Brother, amazing article. ☦️Prayers for our brother and sisters as well as those that persecute them. Prayers for our President that God will give him wisdom.☦️
Great post. I think discussing how the US got wrapped up in this is important to discuss at some point. It's important for Americans (especially Orthodox Americans) to understand.
It should be noted that the official title of the bishops in Kiev up until at least the late 14th century was "Metropolitan of Russia." Kiev was actually not named in the title. Western manuscripts speaking of East-West relations at the time likewise render it Archiepiscopus Russiae. I discuss the history of this and the sources for the period in "Two Ukraines: the Origins of Today's Divide."
Why has United States taken upon itself to determine what church a Ukrainian attends or is allowed to attend?
The article bends over backwards to not be seen as pro-Russian, but the fact is, and let us not mince words - we in the United States are the Evil Empire.
As an American Orthodox Christian myself, I view this article to be both very misleading and very pointless.
"Moscow did not grant the UOC autocephaly, or total independence. But the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s ties to the Russian Orthodox Church are purely formal and symbolic. They are maintained only to emphasize the two churches’ common origin. The Moscow Patriarchate has no involvement in the government of the UOC whatsoever." As an American Orthodox Christian myself, I consider this statement very, very misleading. The Moscow Patriarch has had the same power over the UOC's top bishop that the Roman Pope has over Eastern/Byzantine Rite "Catholics" under Rome: True, the lower bishops elect the top bishop, but that top bishop does not become archbishop/patriarch/primate without subsequently obtaining approval from the Moscow Patriarch/Roman Pope. The Moscow Patriarch does not usually, if ever, withhold approval, and neither does the Roman Pope, but they have the authority both to deny approval and to subsequently remove a previously approved archbishop/patriarch/primate if the Moscow Patriarch/Roman Pope chooses to. Now, this power is not inherently illegitimate; on the contrary, it is a fully right and proper hierarchical relationship; however, this power does exist, which makes Mr Davis's statement mostly misleading. The big problem (besides the filioque and other subsequent Roman heresies) with the Roman Pope is that he claims this authority over all Christians, whereas true Orthodox continue practicing the original form of Christian communal relations in which a few top archbishops/patriarchs (Alexandria, Antioch, etc.) do not appoint or approve each other, but rather their lower bishops are the sole authority electing and approving them, and they retain collegial communion with each other as long as they remain true to Christ. No one, no nation, no ethnicity, etc. deserve their own autocephalous Patriarch who obtains full appointment & approval only from his subordinate bishops; and so it is not automatically the case that Ukrainians as a self-perceived distinct "ethnicity" deserve their own patriarch.
"The most obvious comparison would be to the schism within the Catholic Church in China."
Uh, no. As a self-proclaimed Orthodox Christian himself, Mr Davis as an American should be aware that the most appropriate analogy would be the situation of the "Orthodox Church in America", which is the inverse of the situation of the newly fully independent (autocephalous) Ukrainian Orthodox patriarchate. What Mr Davis very negligently refuses to mention is that the Constantinople Patriarch recognizes the full independence (autocephaly) of the new Ukrainian Orthodox patriarchate. What Mr Davis should know is that the Constantinople Patriarch recognized Ukraine's new independence (autocephaly) precisely in order to take revenge out on the Moscow Patriarchate for the Moscow Patriarchate granting full independence (autocephaly) to the Orthodox Church in American in the year 1970 despite the Constantinople Patriarch's refusal to this day to recognize the American Patriarch's full independence (autocephaly).
Not only is the situation of the Orthodox Church in American the best comparison, it is directly relevant to why the Ukrainian Orthodox church is now fully independent (autocephalous). The Constantinople Patriarch is claiming that only he has the authority to grant full independence (autocephaly) to other bishops, and so therefore the Moscow Patriarch purporting to do that in 1970 was illegitimate. Granting full independence (autocephaly) to a church that the Moscow Patriarchate refuses to recognize is a way for the Constantinople Patriarch to hammer home its claim.
As an American Orthodox Christian myself, I'd point out that in my view every currently fully independent (autocephalous) patriarch should be recognized to have authority to grant full independence (autocephaly) to any bishop, even if that bishop is under a different patriarch. I disagree with the Constantinople Patriarch's claim to sole authority to take this action, but recognize that it is legitimate when he does it himself. Therefore, both American and Ukraine now have fully independent (autocephalous) churches, and Mr Davis's article here is mostly misleading hyperventilating.
I do mention the EP’s involvement in Ukraine at the end. Read the article before commenting.
The situation in Ukraine has nothing to do with the MP granting autocephaly to the OCA. Even if it did, your parallel doesn’t work because both Ukraine and the OCA are/were under Moscow, not Constantinople.
