schismatics (one of them is anathematized) and to present thus created structure with “autocephaly”, which has not been recognized by any of the other Orthodox Churches, there is nothing that would have been done in accordance with holy canons and the commonly accepted church procedure of granting the status of autocephaly. If, in the very beginning, grave canonical violations were committed (in the first place, an invasion in the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate and the self-governed Ukrainian Orthodox Church without their consent and a “cancellation” of the 1686 decision of Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople, by which the Metropolis of Kiev was transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate, and with a stubborn refusal to hold dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate and other Orthodox Churches who pointed to these violations), then all the consequent actions, too, have proved to be unlawful and uncanonical. The Russian Orthodox Church timely and soundly analyzed Fanar’s actions and evaluated it on the canonical basis, which helped other Orthodox Churches take the right stand on this painful issue. Without going into more details of the canonical aspect of this issue, we will only point out some of its most important particulars. In this case, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has shown its readiness to interpret centuries-old ecclesiastical provisions in conformity only with its own interests by ignoring the inalienable rights of others and the legal logic on the whole. As for the cancellation of the 1686 decision to transfer the Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate, we believe that by this logic it can just as well annul other similar documents important to Churches, including tomoses granted in previous centuries to other Local Churches. |
| The Inter-Orthodox Council, with a token number of bishops from each of the fourteen Local Churches and supposed to take place in May 2016 to discuss administrative issues, is looking increasingly troubled. First, there is the schism between the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch. Then there were rumours after contacts with top US officials that the US State Department was trying to set the agenda, specifically regarding homosexuality. Then there was news from the Russian Orthodox Church that delegates from several Local Churches, notably the Russian, the Romanian (the second biggest) and the Georgian, had failed to agree on the contents of several points in the seemingly US-determined agenda. Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church then expressed popular concern that the Council was taking place at all. After all Constantinople had not long before sent schismatic representatives of the Ukrainian Church in Canada (the fraction under Constantinople) to Kiev for reasons which the Ukrainian Church naturally found sinister. After this came the news that the elderly Patriarch Bartholomew had erected a statue to himself and that he would never recognize the Carpatho-Russian Metr Rostislav as the representative of the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. Then came the Patriarch’s visit to Bulgaria when he insulted the Bulgarian people and a diplomatic incident followed and the Bulgarian Prime Minister refused to meet the Patriarch. Some even asked if Patriarch Bartholomew’s behaviour was designed to sabotage his own Council. After this the Synod in Constantinople sacked the hierarch appointed only two years before for the modernist Paris Jurisdiction, Archbishop Job. Next came the shooting down by Turkey – some say at US instigation – of a Russian aeroplane. The result of this is that the Russian delegation felt unable to attend the next preparatory meeting in Istanbul for the future Council. Indeed, the question was asked if the Council could even take place in Istanbul, as had been proposed. Some have suggested, as we suggested in our booklet, ‘The World Council of Orthodoxy’ in May 2007, that any future Council take place at the New Jerusalem Monastery outside Moscow, where alone a politically free Council could take place. |
| Ukraine, Churches unite in support of protesters Natalya Mihailova 15 February 2014 Representatives of various denominations take turns in celebrating Mass on Kiev’s Independence Square, the heart of anti-government demonstrations. They were invited by the leaders of the opposition. Churches condemn the streets on the violence and call on politicians to find a peaceful solution to the social crisis. Moscow (AsiaNews) – “We could not stand by and watch, we had to take the side of the people”. This, according to members of the local clergy, is the underlying reason that moved all the main Christian Churches in Ukraine to take to the streets in recent months of anti-government protest, not only in support of the population, but especially in an attempt to ‘mediate’ where the demonstrations turned violent. Several interviews published in the Russian press in February, describe this unexpected “alliance” between the various Christian churches in the former Soviet republic. The conflict in Kiev was triggered by President Viktor Yanukovych’s u-turn on signing the Partnership Agreement with the EU in favor of a rapprochement with Russia. Many feared that the Churches’ reaction to the protest movement would reflect their own internal geopolitical division: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate (not recognized by other churches and opposed by Moscow), – the Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (close to Constantinople) and the Greek – Catholics in communion with the Pope. However, they have all united in sharing the same stance: they are working together in an attempt to constructively and peacefully address the issues of the protest. Even the historically more conservative Orthodox monks under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow, took to the streets to pray. Tents have been set up on the Maidan Square (the main square of Kiev and the theater of its biggest protests) where the different denominations take turns in celebrating Mass, at the request of the protesters themselves. A joint statement by religious leaders, issued in late January, has condemned the violence and asked politicians to “find a peaceful solution to the social crisis”. |
