Something that caught my eye (thoughts, please)

Possibly ...

This is, and will be driven by, politics.
 
Possibly ...

This is, and will be driven by, politics.

Thank you for your perspective (purrspective?)

Sounds like the first schism within the Catholic Church (the one that created the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.)

Am I reading too much into this?

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
 
Last edited:
My pleasurrrrrrrrrrr ....

Sadly, it's hard to see how not.

The Patriarchies exist in communion, so why the Ukrainian Patriarchy should be considered a schism is pure politics. It reflects the current Russia/Ukraine (bad) relations.

The original schism was East v West.

At the outset, the senior partner was Rome, followed by Alexandra and Antioch (as two centres of theological development), and Jerusalem, because of its historical significance.

Constantinople emerged when Constantine chose Constantinople as his base. A junior partner, it considered itself superior to all, and so relations with Rome were always fraught. Neither side managed affairs well ... history repeating itself.
 
The Ukrainian side says this is something they've wanted 'for centuries', so I'm not entirely sure of the historical position there.

The latest of course, does stand against the backdrop of worsening relations between the Ukraine and the Russian state. As Putin is seen as something of a hero by the Russian Orthodox Patriarchy, politics will inevitably cloud any discussions between the two.

This is always the issue when nationalism figures so heavily in religious affairs. After the Russian Revolution, the Romanov royal family, executed by the Bolsheviks, were made saints and martyrs, as were some of the household staff who remained with them and died in the killings. A bit tricky, as the Romanovs were hardly martyrs to the faith, nor indeed outstanding examples of Christian virtue.

When Pope John-Paul II suggested a visit to Greece, there were huge gatherings and effigies were burned in the streets. Any accord with the Roman Catholic Church was seen as a betrayal of Greek Orthodoxy.

(The RCC recognises the Orthodox Sacraments, they don't recognise the RCC. A Catholic can receive communion at an Orthodox Church if s/he cannot get to a Catholic one; an Orthodox is excommunicated for receiving Catholic sacraments.)

To be honest, I might have converted to Orthodoxy a long time ago (apart from a couple of quibbles), but for the (understandable) fact that non-Greeks are looked on with a kind of 'what are you doing here?' attitude. I attended the Greek liturgy a couple of times, or contacted someone ... maybe if it were more regular I might have been seen as something more than a tourist?

(When we have an influx of East European Orthodox into the UK in the latter half of the last century (post 1960s), there were disputes between the incomers and the existing Orthodox communities, the newly-arrived saying the Orthodoxy they found was a long way removed from that of their homeland; that in effect Orthodoxy had become anglicised. There was a stand-off between the existing and the incoming ... I never followed the story long enough to find out how the issue was resolved.)


+++

My abiding view is that the schism between Patriarchies, like the schism between the RCC and Orthodoxy, is largely political, and the theological issues could be resolved in about five minutes if there was a will to do so.
 
Back
Top