More importantly, Orthodox Christians in Ukraine are being beaten, robbed, and murdered for remaining loyal to the canonical church. That’s the main point of my article—not the pissing contest between EP and MP. To call this “misleading hyperventilating” is childish.
I apologize for not noticing that you did mention the Ecumenical/Constantinople Patriarch. And then you proceed to completely dismiss his authority by effectively asserting he's under the control of the CIA. So, this is your non-answer to his authority. I agree in general with Canon Law - Usually, patriarchs should have authority to grant autocephaly only to subordinate bishops. However, what about when the archbishop's supported government is committing genocide against the subordinate bishop's people? Canon Law isn't infallible, and this seems like a solid exception. The Ecumenical/Constantinople Patriarch is helping to protect Ukrainians from attack. Sure, some Orthodox Christians are being murdered in Ukraine (but you didn't actually prove this with a link); do you care about the waaaaaay more Orthodox Christians whom Russia has been murdering starting in 2014 and especially 2022? Russia started the killing, and has been carrying it out at astronomically higher rates. Also, generally I would agree with protecting the freedom of religious minorities, but I think you would agree that extremist Muslim mosques should get shut down. Russia starting this war is just as bad, and again, is a solid exception. Religious organizations that support violence should get shut down.
The EP *is* under the influence of the U.S. State Department. Just ask him. They all brag about it, going back to Athenagoras. That's in the article I named and linked to: "The CIA's Man in Constantinople". Again, you should read things before commenting on them.
If I said that the Patriarch of Moscow was subservient to the Kremlin, everyone would nod along. If I said that the Patriarchate of Constantinople had been subservient to the Byzantine Empire, no one would bat an eye. Yet if I say that the EP is subservient to Washington, suddenly that's an unforgivable slight against an Orthodox hierarch.
We can't imagine Church authorities ingratiating themselves to a regional superpower! Perish the thought! Merely to say such things is tantamount to schism!
Even if the EP could grant autocephaly to the OCU, how would that be "protecting Ukrainians"? Zelensky has never offered any proof that the OUC is collaborating with Russia, while the many thousands of UOC members who have died fighting in the Ukrainian Army are proof to the contrary.
By comparing the OUC churches to jihadist mosques you show how little you understand the situation.
I don't want to delete your comments because inevitably someone will accuse me of being a coward, etc., but please stop commenting here. It's obvious that you don't understand the situation.
"Yet if I say that the EP is subservient to Washington, suddenly that's an unforgivable slight against an Orthodox hierarch." - No. My point is it doesn't matter. The Ecumenical/Constantinople Patriarch bears responsibility for his actions, and the Moscow Patriarch for his, regardless of how much they are influenced by secular governments. The Ecumenical/Constantinople Patriarch has merely granted independence/autocephaly to a bishop. The Moscow Patriarch on the other hand is earnestly supporting a secular leader's war against other Orthodox Christians. And yes, I am comparing the Moscow Patriarch to jihadis. If you start physical violence, you are wrong. Period.
The UOC is not the MP. UOC members are not defecting to the Russian Army. UOC clergy are not spying for Moscow. This is all propaganda.
Also, as I documented clearly in this article, this schism long preceded the War in Ukraine. The EP's endorsement had no effect in Ukraine whatsoever. No one on either side cared (or cares) what Constantinople thinks.
The OCU didn't wait for Constantinople before declaring its autocephaly, And do you think that, if the EP withdrew its tomos, the OCU would rejoin the canonical church? Of course not.
The EP issued its tomos for political reasons. It wanted to support NATO's agenda in Ukraine while expanding its own power within the Orthodox Church.
"The OCU didn't wait for Constantinople before declaring its autocephaly" - Moscow didn't wait for Constantinople before declaring autocephaly in the 15th century, something that no other Eastern Orthodox patriarch recognized for over 100 years after that. I support Moscow declaring independence in the 15th century, and I support Ukraine declaring independence from Moscow now, even if no other Orthodox jurisdictions recognize it for over 100 years just like what happened originally to Moscow. It doesn't matter whether Moscow-subordinate clergy in Ukraine have been spying for Russia: If they won't recognize this new independence, then the local bishop has a responsibility to kick them out.
