What occurred today between the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches?


Irina du Quenoy about what Is Autocephaly and Who Gets to Grant It?
To Whom Is Autocephaly Being Granted in Ukraine?
Implications for Ukrainian Stability and Possible Ways Forward.


When it has to do with monuments to Ivan the Terrible(Ivan Grozniy)or Stalin, the clergy tolerate it.
In case with Ivan the Terrible they tolerated this monument telling that he might be not a saint but at least he is the foundator of the city.
Stalin by the way, is guilty in more mass murders.
A lot of people don’t know yet about Kazakhstan holodomor.



the du Quenoy piece is the best I’ve seen on this so far by a healthy margin.

I find it odd, though, that something this detailed left the UCC out entirely . . .

I’d also never before seen anything about +Filaret’s (alleged?) “publicly visible common law wife” before . . .

I’d like to see a similar piece by an outsider on what was actually granted to Moscow by the EP with regard to Kiev, as the two versions are radically different . . .



Schism’s will ALWAYS be part of religious beliefs…we can only pray we have outgrown killing each other over it…


The opinion of Nicholas Denysenko, Valparaiso University, Indiana, USA

“Canonical autocephaly will be defined as victory over Russian nationalism: replacing a Russian world with a Ukrainian world will smear the legitimacy of the new Church if it openly promotes ethnophyletism. That said, there is hope for the new Ukrainian church. The bishops, clergy, and laity who have openly declared their support for autocephaly are generally committed to ecumenical dialogue and building the new Church on the basis of the Gospel and the Orthodox principle of conciliarity while shedding the chains of post-Soviet neo-imperialism. As the Orthodox world adjusts to the tragic schism triggered by the MP’s angry reaction to Constantinople’s decision to grant Ukraine autocephaly, they have an opportunity to meet the Orthodox Ukrainians who are seeking to be the Church that serves Christ and whose core values are of the kingdom of God. Perhaps they will find that they have much more in common with the Ukrainians once they get to know them”
Full article here:


His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira of the Greek Orthodox Church has appealed to His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew… The metropolitan reminded the patriarch of the words of the holy hierarch St. John Chrysostom: “The sin of schism is not purged even by martyr’s blood,” calling on him to offer repentance for his actions. “Now, for his own personal reasons, he is giving autocephaly to the schismatics of Ukraine and revising the sacred order and canonical Orthodox Archdiocese of Ukraine, which is recognized not only by the Russian Orthodox Church, but also by all other local Orthodox churches,” the hierarch’s document reads.

“Schismatics, as we know, are not the Church, and communion with them is forbidden by the Divine and holy canons and the Apostolic and Ecumenical Councils. Why then this persistence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in recognizing schismatics as an autocephalous Church? To provoke schisms and divisions in the one universal and Apostolic Church of Christ?” Met. Seraphim writes in his statement.

See: Greek metropolitan calls on Constantinople to repent and cease communication with Ukrainian schismatics



According to Archbishop Theodosios:
“The Orthodox Churches of the world, including Jerusalem, only recognize the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, that it is headed by Metropolitan Onuphry; he is a member of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. We support all efforts to end the schism in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—the Church is a place of love, unity, and peace, and not hatred and schism,” he explained.


The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is getting Tomos. ROC does not have a Tomos, so the ROC is a sect.
Instead of the hysteria and rudeness of the ROC, Tomos is needed, and Tomos only gives the Patriarch of Constantinople.(If translated into secular language, Tomos is a license, without this license, the ROC cannot be considered the Church). So, what do you want? ROC is a tool in the hands of the FSB. They also understand that by losing 12,000 Ukrainian parishes, they are losing too much money. Instead of acquiring Tomos, the Russian Orthodox Church offers a new absurdity; - the entire Orthodox world is heretics and only the ROC is God’s Church. What insanity.


Please show us where the Russian Orthodox church said that the entire Orthodox world is heretics.

The absurdity is in your claim.


