What occurred today between the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches?


A Moldavian priest said on the internet (the EO Church in Moldova is under the Patriarchy of Moscow as well) that even the Great Schism was not so much about doctrine (despite the constant claims that it was) but it was about administrative issues and old conflicts between Rome and Constantinople that existed before there even was such a Creed to add or not to add filioque to.
This is quite new for an Orthodox priest to say, especially one on the Russian side, who have been claiming that the Schism must stay on because of doctrinal issues but maybe this was just an excuse.
My personal opinion coincides with this for simple reason that if there was such a great quarrel about doctrinal issues the Holy Spirit would have intervened and reveal the truth about where He proceeds from to both parties who would have had their entire body, mind and soul concentrated on this spiritual matter. But since He didn’t intervene and the issue remained open it is quite obvious (to my stupid eyes at least) that the minds of the Pope and the Patriarch at that time were not about the structure of the Holy Trinity. It was about power and administration and probably the personal egos of the bishops involved.


This is where things get confusing. The main reason Moscow considers Constantinople to be schismatic is because Constantinople entered into communion with the schismatic Ukrainians. But all the other EO Churches other than Moscow still maintain communion with schismatic Constantinople–does that make them schismatic now too for being in communion with a schismatic Church? And Moscow remains in communion with those in communion with schismatic Constantinople–so if they are schismatic for being in communion with a schismatic Church, is Moscow now also schismatic for being communion with them? Where can the one catholic Church be found now from the EO perspective? (it bears pointing out there have been multiple situations like this in EO history).

This is one of the reasons I find EO ecclesiology incoherent and incompatible with what we profess about the Church in the Creed.


That view has very wide acceptance in the West and it’s the one that I hold as do many others. It’s well supported by history, and indeed, the history of the early stages of the schism itself including that it repaired and then returned.

That it’s been mentioned in the East is a hopeful sign, as I feel that the schism must be healed. A big part of healing it would be to cast aside all the old hurtful arguments that are made about human actions, define what administrative issues contributed to it and address those that remain in a modern context, and then go on to what doctrinal issues actually exist. While undoubtedly people will maintain that it simply isn’t so, I suspect if the focus ended up on doctrine, we’d find that what differences actually exist are capable of resolution.


I’ve heard it claimed, but really don’t know, that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church actually was autocephalous at some point in the past, and then it had that removed in some fashion.

I’ve heard that claimed, I don’t know that to be true.

Is there truth to that?


I think the point is that this is a battle for the Ukrainian state. Russia wants it to be under Russian influence, while independence is the goal of others. The situation has approached open warfare, and included Russia asserting control over some Ukrainian lands.

The religious conflict has to be seen in that light. If the Ukraine develops an autonomous church that truly unites all of the factions, Russia will deny it exists. As long as the country is split into different groups, Russia can bide its time. That is the real problem, that a united Orthodox church in Ukraine will foster greater indepence from the Russian government.

Contantinople’s request that the two major groups solve their disagreements and choose a single patriarch is an obvious first step, and also a threat to Russian dominance.

Orthodoxy “began” in Russia when St Vladimir, a viking prince who ruled from Kiev, converted to Orthodox Christianity. Severing the tie between Moscow and Kiev would be a huge symbolic blow.


saint Stalin?

Was that a typo or what? Or sarcasm which I failed to detect?




It’s sarcasm.


You’re exactly right and I agree fully 100% .

The fact that the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christian Churches of God are not in full communion with the Catholic Christian Churches of God is an insult to and crime against the Lord Jesus himself.

I long for the day when I can go to the Greek Orthodox Catholic Cathedral in my city and fulfill my Sunday obligation and receive Communion in their Divine Liturgy.


Lol that’s a LOT of “schism” in that comment, but it is true.

The communion of Eastern Orthodox Catholic Churches is an absolute mess now with this MP-EP disaster. I agree fully the way EO ecclesiology is today is incoherent and unsustainable.