For a nation that does not want its government entangled in its religion, it is a disgrace to use the entanglement of church and state to hype another nation's war against another nation. But the CIA has shown itself willing to use anything to stir up wars throughout the world. For instance, Christians and Muslims lived side by side for centuries in Palestine before the misnamed United Nations created the bogus State of Israel as a home country for persecuted Jews. The CIA, from its inception a year earlier than the State of Israel, has been active in the state of war in Palestine between the Palestinian states and Israel, stirring the pot to keep them fighting. It is an ethnic clash rather than a religious one, as Israel has no official religion. Its primary sponsor, though, is the United States. And politicians in the U.S. have from the founding have used American Christians to support policies from the annihilation of Native Americans and confiscation of their land to the impoverishing of the Southern States to its wars against Communism and Muslims.
Good article Michael, but my anecdotal knowledge of the situation, being a Protestant with many connections in Ukraine, is that the majority of people did in fact move from the Russian associated church to the Ukrainian one as the invasion happened.
And on that note, the treatment of anyone who is not orthodox or Muslim in Russian occupied lands is criminal. Warrants more than a paragraph.
It warrants much more than a paragraph. Thankfully it's being covered widely by mainstream media. Unfortunately (as I said), there's little we can do to help those people. We have no leverage over Russia unless and until we go to the negotiating table.
The point of this article was to shine a light on the persecution of native Ukrainians by their own government, with the encouragement and assistance of our government. At best, this is ignored by the mainstream media; at worst, it's celebrated.
The 'National Catholic Register' has closely covered Russia's suppression of the Knights of Columbus in the Donbas. I wonder if you have commented on their articles asking them to acknowledge the persecution of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine?
I don't think our first reaction to verifiable state persecution of Christians should be to minimize, dismiss, or erect a straw man.
The schismatic church is nowhere near being a majority. They have seized many parishes (including every one in the Ivano-Frankov province), when they do so they report every person on the register as an active parishioner - whether they continue to attend or not. But they don't continue to attend, and many churches sit vacant. If the faithful try to set up another UOC parish, it is raided and destroyed by activists. So, many of them are now in the catacombs - as they were under the Soviets.
If you look at the footage, for example, of the Paschal liturgies served by Metropolitan Onouphry and Epiphany Dumenko, you'll find that Met. Onouphry's cathedral was not only full, but surrounded by thousands of parishioners. Meanwhile, they had to bus in attendees from Lviv for Dumenko's liturgy and still couldn't fill the cathedral.
Brother, amazing article. ☦️Prayers for our brother and sisters as well as those that persecute them. Prayers for our President that God will give him wisdom.☦️
I'm grateful to you, Josh. Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!
Maranatha! Not sure how your political stuff didn’t take off, but maybe it was waiting for the right time and right subject. Don’t quit!
Great post. I think discussing how the US got wrapped up in this is important to discuss at some point. It's important for Americans (especially Orthodox Americans) to understand.
It should be noted that the official title of the bishops in Kiev up until at least the late 14th century was "Metropolitan of Russia." Kiev was actually not named in the title. Western manuscripts speaking of East-West relations at the time likewise render it Archiepiscopus Russiae. I discuss the history of this and the sources for the period in "Two Ukraines: the Origins of Today's Divide."
Thank you, brother.
Wow! Thank you for this post. Job well done.
Thanks, Buddy!
Why has United States taken upon itself to determine what church a Ukrainian attends or is allowed to attend?
The article bends over backwards to not be seen as pro-Russian, but the fact is, and let us not mince words - we in the United States are the Evil Empire.
As an American Orthodox Christian myself, I view this article to be both very misleading and very pointless.
"Moscow did not grant the UOC autocephaly, or total independence. But the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s ties to the Russian Orthodox Church are purely formal and symbolic. They are maintained only to emphasize the two churches’ common origin. The Moscow Patriarchate has no involvement in the government of the UOC whatsoever." As an American Orthodox Christian myself, I consider this statement very, very misleading. The Moscow Patriarch has had the same power over the UOC's top bishop that the Roman Pope has over Eastern/Byzantine Rite "Catholics" under Rome: True, the lower bishops elect the top bishop, but that top bishop does not become archbishop/patriarch/primate without subsequently obtaining approval from the Moscow Patriarch/Roman Pope. The Moscow Patriarch does not usually, if ever, withhold approval, and neither does the Roman Pope, but they have the authority both to deny approval and to subsequently remove a previously approved archbishop/patriarch/primate if the Moscow Patriarch/Roman Pope chooses to. Now, this power is not inherently illegitimate; on the contrary, it is a fully right and proper hierarchical relationship; however, this power does exist, which makes Mr Davis's statement mostly misleading. The big problem (besides the filioque and other subsequent Roman heresies) with the Roman Pope is that he claims this authority over all Christians, whereas true Orthodox continue practicing the original form of Christian communal relations in which a few top archbishops/patriarchs (Alexandria, Antioch, etc.) do not appoint or approve each other, but rather their lower bishops are the sole authority electing and approving them, and they retain collegial communion with each other as long as they remain true to Christ. No one, no nation, no ethnicity, etc. deserve their own autocephalous Patriarch who obtains full appointment & approval only from his subordinate bishops; and so it is not automatically the case that Ukrainians as a self-perceived distinct "ethnicity" deserve their own patriarch.
