It does not trouble me. No church should have a link with Moscow. Every ecclesiastical community should be united with the successor of St Peter, not squabbling amongst themselves about which country is better than another.
It troubles me for the reasons Ed. described in today’s Pillar Post. Russia is a bad actor and is committing atrocities against a sovereign nation and innocent people and has made a willing participant of the Patriarch of Moscow. None of that changes that a secular government is attempting to mandate how a church is or is not allowed to function at its most basic ecclesial level. I may even be especially bothered that this is happening to non-Catholic brothers and sisters. At least *the* Church enjoys a degree of secular sovereignty via the nation state of Vatican City. Our separated brothers and sisters, “the least of these” in the dynamic of power if you will, do not. Further, the Orthodox, while separated, do still possess and enjoy the rights of valid Apostolic succession, so it troubles me greatly that a secular government feels some sort of privilege to intervene in that.
Their church has become an active agent of an aggressive foreign power; I’d say Ukraine is well within their rights to impose restrictions on the enemy and their agents.
Further, HAH Bartholomew I seems to be aligned with the decision; not quite “Roma locuta”, but close enough for me.
I find the actions of the Russian Orthodox Church horrible, but it still sits really uneasily with me. What percentage of Americans, including government officials, have believed the same about the Catholic Church? Casual anti-Catholicism has been an ever present aspect of American culture as long as there's been American culture, as far as I can tell. If you can accept that this is a proper role for a secular government, as long as there's "evidence," then the evidence will appear when convenient, whether it's manufactured or not.
The ethnophyletic churches are tied into their respective nation states in a way the Western Church, today, is not.
The law is not banning their church per se, but rather its association with Russia, as a literal state organ and manifestation of Russian state power.
To ignore this dynamic between the ethnic churches and their state governments is to fundamentally misunderstand the religious context and history of the area as well as the geopolitical reality of the current situation.
Unlike the UOC-MP, the Western Church cannot be said to be operating for a foreign state power (an unserious person might bring up Vatican City, but without an army to invade other nations, it could hardly be said to be relevant).
Anti-Catholic sentiment in America is pure bigotry; banning the KGB in priestly vestments is not.
I don't understand the assertion that "We are not talking about self-proclaiming autocephaly." It seems similar to me, though I readily confess that there may be all sorts of nuances I'm missing.
I believe he is saying that, in order to comply with the law, the UOC-MP could simply place itself under the jurisdiction of some other Orthodox patriarch, such as the EP, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc.
I don't understand too much about Orthodox ecclesiology, but I think I understand enough to say that the word "simply" should not appear in that sentence ;-)
More seriously, it still seems like what's being discussed is a self-proclaimed severing from the MP, even if the hypothetical end goal is subordination to another Orthodox body.
Haha, you are not wrong. In Orthodox ecclesiology, all inter-episcopal relationships are not of divine establishment, but merely for the good of the church. However, they are governed by (ancient, difficult-to-interpret and -apply) canon laws which the Orthodox believe are the result of the divine guidance of the church. Therefore, to abandon the ancient canons is seen as, at a minimum, "not ideal," and at a maximum a kind of heresy.
Therefore, for the UOC-MP to declare that they are "unilaterally" moving to another jurisdiction would be a severe breach of the canons. Similarly, if they were to declare themselves autocephalous (self-headed), and especially if they began to consecrate their own chrism, would also be severely against the canons.
So they are in a bind. In a sense all bishops are "equal" in Orthodox ecclesiology, but they are bound to follow the canons of the universal church, so they cannot just move themselves away from the MP. And the MP will not "release" them to another jurisdiction.
Of course, the EP and the MP disagree over which of their churches has jurisdiction over Ukraine. The EP claims (essentially) that the EP is their "mother church," and sort of "loaned" them to the MP several hundred years ago, which is why the EP claims the right to move them back under the EP (as it did in the formation of the OCU). So the bishops of the UOC-MP could simply join forces with the OCU and be under the EP, but these bishops also see that as a move that was against the canons (or else they already would have done that).
Basically, Orthodox ecclesiology is an absolute mess.
Your explanation more or less aligns with my sketchy understanding of the situation, although I didn't know the part about the EP's claim to be the mother church of the UOC.
It still seems like the Ukrainian government is asking the UOC-MP to do a major canonical no-no... or, in any case, the exact type of thing that was so objectionable to the MP when it came to the establishment of the OCU.
I consider the Russian Orthodox Church to be basically just the KGB with a religious veneer. Even the Orthodox ecumenical patriarch has called them out for their warmongering. The rest of the Orthodox world should break communion with them too.
This is the invariable result of national churches - they become simply the religious branch of the state.
*Both* the Ukrainian and Russian churches are stooges to their respective government regimes, let’s be very clear and honest. And unless you believe the ROC has no claim to the pre-Revolution Russian Church, there’s not really anything the ROC professes that necessitates severing two apostolic churches via schism. This is to say nothing on the sad reality of a brutal modern war from both ends, especially between such historically close slavic brethren.
For the churches, though: sad, lamentable, but entirely expected.
"By way of very inexact analogy, that is like the U.S. government telling the USCCB the Catholic Church can continue to operate in America, provided they break communion with the pope."
I would strongly disagree. Not even an "inexact" analogy. Papal primacy is a teaching of the Catholic Church. Patriarchal jurisdiction is an administrative matter in Orthodoxy.
An inexact but legitimate analogy would be the Episcopal Church breaking subordination to the Archbishop of Canterbury after the American Revolution. The government in no way is demanding that there not be communion with the Russian Orthodox Church or any other church in Orthodoxy.
This troubles me.
It does not trouble me. No church should have a link with Moscow. Every ecclesiastical community should be united with the successor of St Peter, not squabbling amongst themselves about which country is better than another.
More like “every church should have a link with Moscow… through mutual communion with the Apostolic See of Rome.” Based.
It troubles me for the reasons Ed. described in today’s Pillar Post. Russia is a bad actor and is committing atrocities against a sovereign nation and innocent people and has made a willing participant of the Patriarch of Moscow. None of that changes that a secular government is attempting to mandate how a church is or is not allowed to function at its most basic ecclesial level. I may even be especially bothered that this is happening to non-Catholic brothers and sisters. At least *the* Church enjoys a degree of secular sovereignty via the nation state of Vatican City. Our separated brothers and sisters, “the least of these” in the dynamic of power if you will, do not. Further, the Orthodox, while separated, do still possess and enjoy the rights of valid Apostolic succession, so it troubles me greatly that a secular government feels some sort of privilege to intervene in that.
Their church has become an active agent of an aggressive foreign power; I’d say Ukraine is well within their rights to impose restrictions on the enemy and their agents.
Further, HAH Bartholomew I seems to be aligned with the decision; not quite “Roma locuta”, but close enough for me.
I find the actions of the Russian Orthodox Church horrible, but it still sits really uneasily with me. What percentage of Americans, including government officials, have believed the same about the Catholic Church? Casual anti-Catholicism has been an ever present aspect of American culture as long as there's been American culture, as far as I can tell. If you can accept that this is a proper role for a secular government, as long as there's "evidence," then the evidence will appear when convenient, whether it's manufactured or not.
You are drawing a parallel where none exists.
The ethnophyletic churches are tied into their respective nation states in a way the Western Church, today, is not.
The law is not banning their church per se, but rather its association with Russia, as a literal state organ and manifestation of Russian state power.
To ignore this dynamic between the ethnic churches and their state governments is to fundamentally misunderstand the religious context and history of the area as well as the geopolitical reality of the current situation.
Unlike the UOC-MP, the Western Church cannot be said to be operating for a foreign state power (an unserious person might bring up Vatican City, but without an army to invade other nations, it could hardly be said to be relevant).
