This comment is not to be understood in any way as a justification or an excuse for Russia's war on Ukraine. Given the tumultuous history shared between the peoples of both "regions," (for want of a better description), and the Russian state's long-existing imperialistic ambitions (again, rooted in that long history, whether czarist or communist) we might safely assume that many in control of the newly emerged Russian state were looking for an opportunity to annex Ukraine since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That being said, the US's spawning of a pseudo-church within Ukraine unwisely helped to energize the present aggression. On all sides. The US's meddling in the internal affairs of Holy Orthodoxy for politically strategic purposes is appalling. Let's be frank about that.
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your irenic intention. In the same spirit, let me offer some points of clarification.
First, you refer to Ukraine and Russia as "'regions' (for want a better description)." Again why no doubt well meant, there is in fact "a better description," two come to mind. We can refer to the peoples of two neighboring nations--Ukraine and Russia--who share a long, if at times conflicted, relationship.
Alternatively, we could refer to simply "Ukrainians" and "Russians." Though accurate as far as they go, the terms might leave us with the misapprehension that the State actors (Russia and Ukraine) are the same (or mostly the same) as these ethnic groups. Worse, I think using Ukrainian and Russian confuses a complicated ethnic/cultural heritage with the frankly geo-political (and domestic) agenda behind Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Maybe more importantly, in failing to refer to both nations by name we might (if even unintentionally) affirm Russia's contention that Ukraine is not a "real nation" or Ukrainians a "real people." Far from advancing the cause of mutual understanding and the hoped for just and lasting peace, not referring to Ukraine undermines the agency of that country and its people.
Regarding the canonical status of the OCU and the US's support of it, I think you mistaken on several points. While the EP's recognition of OCU is not beyond criticism, it is hardly the non-canonical action its critics would say it is. Far from it in fact.
We need only look to the US to see that most (and possibly all) Orthodox jurisdictions here were at one time out of communion with itself. The Russian churches we divided into the MP, ROCOR, and the Metropolia (now the OCA). There were at one point two competing Antiochian jurisidictions until Metropolitan Phillip of blessed memory reconciled the two factions.
We can add to this the divisions that afflicted the Serbian and Greek Orthodox communities as well as the still existing jurisdictional separation between the Romanians, Albanians, and Bulgarians.
Regarding the OCU itself, it's worth pointing out that the MP did little or nothing to reconcile the breakaway groups in Ukraine going so far as to declare them "graceless" while at the same time accepting Catholic sacraments as valid. Again, while not above criticism, the EP stepped in only after the MP not only failed to act but exasperated the schism in Ukraine.
As for the ecclesiastic situation "energizing present aggression," well yes it does. But the present aggression is fundamentally the fault of Russia invading Ukraine. Turning an Orthodox country into not just a war zone but a religious war zone has probably done at least as much--if not more--to heighten religious tension in Ukraine and only delay further the reconciliation of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine.
Regarding the (alleged) role of the US in the creation of the OCU, at most we can say if the US is meddling is simply doing what Russia has done for centuries. Russia's imperialistic ambitions are centuries old and like the czars and commissaries before him, Putin is happy to exploit the Church for his own ends and, sadly, the Church seems willing to be exploited.
Finally, since you have said it, it is not at all unreasonable that Ukraine has tried to keep itself safe geo-politicallly, and yes ecclesiastically, from the attempts by Russia to annex it. What makes Russia's desire even more despicable is that when the USSR collapsed (thank God!), the new Russian state promised to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Taking you point here, that means Russia flat out lied to Ukraine and the world.
I understand. Under the circumstances then it might be better if we end the conversation here. Given your limited time I would ask that in the future you please refrain from commenting.
This comment is not to be understood in any way as a justification or an excuse for Russia's war on Ukraine. Given the tumultuous history shared between the peoples of both "regions," (for want of a better description), and the Russian state's long-existing imperialistic ambitions (again, rooted in that long history, whether czarist or communist) we might safely assume that many in control of the newly emerged Russian state were looking for an opportunity to annex Ukraine since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That being said, the US's spawning of a pseudo-church within Ukraine unwisely helped to energize the present aggression. On all sides. The US's meddling in the internal affairs of Holy Orthodoxy for politically strategic purposes is appalling. Let's be frank about that.
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your irenic intention. In the same spirit, let me offer some points of clarification.
First, you refer to Ukraine and Russia as "'regions' (for want a better description)." Again why no doubt well meant, there is in fact "a better description," two come to mind. We can refer to the peoples of two neighboring nations--Ukraine and Russia--who share a long, if at times conflicted, relationship.
Alternatively, we could refer to simply "Ukrainians" and "Russians." Though accurate as far as they go, the terms might leave us with the misapprehension that the State actors (Russia and Ukraine) are the same (or mostly the same) as these ethnic groups. Worse, I think using Ukrainian and Russian confuses a complicated ethnic/cultural heritage with the frankly geo-political (and domestic) agenda behind Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Maybe more importantly, in failing to refer to both nations by name we might (if even unintentionally) affirm Russia's contention that Ukraine is not a "real nation" or Ukrainians a "real people." Far from advancing the cause of mutual understanding and the hoped for just and lasting peace, not referring to Ukraine undermines the agency of that country and its people.
Regarding the canonical status of the OCU and the US's support of it, I think you mistaken on several points. While the EP's recognition of OCU is not beyond criticism, it is hardly the non-canonical action its critics would say it is. Far from it in fact.
We need only look to the US to see that most (and possibly all) Orthodox jurisdictions here were at one time out of communion with itself. The Russian churches we divided into the MP, ROCOR, and the Metropolia (now the OCA). There were at one point two competing Antiochian jurisidictions until Metropolitan Phillip of blessed memory reconciled the two factions.
We can add to this the divisions that afflicted the Serbian and Greek Orthodox communities as well as the still existing jurisdictional separation between the Romanians, Albanians, and Bulgarians.
Regarding the OCU itself, it's worth pointing out that the MP did little or nothing to reconcile the breakaway groups in Ukraine going so far as to declare them "graceless" while at the same time accepting Catholic sacraments as valid. Again, while not above criticism, the EP stepped in only after the MP not only failed to act but exasperated the schism in Ukraine.
As for the ecclesiastic situation "energizing present aggression," well yes it does. But the present aggression is fundamentally the fault of Russia invading Ukraine. Turning an Orthodox country into not just a war zone but a religious war zone has probably done at least as much--if not more--to heighten religious tension in Ukraine and only delay further the reconciliation of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine.
Regarding the (alleged) role of the US in the creation of the OCU, at most we can say if the US is meddling is simply doing what Russia has done for centuries. Russia's imperialistic ambitions are centuries old and like the czars and commissaries before him, Putin is happy to exploit the Church for his own ends and, sadly, the Church seems willing to be exploited.
Finally, since you have said it, it is not at all unreasonable that Ukraine has tried to keep itself safe geo-politicallly, and yes ecclesiastically, from the attempts by Russia to annex it. What makes Russia's desire even more despicable is that when the USSR collapsed (thank God!), the new Russian state promised to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Taking you point here, that means Russia flat out lied to Ukraine and the world.
I haven't lied.
Thank you for your comment. I'm confused. Am I lying or is it that I am " grossly misinformed and know nothing about geopolitics"? How have I erred?
I understand. Under the circumstances then it might be better if we end the conversation here. Given your limited time I would ask that in the future you please refrain from commenting.