"The most obvious comparison would be to the schism within the Catholic Church in China."
Uh, no. As a self-proclaimed Orthodox Christian himself, Mr Davis as an American should be aware that the most appropriate analogy would be the situation of the "Orthodox Church in America", which is the inverse of the situation of the newly fully independent (autocephalous) Ukrainian Orthodox patriarchate. What Mr Davis very negligently refuses to mention is that the Constantinople Patriarch recognizes the full independence (autocephaly) of the new Ukrainian Orthodox patriarchate. What Mr Davis should know is that the Constantinople Patriarch recognized Ukraine's new independence (autocephaly) precisely in order to take revenge out on the Moscow Patriarchate for the Moscow Patriarchate granting full independence (autocephaly) to the Orthodox Church in American in the year 1970 despite the Constantinople Patriarch's refusal to this day to recognize the American Patriarch's full independence (autocephaly).
Not only is the situation of the Orthodox Church in American the best comparison, it is directly relevant to why the Ukrainian Orthodox church is now fully independent (autocephalous). The Constantinople Patriarch is claiming that only he has the authority to grant full independence (autocephaly) to other bishops, and so therefore the Moscow Patriarch purporting to do that in 1970 was illegitimate. Granting full independence (autocephaly) to a church that the Moscow Patriarchate refuses to recognize is a way for the Constantinople Patriarch to hammer home its claim.
As an American Orthodox Christian myself, I'd point out that in my view every currently fully independent (autocephalous) patriarch should be recognized to have authority to grant full independence (autocephaly) to any bishop, even if that bishop is under a different patriarch. I disagree with the Constantinople Patriarch's claim to sole authority to take this action, but recognize that it is legitimate when he does it himself. Therefore, both American and Ukraine now have fully independent (autocephalous) churches, and Mr Davis's article here is mostly misleading hyperventilating.
I do mention the EP’s involvement in Ukraine at the end. Read the article before commenting.
The situation in Ukraine has nothing to do with the MP granting autocephaly to the OCA. Even if it did, your parallel doesn’t work because both Ukraine and the OCA are/were under Moscow, not Constantinople.
More importantly, Orthodox Christians in Ukraine are being beaten, robbed, and murdered for remaining loyal to the canonical church. That’s the main point of my article—not the pissing contest between EP and MP. To call this “misleading hyperventilating” is childish.
I apologize for not noticing that you did mention the Ecumenical/Constantinople Patriarch. And then you proceed to completely dismiss his authority by effectively asserting he's under the control of the CIA. So, this is your non-answer to his authority. I agree in general with Canon Law - Usually, patriarchs should have authority to grant autocephaly only to subordinate bishops. However, what about when the archbishop's supported government is committing genocide against the subordinate bishop's people? Canon Law isn't infallible, and this seems like a solid exception. The Ecumenical/Constantinople Patriarch is helping to protect Ukrainians from attack. Sure, some Orthodox Christians are being murdered in Ukraine (but you didn't actually prove this with a link); do you care about the waaaaaay more Orthodox Christians whom Russia has been murdering starting in 2014 and especially 2022? Russia started the killing, and has been carrying it out at astronomically higher rates. Also, generally I would agree with protecting the freedom of religious minorities, but I think you would agree that extremist Muslim mosques should get shut down. Russia starting this war is just as bad, and again, is a solid exception. Religious organizations that support violence should get shut down.
The EP *is* under the influence of the U.S. State Department. Just ask him. They all brag about it, going back to Athenagoras. That's in the article I named and linked to: "The CIA's Man in Constantinople". Again, you should read things before commenting on them.
If I said that the Patriarch of Moscow was subservient to the Kremlin, everyone would nod along. If I said that the Patriarchate of Constantinople had been subservient to the Byzantine Empire, no one would bat an eye. Yet if I say that the EP is subservient to Washington, suddenly that's an unforgivable slight against an Orthodox hierarch.
We can't imagine Church authorities ingratiating themselves to a regional superpower! Perish the thought! Merely to say such things is tantamount to schism!
Even if the EP could grant autocephaly to the OCU, how would that be "protecting Ukrainians"? Zelensky has never offered any proof that the OUC is collaborating with Russia, while the many thousands of UOC members who have died fighting in the Ukrainian Army are proof to the contrary.