Anti-Catholic sentiment in America is pure bigotry; banning the KGB in priestly vestments is not.
I don't understand the assertion that "We are not talking about self-proclaiming autocephaly." It seems similar to me, though I readily confess that there may be all sorts of nuances I'm missing.
I believe he is saying that, in order to comply with the law, the UOC-MP could simply place itself under the jurisdiction of some other Orthodox patriarch, such as the EP, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc.
I don't understand too much about Orthodox ecclesiology, but I think I understand enough to say that the word "simply" should not appear in that sentence ;-)
More seriously, it still seems like what's being discussed is a self-proclaimed severing from the MP, even if the hypothetical end goal is subordination to another Orthodox body.
Haha, you are not wrong. In Orthodox ecclesiology, all inter-episcopal relationships are not of divine establishment, but merely for the good of the church. However, they are governed by (ancient, difficult-to-interpret and -apply) canon laws which the Orthodox believe are the result of the divine guidance of the church. Therefore, to abandon the ancient canons is seen as, at a minimum, "not ideal," and at a maximum a kind of heresy.
Therefore, for the UOC-MP to declare that they are "unilaterally" moving to another jurisdiction would be a severe breach of the canons. Similarly, if they were to declare themselves autocephalous (self-headed), and especially if they began to consecrate their own chrism, would also be severely against the canons.
So they are in a bind. In a sense all bishops are "equal" in Orthodox ecclesiology, but they are bound to follow the canons of the universal church, so they cannot just move themselves away from the MP. And the MP will not "release" them to another jurisdiction.
Of course, the EP and the MP disagree over which of their churches has jurisdiction over Ukraine. The EP claims (essentially) that the EP is their "mother church," and sort of "loaned" them to the MP several hundred years ago, which is why the EP claims the right to move them back under the EP (as it did in the formation of the OCU). So the bishops of the UOC-MP could simply join forces with the OCU and be under the EP, but these bishops also see that as a move that was against the canons (or else they already would have done that).
Basically, Orthodox ecclesiology is an absolute mess.
Your explanation more or less aligns with my sketchy understanding of the situation, although I didn't know the part about the EP's claim to be the mother church of the UOC.
It still seems like the Ukrainian government is asking the UOC-MP to do a major canonical no-no... or, in any case, the exact type of thing that was so objectionable to the MP when it came to the establishment of the OCU.
I consider the Russian Orthodox Church to be basically just the KGB with a religious veneer. Even the Orthodox ecumenical patriarch has called them out for their warmongering. The rest of the Orthodox world should break communion with them too.
Ethnophylitism is a helluva drug.
This is the invariable result of national churches - they become simply the religious branch of the state.
*Both* the Ukrainian and Russian churches are stooges to their respective government regimes, let’s be very clear and honest. And unless you believe the ROC has no claim to the pre-Revolution Russian Church, there’s not really anything the ROC professes that necessitates severing two apostolic churches via schism. This is to say nothing on the sad reality of a brutal modern war from both ends, especially between such historically close slavic brethren.
For the churches, though: sad, lamentable, but entirely expected.
It is very, very hard for an organisation to put the Kingdom of God above the Kingdom of X, where the King of X is the governor of the organisation.
"By way of very inexact analogy, that is like the U.S. government telling the USCCB the Catholic Church can continue to operate in America, provided they break communion with the pope."
I would strongly disagree. Not even an "inexact" analogy. Papal primacy is a teaching of the Catholic Church. Patriarchal jurisdiction is an administrative matter in Orthodoxy.
An inexact but legitimate analogy would be the Episcopal Church breaking subordination to the Archbishop of Canterbury after the American Revolution. The government in no way is demanding that there not be communion with the Russian Orthodox Church or any other church in Orthodoxy.
My maternal grandmother came from this part of the universe. It was a little town called Luka Mala.