The question of Orthodox Ukrainians' allegiance to either Kyiv or Moscow wasn't mentioned, but is a key element in this invasion and war instigated by Russia, by attempting to override the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, labeling him as "schismatic" when he granted autocephaly the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine. In reality, it is the Moscow Church puppets of Putin who have caused the schism.
While I wouldn't discount the EP's actions in Ukraine, I think Putin's motivation for the invasion is long-standing. Regarding Moscow breaking communion with Constantinople, I'd be hesitant to use the word schism. This might be the Church's eventual decision but let's not rush to judgment.
Well said, Father Gregory. If you don’t already, I would encourage you to follow Professor Timothy Snyder on Substack. He is am eminent historian of Eastern Europe and Ukraine. He is currently teaching a course on Ukrainian history at Yale, which is available for viewing on YouTube. I’m watching it, and it’s very good.
Whatever the sins of the EU, NATO, and the West, it was Putin who (with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church) invaded a peaceful and sovereign nation. There is nothing in the moral tradition of the Church that justifies such actions by one nation against the other. The moral failings of Ukraine and the West simply don't justify Russia's war of aggression.
God grant you a joyous celebration of our Lord's Nativity.
The question of Orthodox Ukrainians' allegiance to either Kyiv or Moscow wasn't mentioned, but is a key element in this invasion and war instigated by Russia, by attempting to override the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, labeling him as "schismatic" when he granted autocephaly the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine. In reality, it is the Moscow Church puppets of Putin who have caused the schism.
While I wouldn't discount the EP's actions in Ukraine, I think Putin's motivation for the invasion is long-standing. Regarding Moscow breaking communion with Constantinople, I'd be hesitant to use the word schism. This might be the Church's eventual decision but let's not rush to judgment.
Several sources have called the split "schism" --
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/15/russian-orthodox-church-cuts-ties-with-constantinople
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/17/17983566/russia-constantinople-ukraine-eastern-orthodox-schism-autocephaly
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45870939
...what's your definition of it?
I don't get to determine who is in schism so I don't really have a definition. This is for the bishops in council to determine.
Well said, Father Gregory. If you don’t already, I would encourage you to follow Professor Timothy Snyder on Substack. He is am eminent historian of Eastern Europe and Ukraine. He is currently teaching a course on Ukrainian history at Yale, which is available for viewing on YouTube. I’m watching it, and it’s very good.
I do follow Dr Snyder and like you have found him insightful. Thank you for the suggestion!
Christ is born!
Thank you Nikos for taking the time to comment.
Whatever the sins of the EU, NATO, and the West, it was Putin who (with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church) invaded a peaceful and sovereign nation. There is nothing in the moral tradition of the Church that justifies such actions by one nation against the other. The moral failings of Ukraine and the West simply don't justify Russia's war of aggression.
God grant you a joyous celebration of our Lord's Nativity.