By comparing the OUC churches to jihadist mosques you show how little you understand the situation.
I don't want to delete your comments because inevitably someone will accuse me of being a coward, etc., but please stop commenting here. It's obvious that you don't understand the situation.
"Yet if I say that the EP is subservient to Washington, suddenly that's an unforgivable slight against an Orthodox hierarch." - No. My point is it doesn't matter. The Ecumenical/Constantinople Patriarch bears responsibility for his actions, and the Moscow Patriarch for his, regardless of how much they are influenced by secular governments. The Ecumenical/Constantinople Patriarch has merely granted independence/autocephaly to a bishop. The Moscow Patriarch on the other hand is earnestly supporting a secular leader's war against other Orthodox Christians. And yes, I am comparing the Moscow Patriarch to jihadis. If you start physical violence, you are wrong. Period.
The UOC is not the MP. UOC members are not defecting to the Russian Army. UOC clergy are not spying for Moscow. This is all propaganda.
Also, as I documented clearly in this article, this schism long preceded the War in Ukraine. The EP's endorsement had no effect in Ukraine whatsoever. No one on either side cared (or cares) what Constantinople thinks.
The OCU didn't wait for Constantinople before declaring its autocephaly, And do you think that, if the EP withdrew its tomos, the OCU would rejoin the canonical church? Of course not.
The EP issued its tomos for political reasons. It wanted to support NATO's agenda in Ukraine while expanding its own power within the Orthodox Church.
"The OCU didn't wait for Constantinople before declaring its autocephaly" - Moscow didn't wait for Constantinople before declaring autocephaly in the 15th century, something that no other Eastern Orthodox patriarch recognized for over 100 years after that. I support Moscow declaring independence in the 15th century, and I support Ukraine declaring independence from Moscow now, even if no other Orthodox jurisdictions recognize it for over 100 years just like what happened originally to Moscow. It doesn't matter whether Moscow-subordinate clergy in Ukraine have been spying for Russia: If they won't recognize this new independence, then the local bishop has a responsibility to kick them out.
For a nation that does not want its government entangled in its religion, it is a disgrace to use the entanglement of church and state to hype another nation's war against another nation. But the CIA has shown itself willing to use anything to stir up wars throughout the world. For instance, Christians and Muslims lived side by side for centuries in Palestine before the misnamed United Nations created the bogus State of Israel as a home country for persecuted Jews. The CIA, from its inception a year earlier than the State of Israel, has been active in the state of war in Palestine between the Palestinian states and Israel, stirring the pot to keep them fighting. It is an ethnic clash rather than a religious one, as Israel has no official religion. Its primary sponsor, though, is the United States. And politicians in the U.S. have from the founding have used American Christians to support policies from the annihilation of Native Americans and confiscation of their land to the impoverishing of the Southern States to its wars against Communism and Muslims.
Good article Michael, but my anecdotal knowledge of the situation, being a Protestant with many connections in Ukraine, is that the majority of people did in fact move from the Russian associated church to the Ukrainian one as the invasion happened.
And on that note, the treatment of anyone who is not orthodox or Muslim in Russian occupied lands is criminal. Warrants more than a paragraph.
It warrants much more than a paragraph. Thankfully it's being covered widely by mainstream media. Unfortunately (as I said), there's little we can do to help those people. We have no leverage over Russia unless and until we go to the negotiating table.
The point of this article was to shine a light on the persecution of native Ukrainians by their own government, with the encouragement and assistance of our government. At best, this is ignored by the mainstream media; at worst, it's celebrated.
The 'National Catholic Register' has closely covered Russia's suppression of the Knights of Columbus in the Donbas. I wonder if you have commented on their articles asking them to acknowledge the persecution of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine?
I don't think our first reaction to verifiable state persecution of Christians should be to minimize, dismiss, or erect a straw man.
The schismatic church is nowhere near being a majority. They have seized many parishes (including every one in the Ivano-Frankov province), when they do so they report every person on the register as an active parishioner - whether they continue to attend or not. But they don't continue to attend, and many churches sit vacant. If the faithful try to set up another UOC parish, it is raided and destroyed by activists. So, many of them are now in the catacombs - as they were under the Soviets.
If you look at the footage, for example, of the Paschal liturgies served by Metropolitan Onouphry and Epiphany Dumenko, you'll find that Met. Onouphry's cathedral was not only full, but surrounded by thousands of parishioners. Meanwhile, they had to bus in attendees from Lviv for Dumenko's liturgy and still couldn't fill the cathedral.
Excellent work, Michael. I am shocked you got on the blob's radar.
It's a very big blob. :)
I'm not.