Home / Business / Five objections against the legalization of Panaram Church schism in Ukraine

Five objections against the legalization of Panaram Church schism in Ukraine

Пять возражений против легализации Фанаром церковного раскола на Украине

Fanar has officially decided on their further actions in Ukraine, published on its website, “Official statement of the General Secretariat of the Holy and sacred Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from Oct 11, 2018”. It contained five items that begin with establishing the fact that “the Patriarchate of Constantinople will now proceed to the granting of autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine.” And then comes the development of the plot. However, the “official communications” begins a canonical ambiguity and terminological confusion and continues on, with each new thesis reinforcing the absurd.

First, as religious education is given in the text “Church” simply does not exist. To the autocephaly of her “give”, you must first create a Church, and only then let her off on all four sides.

Secondly, pay attention to the second paragraph: “Immediately restore the stavropegic Patriarch of Constantinople in Kiev, one of its many stauropegic monasteries in Ukraine, which existed there always.” It is accepted that if something exists “always”, that it somehow should be called and should be known to people. According to the text, that “always” should be considered “existing” unknown to anyone “Church of Ukraine”. She is the stavropegic, which means direct subordination to the Patriarch to bypass all the diocesan bishops, that is, in direct subordination to the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew enters a virtual “Church” that existed “always there”.

Amazing wording, but, in the third, then even more interesting: “to Receive and consider petitions for appeal of Filaret Denisenko, Macarius of Miletich and their followers caught in the split is not for dogmatic reasons, in accordance with the canonical prerogatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive such petitions from bishops and other clergy from all Autocephalous Churches. So the above was canonically restored to their hierarchical or priestly rank, and of their faithful was restored to fellowship with the Church.” In fact, the whole Orthodox world knows that in a split no one goes “for dogmatic reasons.” Dogmatic retreat always qualifies as heresy and nothing less, and remains schismatic schismatic until, until will not bring repentance where he split perpetrated, and will not be accepted for return.

See also:  Kiev explained on the software from the Ukrainian border guards in the Donbass "laser weapons"

Canonical is a real balancing act. But that’s not all, on, in-the fourth, still more wonderful: “to Revoke the legal obligations of the Synodal letter in 1686, issued by the circumstances of the time, which according to the oikonomia of the Moscow Patriarch was given the right to put the Metropolitan of Kiev, elected a Council of clergy and laity in his diocese…” All Orthodox know that “oikonomia” — when the rigor of the canons condoned. That is, a Canon, it must be respected, but from a position of condescension Canon is ignored. “Oikonomia” is this defiance of the law, if to translate from the Christian into Russian. But those “legal obligations” is actually the law instead of “oikonomia”. Legal obligations cannot be canceled unilaterally. In this issue, the Moscow Patriarchate is free “oikonomia” to abandon their canonical rights (theoretically), but it was unacceptable “to withdraw” a legal obligation on the part of Constantinople.

The curtain of the fifth and final point is as to the legal side is ignorant: “to appeal to all parties to avoid the appropriation of churches, monasteries and other property, and to refrain from any other acts of violence and vengeance, so that all was peace and love of Christ.” But what are “parties” to the call? Logically, of course, which, however, given that Fanar beyond the canonical field has established as its “official statement” kind of “Church of Ukraine”, which provided stavropegic, it is one of the “sides”, to which appeals the Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, in this case “Church” today can safely assume all the property of any other “sides” of their property. And so it turns out that “for the sake of peace and love” these other “parties” should avoid in relation to the “Church of Ukraine” any violence, when it starts to “recover rights”.

See also:  The Pentagon observed no proof of the Russian menace to Ukraine

From the point of view of the canons, everything that is written in the message of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, causes confusion. Each line contains this arbitrary interpretation of Canon law that on sound reasoning after this is published, you can only say the sheer political partisanship issued in the light of this paper. Not to mention it is not just about “the decision”, but also about the justification that this adoption was preceded by. At the moment, Constantinople was actively involved in the destruction of Orthodox unity. And it’s not that the Patriarch of the Second Rome was once the guarantor of this unity, he was not. The fact that he puts on his head all the developed over the centuries and established the rules and relationships in the Orthodox world, on which this unity was kept. If the rules are clear to all — unity is. If there are no such rules, there will be unity, that is, a uniform understanding of what is already invalid.

The actions Fanara now not read anything except the desire to get power, “like” the authority of the Roman Bishop that the Patriarch of Constantinople even the good Christians and can’t use because of weight, like the Pope, he does not have and is unlikely to happen. Fanar is now trying to make “Catholics”, but it turns out complete opposite of the Vatican. Instead of a unifying, clear, accept all we see that only divides. His “unifying mission” Patriarch Bartholomew began with the outspoken support of a split. And documented it.

© 2019, RWB News. All rights reserved

Check Also

Wave of wrath: why Russians are protesting against Chinese projects

Petition against the construction of the Chinese plant for bottling water in lake Baikal has …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *