No, because it’s state banning the church. As in you know, organisation that have all the armed services in its disposal and can enforce it. Pope see it as dangerous precedent especially that if states starts to ban the churches, catholic mafia organisation will be first on list in many many places. It’s also a textbook religious opression, as defined by basically everyone (except you probably).
Not exactly. It’s a state enforcing a particular administrative jurisdiction. These are all Orthodox churches, literally the same denomination. The Ukrainian church declared its autocephaly so that it is not administratively dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate and that was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and others (eg the Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Alexandria). What this move does is Ukraine mandating that churches within its boundaries adhere to the autocephaly. It’s not banning anything, just returning canonical ownership of the physical infrastructure to the canonical administration. This makes sense in the context of a war of national liberation, when the enemy is literally in a position to do propaganda by controlling those churches. Ultimately, this is more like confiscating Russian assets than restricting religious freedom. From the point of view of a believer, the only observed difference will be which particular patriarch is mentioned during mass, nothing else changes dogmatically.
Edit: and these are all internally orthodox politics. The Vatican commenting on it is as absurd as, say, the Egyptian Coptic church making pronouncements about the Pope’s dismissal of cardinal Burke. That’s an internal Catholic matter, other churches don’t have a say. This is an internal orthodox matter, the Vatican should stay in their lane. But then again, the Vatican not staying in their lane has been the original reason of the 1054 schism to begin with, so this isn’t that surprising.
It’s a state enforcing a particular administrative jurisdiction.
It’s state banning religious organization no matter how many rounds of mental gymnastic you do
These are all Orthodox churches, literally the same denomination. The Ukrainian church declared its autocephaly so that it is not administratively dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate and that was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and others (eg the Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Alexandria).
This has nothing to do with the matter
What this move does is Ukraine mandating that churches within its boundaries adhere to the autocephaly. It’s not banning anything, just returning canonical ownership of the physical infrastructure to the canonical administration.
Gold medal at mental gymnastic. This is just setting up state supported religion and opressing those not adhering to it.
This makes sense in the context of a war of national liberation, when the enemy is literally in a position to do propaganda by controlling those churches.
Finally you say something with substance, unfortunately for you this substance jut offer a more or less valid reason for state opression, not making the opression disappear.
Ultimately, this is more like confiscating Russian assets than restricting religious freedom.
Oh damn, so having anything at all to do with Russia now justifies literally everything
From the point of view of a believer, the only observed difference will be which particular patriarch is mentioned during mass, nothing else changes dogmatically.
Sure, it’s only religion, known as least important and trivial issue ever. Read yourself again what you just wrote here.
and these are all internally orthodox politics.
It’s not when a state comes in and bans and confiscates. Afaik Ukraine is secular state, it does not have state religion so why it does everything to look like it have one.
The Vatican commenting on it is as absurd
I mean sure Vatican shouldn’t throw any stones when the topic is religious freedom, but again, it’s clear case of religious opression.
as, say, the Egyptian Coptic church making pronouncements about the Pope’s dismissal of cardinal Burke
Bizarre and missed comparison. More apt would be if Egyptian Coptic church expressed concern over US state banning and confistating US catholic church (or any other non-Coptic church in US).
But then again, the Vatican not staying in their lane has been the original reason of the 1054 schism to begin with, so this isn’t that surprising.
Good thing you mention 1000 years old history! Makes your erlier dismissal of any concern over the organisation and worldy manner of denomination even funnier and more detached from reality. I’m sure there was no issues with antipopes or friday prayer names ever, after all “nothing else changes dogmatically”
I did not say you’re flat out wrong, I said “not exactly”. What you call “religious oppression”, I see as “administrative jostling”. Sure, the choice of which patriarch to mention at mass can be a huge issue, I’m from the Balkans, I know exactly how ugly it can get, but even that is “church politics”, not “religious persecution”. This is a political, not a dogmatic issue. It’s not sunnis persecuting shias, it’s not catholics vs protestants. The pope vs antipope analogy is actually a good one. Like I said, this is an internal matter of a single denomination. It’s a power struggle, not a theological debate. Which is why I don’t see that as religious persecution, there is nothing “religious” about the struggle, they’re not debating the natures of Christ, the Filioque or predestination or whether the twelfth Imam is the Mehdi. It’s about who gets to be the boss of this or that church building.
Is the state meddling with religious affairs? Sure. Should it not be in a perfect world? Sure. But this is how church and state intertwine in our neck of the woods. Same thing happened between the Ottomans and Greece 200 years ago, between Greece and Bulgaria 100 years ago, between Serbia and Macedonia more recently, and so on and so forth. This is how nationalism and Orthodoxy have been intertwined since the collapse of the two empires that used to control them in the past, the Ottomans in the south and the Russian Empire in the north. In this context, the Ukrainian state is countering the meddling of the Russian state that has already completely weaponized the Russian church. The Russian church has been functioning as the long arm of the Russian state for a while now. This is not some group of believers being persecuted for wearing the wrong type of hat or crossing themselves with two fingers as opposed to three, it’s competing nationalisms. Reducing all this context to “religious persecution” is kinda ridiculous.
