A Milan Synod (1978-2012) Historical Thread

[Suaidan]

Ok, well, I guess we can continue here @Jean-Serge

As far as I know the Ukrainian UAOC has bishops with the Moscow Patriarchate as origin. Am I mistaken ? From what I know, they were not true orthodox at all and ecumenistic, like many Ukrainian groups, since the nationality is more important than the faith.

It seems to me that the Milan Synod claimed having received autocephaly from Archbishop Auxentios but provided a dubious document very late. Moreover, only the synod and not the Archbishop alone could grant autocephaly. I see this requires a full Milan Synod thread in fact.

I am not going to justify the short-lived (two years) union with the confused and divided UAOC, though I will say Patriarch Volodymyr was a respected hierarch who had renounced Soviet citizenship in 1976 and was likely poisoned to death. I assumed the union was not solely with the Milan Synod, as I am fairly certain Abp Maximos was also in favor of the union to my recollection. (I could be wrong here, but I am fairly certain I'm not.)

The claim of the dating of the Tomos is silly; it was before 1985, so of course it bothers people as it cannot be disputed that it was before the trial of Abp Auxentios of blessed memory. It was publicly issued, was a Tomos of Autonomy (not autocephaly) and was not only not dubious but no less than Metropolitan Moses of Toronto correctly noted that it was a proper form for a Tomos (while denying that the Tomos had any legal weight for obvious reasons.)

I am more than happy to discuss in a Milan Synod thread. As someone who chronicled and watched the whole thing implode from the inside, our people know more about the actual history of what happened than pretty much anyone else in True Orthodoxy. Because of the fact that we dealt with and lived through that history, I would love nothing more than to clear up all these issues in public. Even last year there was yet another false set of claims about Metropolitan Evloghios, rehashed from the 90's. It's absolutely infuriating to watch.

[Chauvin]

Ok, well, I guess we can continue here @Jean-Serge

As far as I know the Ukrainian UAOC has bishops with the Moscow Patriarchate as origin. Am I mistaken ? From what I know, they were not true orthodox at all and ecumenistic, like many Ukrainian groups, since the nationality is more important than the faith.

It seems to me that the Milan Synod claimed having received autocephaly from Archbishop Auxentios but provided a dubious document very late. Moreover, only the synod and not the Archbishop alone could grant autocephaly. I see this requires a full Milan Synod thread in fact.

 

I am not going to justify the short-lived (two years) union with the confused and divided UAOC, though I will say Patriarch Volodymyr was a respected hierarch who had renounced Soviet citizenship in 1976 and was likely poisoned to death. I assumed the union was not solely with the Milan Synod, as I am fairly certain Abp Maximos was also in favor of the union to my recollection. (I could be wrong here, but I am fairly certain I'm not.)

The claim of the dating of the Tomos is silly; it was before 1985, so of course it bothers people as it cannot be disputed that it was before the trial of Abp Auxentios of blessed memory. It was publicly issued, was a Tomos of Autonomy (not autocephaly) and was not only not dubious but no less than Metropolitan Moses of Toronto correctly noted that it was a proper form for a Tomos (while denying that the Tomos had any legal weight for obvious reasons.)

I am more than happy to discuss in a Milan Synod thread. As someone who chronicled and watched the whole thing implode from the inside, our people know more about the actual history of what happened than pretty much anyone else in True Orthodoxy. Because of the fact that we dealt with and lived through that history, I would love nothing more than to clear up all these issues in public. Even last year there was yet another false set of claims about Metropolitan Evloghios, rehashed from the 90's. It's absolutely infuriating to watch.

 

Did the synod approve of Abp Aux. granting a tomos of autonomy to Milan? Is it required for synodal approval for a tomos to be granted? From what I hear regarding counter arguments, the main counter argument against the tomos of autonomy granted to Milan was that it was done without synodal approval, which means it is not valid. 

[Suaidan]

Did the synod approve of Abp Aux. granting a tomos of autonomy to Milan? Is it required for synodal approval for a tomos to be granted? From what I hear regarding counter arguments, the main counter argument against the tomos of autonomy granted to Milan was that it was done without synodal approval, which means it is not valid. 

 

1) While it is disputed whether the Tomos was approved, it was published in the Synod's official publications, and no dispute was ever raised until after the 1985 show trial.
2) I don't know the answer to the question and would have to do more research. While previous such documents seem to be unilateral on the part of the Primate (as in the case of Serbian autocephaly) it may require Synodal ratification. While those who condemned Abp Auxentios of blessed memory later claimed that the Tomos lacked Synodal approval, I guess the question comes back to whether the questioners recognized his authority at all to begin with. Certainly they gained autonomy three years later from a canonical standpoint by restoring a dead see, but my suspicion is that opponents of the Tomos don't care about that either.
 