It’s an interesting thing. Even though they are in schism, it is yet to be seen, and may not be seen whether the Moscow-Constantinople schism will become as binding as the Rome-Constantinople schism.
Many people have this want for absolutes. We know the western schism was from 1378-1414. We know the Protestant Reformation began in 1517. Etc. With the east west schism most believe it happened suddenly in 1054 and that was it. Both sides excommunicated each other and that’s where the advent of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches came out of.
Most historians know now this is false as technically speaking the excommunications only held to those who did the excommunications. However this schism began long before 1054 with the difference of language and the political differences between the west and east, the growing theological differences which don’t seem much basis for schism today as many eastern Catholics use traditions the Orthodox use such as leavened bread etc. Filioque was a drifting point but today neither side makes a big deal out of it. Only in the Latin rite is it binding to say it. When St John Paul lloyd said the creed in Greek with the Patriarch of Constantinople he didn’t use filioque. Today it comes down more to papal authority and some different views on the Immaculate Conception and even purgatory.

With this said it started centuries prior but I would say it wasn’t final until the Venecians sacked Constantinople in 1204. After that there is no question there was a breach and is to this day.

It is yet to see if the Moscow Constantinople schism ends up becoming that much of a schism or it could be a rift for a few years and they reconcile. Again we may not even ultimately know in our lifetimes.


They do even worst.
І heard the anathemas, the cries of the priests about apostacy that Constantinople had denied the true Church.
Bullying that blood can be shed. Is it not enough for them 10 000 coffins in Donetsk? And 20,000 crippled?
Of course, they can do anything, including the make-up rooms and showy blood.
It’s good that at least in the Balkans they monitor the corruption withdrawals of money. Attempts to bribe the ecclesiastic institutions on all fronts are possible.


I don’t think so. I think that the papal bull of 1054 excommunicated ALL the followers of Michael Cerularius and his chaplain:
Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office, who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.


You said above:

I doubt that the Russian Orthodox Church ever said that “the entire Orthodox world is heretics”


Paradox. It looks like the Russian Orthodox Church in the Russian Federation acquires a monopoly on funeral services and severely restricts the rights of Protestants, although the Russian Orthodox Church itself (judging by its reactions to the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch) professes the spirit of Protestant ecclesiology.
In majority they comment on Ecumenical Patriarch acts, like the Protestants.
No submission, no respect, no recognition of higher hierarchy.


Do you understand that if the Ukrainian Orthodox Church receives Tomos, if to put it in the army language , the Russian Orthodox Church will have the status of a simple soldier, and Ukrainian in the status of a general. That is, Kyiv, will be not only the oldest city,as it really is(do not forget,when ancient Kyiv was glorious city, Moscow was a wild unpopulated forest,occupied by wild animals) but also legitimately higher in the legal ecclesiological sense than Moscow. And I think that Moldova, Belarus, other ex-Yugoslavia states will follow Ukraine example. So, the decision of Constantinople is for unity and not for disunity.


This was an obvious abuse of power and no wonder the eastern church was like I’m out from this crazy fools reign. Seriously if that was the leader of the church saying that just imagine.


The Albanian Patriarch responds with a letter to the Moscow Patriarch Cyril- " It is unthinkable that the holy Eucharist - the highest sacrament of unlimited love and the deepest humility of Christ - was used as a weapon [by the one Church] against another Church. Is it possible for the decision and decree of the hierarchy of the Russian Church to abolish the operation of the Holy Spirit in holy Orthodox churches, which are under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Is it possible for the Divine Eucharist, performed in the temples of Asia Minor and Crete, the Holy Mountain and everywhere on earth, to become invalid for the Russian Orthodox believers? And if they approach “with the fear of God, by faith and love” to the communion of the Holy Gifts, is it possible that this should be a “sin” that they should confess?"(just one letter point)


I can’t help but point out that not only are these sentiments beautifully expressed, but if considered more deeply, they call for, indeed, demand a wider reconciliation than the speaker no doubt intended, which wouldn’t mean that the demand of the sentiment isn’t a proper demand.


Did the Roman Church excommunicate His All Holiness Patriarch Michael Cerularius and all his followers in 1054, thereby preventing them from receiving the Holy Eucharist in a Roman Church?


Yes it does seem like it was an abuse of power by His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. We see here that:


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.