But God always brings about greater goods from evil…

It is my hope and prayer that this evil of schism between the MP and EP will lead to and end with the healing of the schism between East and West, and the majority of Eastern Orthodox Christians reuniting in full communion with Catholics under the loving care and pastoring of Peter.


Note there is a distinction between autocephalous orthodox churches, which choose their on head, and autonomous, which function independently.

The Ukrainian Church was both in practice–though either de jure–prior to the Union of Brest, which brought it into communion with the RCC.

Moscow is the purportedly relocated see of Kiev . . .

He didn’t rule “from” Kieve, and he wasn’t “in” Russia. He was flat out in Kiev.

Later, the royal family fled, and the metropolitan followed, purporting to move the see of Kiev.



Yes, I quote Cyril Hovorun “Political Orthodoxies”:

-“The church continues to deny the Holodomor, one of the most outrageous crimes of the Stalinist political religion. It increasingly accepts the rehabilitation of Stalin. Who almost exterminated the church itself. In 2016, a monument to Stalin was installed in the city of Orel. This action was endorsed by Patriarch Kirill and blessed by his confessor, starets (elder) Iliy Nozdrin (born 1932)”


Disgusting. One of the two worst mass-murderers (along with Mao) in the history of mankind, and the modern Russian Orthodox Church worships him as a saint.


16 yrs ago

Cardinal Walter Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity


“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from Zenit, Kasper, 2002

This issue has been brewing for a long time.

This is and has always been over primacy of authority. Jesus already settled that issue in the upper room when the apostles got in an argument over who is greaest among THEM (the apostles). Jesus settled their argument. He said it was Peter. Anyone still arguing over that, is as Jesus said, is being sifted successfully by Satan. In this case for 1000 yrs.


Is it really true that an Orthodox priest blessed a monument to Stalin? Is this substantiated? I find that hard to believe… that’s downright satanic.


Not wishing to go off topic here, but your comment needs to be answered. Speaking as an everyday Catholic who traces our roots back to the first century, I quote St.Paul who exhorted believers to " Hold fast to the tradtions "
St Thomas Aquinas teaches that " inferiors are bound to correct their superiors publicly when there is an imminent danger to the Faith (Summa Theologicae,) and the Catholic faithful have the right, and at times, the duty , in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to make known their views on matters which concern the good of the Church (Latin Code of Canon Law ) . Catholic theologians have a strict duty to speak out against the aparent errors in the document. This statement on Amoris Laetitia is intended to fulfil that duty, and to assist the hierarchy of the Church in addressing this situation .
In Mattew 18:18 the power of Binding and loosing was also conferred on the Apostolic Body as well as on St.Peter. They were always intended to be a team, with St. Peter as the Prime Minister . It sort of resembles the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople who regards himself as " first among equals " ( otherwise known as accoutability )


Yeah, I’d like to see this verified. I googled this and I can find a monument to Ivan the Terrible erected there recently but no mention of that been dedicated by a priest. I’d like to see the claim about monument to Stalin backed up by a source in Russian or Ukrainian as a primary source and not just repeated as an attempt to show bad Russian and Russians are which it seems to be here.


This has an array of photos of Stalin monuments, including an icon of St Matrona blessing Stalin. “In 2008, the icon was placed in a St. Petersburg church, causing an uproar after which the priest of the church was dismissed.”

It is not a statue in Oryol, but gives some idea of the modern ideas abotu Stalin in Russia.


Kirill Hovorun explains in detail the context of what is happening



This was surprisingly balanced, and the best I’ve seen so far.

It neglects to mention, though, that the UOC had been in communion with Rome for three decades at the time the EP “granted” a supervisory role to Moscow.

In calling that role “supervisory”, he rejects the EP’s position on what was granted, and adopts Moscow’s–except that Moscow rejects the ability to withdraw the grant. The EP, however, states that was granted to Moscow was only the blessing of the Kievian prelate on behalf of the EP. I don’t know any slavonic, so I can’t read it myself :slight_smile:

It is sloppy in its use of “UOC” a couple of times, sometimes seeming to mean “UOC-MP”, and other times meaning the new entity to reformed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.