 
 
 

[SavaBeljovic]

Did the synod approve of Abp Aux. granting a tomos of autonomy to Milan? Is it required for synodal approval for a tomos to be granted? From what I hear regarding counter arguments, the main counter argument against the tomos of autonomy granted to Milan was that it was done without synodal approval, which means it is not valid. 

 

1) While it is disputed whether the Tomos was approved, it was published in the Synod's official publications, and no dispute was ever raised until after the 1985 show trial.
2) I don't know the answer to the question and would have to do more research. While previous such documents seem to be unilateral on the part of the Primate (as in the case of Serbian autocephaly) it may require Synodal ratification. While those who condemned Abp Auxentios of blessed memory later claimed that the Tomos lacked Synodal approval, I guess the question comes back to whether the questioners recognized his authority at all to begin with. Certainly they gained autonomy three years later from a canonical standpoint by restoring a dead see, but my suspicion is that opponents of the Tomos don't care about that either.
 
 
 
 

 

I'm curious. Is reviving a vacant see de jure autonomy granted? Or is it de facto?
 
 

[SavaBeljovic]

I am not going to justify the short-lived (two years) union with the confused and divided UAOC, though I will say Patriarch Volodymyr was a respected hierarch who had renounced Soviet citizenship in 1976 and was likely poisoned to death. I assumed the union was not solely with the Milan Synod, as I am fairly certain Abp Maximos was also in favor of the union to my recollection. (I could be wrong here, but I am fairly certain I'm not.)

The claim of the dating of the Tomos is silly; it was before 1985, so of course it bothers people as it cannot be disputed that it was before the trial of Abp Auxentios of blessed memory. It was publicly issued, was a Tomos of Autonomy (not autocephaly) and was not only not dubious but no less than Metropolitan Moses of Toronto correctly noted that it was a proper form for a Tomos (while denying that the Tomos had any legal weight for obvious reasons.)

I am more than happy to discuss in a Milan Synod thread. As someone who chronicled and watched the whole thing implode from the inside, our people know more about the actual history of what happened than pretty much anyone else in True Orthodoxy. Because of the fact that we dealt with and lived through that history, I would love nothing more than to clear up all these issues in public. Even last year there was yet another false set of claims about Metropolitan Evloghios, rehashed from the 90's. It's absolutely infuriating to watch.

 

I have to state here as well, for obligatory Ukrainian history lesson reasons: Pat. Volodymyr died in very suspicious circumstances, much in line with poisoning, and it's considered essentially historical fact among Ukrainian vagrant circles (of which I came out of) that Filaret (Denysenko) had Volodymyr killed... Most of the evidence is just circumstantial however.

Pat. Volodymyr was well respected, even by the UAOC and Pat. Dymytriy, despite the disagreement between the UAOC and UOC-KP, much of which was the fault and influence of Filaret. My former spiritual father was a spiritual son of Met. Mstyslav, so I know a bit about how Met. (later Pat.) Mstyslav viewed Pat. Volodymyr, and one conversation that was related to me, Met. Mstyslav considered him one of the "last genuine (not being used in the confession of faith sense) Ukrainian Bishop" since he thought everyone else was secretly working for the KP (who turned out to be playing both sides under Filaret), EP, or MP.

I hate for my reply to sound like I'm just bashing Filaret Denysenko, he's treated of something as a boogeyman among the Ukrainians, maybe for good reason, maybe not. 

[SavaBeljovic]

@Jean-Serge I hate to spam this thread with replies (I plan on making this my last one) but the UAOC *did not* have its origins in the MP. Filaret Denysenko came from the MP but he was involved in the UOC-KP, not the UAOC. The UAOC's origins are... interesting, because there's three different narratives. The MP (falsely, I might add) claims the UAOC was the brainchild of Vasyl Lypkivsky, who was part of the greater Renovationist "living church" movement. It is true he established a parasynagogue in Ukraine and used the name "UAOC" but this group ceased to exist in the 1930s and has nothing to do with the later UAOC.

The later group, and what people think of when they hear "UAOC" (or at least should, I can't tell you!) was the group that came out of the Polish Orthodox Church, which itself had an interesting origin, which was led by Abp. Polikarp of Volhinya and was something of the pet project of Met. Dionizy of Warsaw who later claimed locum tenens for the seat of All-Ukraine. They elected Met. Mstyslav and Abp. Nikanor and a few others but they were the central figures. Sadly, in the 1950s the UAOC had a few schisms in their Synod and most of those groups would end up becoming the UOCs under the EP.

[Suaidan]

=0.95emI'm curious. Is reviving a vacant see de jure autonomy granted? Or is it de facto?

 
 

 

I assume it's de facto, but I also assume under normal circumstances there'd be some mutual recognition de jure.