| Archive Bishop Irinej of Bac: Most Local Orthodox Churches continue to recognize canonical Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine while ignoring citizen Sergey Dumenko 17 January 2023 year 17:42 The official website of the Serbian Orthodox Church has installed the Nativity interview Bishop Irinej of Bac gave to Peat, a weekly Serbian magazine, which came out on December 30. In particular, it deals with the situation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church enduring a new wave of persecutions. ‘In recent days, the state terror has been going literary through its peak. It is illustrated not only by the blasphemous invasion of the police and ‘security services workers’ into the greatest shrine of not only Ukraine but of the whole Russian Orthodox world - the Kiev Lavra of the Caves, but also by a threat that, if God will permit it’ ‘the pro-European’ and ‘democratically’-orientated Ukrainian state will simply ban, if not abolish it’, Bishop Irinej of Bac said, ‘It goes without saying that virtuous representatives of democracy and human, including religious, rights and freedoms on the both sides of the Atlantic wisely keep silent. In their opinion, in Kiev their ‘values’ and ‘ideals’ are defended knightly (!). The hierarch stressed that the hardening persecutions against the canonical Church is due to the deepening schism in Ukraine as a result of the uncanonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople which has created in this country ‘its own para-ecclesial structure’ and this ‘in contravention of the existing predominant canonical Church, which it itself had recognized until the day of the implementation of its decision and actually continues to recognize it, for it does not dare declare it uncanonical or non-existent’. The archpastor regretted to note that he himself and many authoritative people warned Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople against the negative consequences of the step he conceived - the granting of ‘fictitious autocephaly to a non-existent Church in Ukraine, or rather to two forcibly and temporarily united schismatic groupings’ headed by ‘unrepentant and graceless schismatics’. |
| Photo: oca.org On Monday, January 28, 2019, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Tikhon and the members of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America issued an Archpastoral Letterconcerning the situation of the Church in Ukraine and related matters, as decided during the Fall Session of the Holy Synod held October 23-25, 2018. The complete text appears below and is also available in PDF format . Archpastoral Letter of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America Concerning the Situation of the Church in Ukraine January 28, 2019 01/013 January 28, 2019 01/013 To the Clergy, Monastics, and Faithful of the Orthodox Church in America, The Holy Synod of Bishops addresses this archpastoral letter to our flock to provide guidance with respect to current events in world Orthodoxy that may be occasioning questions, confusion, or even scandal within our communities in North America. The immediate cause of these questions, confusion, and scandal are found in the recent developments that have taken place in Ukraine. A broader cause of confusion and misunderstanding may also be found in the underlying disagreements about ecclesiology, territorial jurisdiction, and canonical principles, which continue to erupt not only with reference to Ukraine but also to other geographic areas. In writing this archpastoral letter we do not presume to resolve either the direct or the wide-ranging reasons for these crises, because such resolution must come from the conciliar and synodal process present in the Church’s tradition, a process that, in the face of the Ukrainian situation, has been advocated by others throughout the Orthodox Church and which our Holy Synod wholeheartedly endorses. Rather, the purpose of this letter is to provide our clergy and faithful with some direction and perspective in dealing with the impact that these global issues are having on our local communities in North America. We will, of course, be grateful and humbled if our words of guidance contribute to the global discussion of these matters. |
| Archive Paper read by Bishop Joanikije of Budimlja and Niksic (Serbian Orthodox Church) at international academic reflection-action conference on Violations of Rights of Believers in Ukraine 5 June 2019 year 11:31 In the actions undertaken by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine to recognize and merge two groups headed by two schismatics (one of them is anathematized) and to present thus created structure with “autocephaly”, which has not been recognized by any of the other Orthodox Churches, there is nothing that would have been done in accordance with holy canons and the commonly accepted church procedure of granting the status of autocephaly. If, in the very beginning, grave canonical violations were committed (in the first place, an invasion in the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate and the self-governed Ukrainian Orthodox Church without their consent and a “cancellation” of the 1686 decision of Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople, by which the Metropolis of Kiev was transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate, and with a stubborn refusal to hold dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate and other Orthodox Churches who pointed to these violations), then all the consequent actions, too, have proved to be unlawful and uncanonical. The Russian Orthodox Church timely and soundly analyzed Fanar’s actions and evaluated it on the canonical basis, which helped other Orthodox Churches take the right stand on this painful issue. Without going into more details of the canonical aspect of this issue, we will only point out some of its most important particulars. In this case, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has shown its readiness to interpret centuries-old ecclesiastical provisions in conformity only with its own interests by ignoring the inalienable rights of others and the legal logic on the whole. As for the cancellation of the 1686 decision to transfer the Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate, we believe that by this logic it can just as well annul other similar documents important to Churches, including tomoses granted in previous centuries to other Local Churches. |
|
|