This is precisely the kind of mess that will be healed with pan-orthodox synods once the wars are over. Has happened before, will happen again.
PS.
having anything at all to do with Russia now justifies literally everything
You’re ascribing to me a russophobia that I just don’t have. I’m not “justifying literally everything”, I’m giving context to a religious power struggle.
No, because it’s state banning the church. As in you know, organisation that have all the armed services in its disposal and can enforce it. Pope see it as dangerous precedent especially that if states starts to ban the churches, catholic mafia organisation will be first on list in many many places. It’s also a textbook religious opression, as defined by basically everyone (except you probably).
Not exactly. It’s a state enforcing a particular administrative jurisdiction. These are all Orthodox churches, literally the same denomination. The Ukrainian church declared its autocephaly so that it is not administratively dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate and that was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and others (eg the Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Alexandria). What this move does is Ukraine mandating that churches within its boundaries adhere to the autocephaly. It’s not banning anything, just returning canonical ownership of the physical infrastructure to the canonical administration. This makes sense in the context of a war of national liberation, when the enemy is literally in a position to do propaganda by controlling those churches. Ultimately, this is more like confiscating Russian assets than restricting religious freedom. From the point of view of a believer, the only observed difference will be which particular patriarch is mentioned during mass, nothing else changes dogmatically.
Edit: and these are all internally orthodox politics. The Vatican commenting on it is as absurd as, say, the Egyptian Coptic church making pronouncements about the Pope’s dismissal of cardinal Burke. That’s an internal Catholic matter, other churches don’t have a say. This is an internal orthodox matter, the Vatican should stay in their lane. But then again, the Vatican not staying in their lane has been the original reason of the 1054 schism to begin with, so this isn’t that surprising.
High quality post.
It’s state banning religious organization no matter how many rounds of mental gymnastic you do
This has nothing to do with the matter
Gold medal at mental gymnastic. This is just setting up state supported religion and opressing those not adhering to it.
Finally you say something with substance, unfortunately for you this substance jut offer a more or less valid reason for state opression, not making the opression disappear.
Oh damn, so having anything at all to do with Russia now justifies literally everything
Sure, it’s only religion, known as least important and trivial issue ever. Read yourself again what you just wrote here.
It’s not when a state comes in and bans and confiscates. Afaik Ukraine is secular state, it does not have state religion so why it does everything to look like it have one.
I mean sure Vatican shouldn’t throw any stones when the topic is religious freedom, but again, it’s clear case of religious opression.
Bizarre and missed comparison. More apt would be if Egyptian Coptic church expressed concern over US state banning and confistating US catholic church (or any other non-Coptic church in US).
Good thing you mention 1000 years old history! Makes your erlier dismissal of any concern over the organisation and worldy manner of denomination even funnier and more detached from reality. I’m sure there was no issues with antipopes or friday prayer names ever, after all “nothing else changes dogmatically”
I did not say you’re flat out wrong, I said “not exactly”. What you call “religious oppression”, I see as “administrative jostling”. Sure, the choice of which patriarch to mention at mass can be a huge issue, I’m from the Balkans, I know exactly how ugly it can get, but even that is “church politics”, not “religious persecution”. This is a political, not a dogmatic issue. It’s not sunnis persecuting shias, it’s not catholics vs protestants. The pope vs antipope analogy is actually a good one. Like I said, this is an internal matter of a single denomination. It’s a power struggle, not a theological debate. Which is why I don’t see that as religious persecution, there is nothing “religious” about the struggle, they’re not debating the natures of Christ, the Filioque or predestination or whether the twelfth Imam is the Mehdi. It’s about who gets to be the boss of this or that church building.
Is the state meddling with religious affairs? Sure. Should it not be in a perfect world? Sure. But this is how church and state intertwine in our neck of the woods. Same thing happened between the Ottomans and Greece 200 years ago, between Greece and Bulgaria 100 years ago, between Serbia and Macedonia more recently, and so on and so forth. This is how nationalism and Orthodoxy have been intertwined since the collapse of the two empires that used to control them in the past, the Ottomans in the south and the Russian Empire in the north. In this context, the Ukrainian state is countering the meddling of the Russian state that has already completely weaponized the Russian church. The Russian church has been functioning as the long arm of the Russian state for a while now. This is not some group of believers being persecuted for wearing the wrong type of hat or crossing themselves with two fingers as opposed to three, it’s competing nationalisms. Reducing all this context to “religious persecution” is kinda ridiculous.
This is precisely the kind of mess that will be healed with pan-orthodox synods once the wars are over. Has happened before, will happen again.
PS.
You’re ascribing to me a russophobia that I just don’t have. I’m not “justifying literally everything”, I’m giving context to a religious power struggle.
PPS. I’m not downvoting you.