Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Reactions of the Eastern Orthodox churches to the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism" in English language version.
For the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church, it is faced with a real danger of a new big schism, this time not between the Christian East and West, but within the East itself. If that were to happen, and I hope that, despite everything, it will not, it would be a bigger and harder schism than all the previous ones in the history of the Church, quantitatively greater than the schism of 1054, given the present number of Orthodox churches and their widespread distribution in the world," Bishop Irinej has told the daily Politika.
[…]
He also noted that the Serbian Orthodox Church does not accept the existence of two different and bickering Orthodox Christianities, one "Phanariotic", and the other of "Moscow" - but instead believes in one, holy, communal and apostolic Church of Christ.
"In short: we are not for Moscow, but for the full respect of the centuries-old canonical order, and we are not against Constantinople, but against any initiative that, even independently of good intentions, would certainly cause even more severe shocks and divisions than we already have," he said.
Metropolitan Cyprian of Stara Zagora (Bulgarian Patriarchate) co-served in the Bulgarian Church of Constantinople (Istanbul) last Sunday, December 26 [2021]. During the liturgy, His Beatitude Metropolitan Epifaniy was commemorated in the Diptych among other primates.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)"The Russian Church, like any other local Orthodox Church, is not obliged to obey the Patriarch of Constantinople's decisions, as the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, to which Patriarch Bartholomew has referred, do not invest him with any powers beyond his patriarchate," Archpriest Igor Yakimchuk, the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations secretary, told Interfax on Tuesday.
The priest was commenting on Patriarch Bartholomew's remark on Monday that his privileges are based on Ecumenical Council canons, that everyone in the Orthodox world has to respect them, and that the Russian Orthodox Church will therefore follow Constantinople's decisions on Ukraine sooner or later.
The priest argued that the canons mentioned by Patriarch Bartholomew ranked the bishop of Constantinople second, following the bishop of Rome, on a list of Churches existing when the canons were drawn up, on the grounds that Constantinople was the seat of the czar and the Senate.
"Given that the Byzantine Empire long ago ceased to exist and that Istanbul is not even the capital of Turkey now, there are no more canonical foundations even for the symbolic primacy of the Constantinople Patriarchate in the Orthodox world," he said.
On October 20, the UOC KP Synod changed the title of its head [Filaret]. Now the Church's Primate will also be called the Archimandrite of Kyiv-Pechersk and Pochaiv Lavras, which seemingly reflects Filaret's desire to get them at his disposal. At the moment both Lavras belong to the UOC MP [the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)], so it looks like the "Archimandrite" doesn't want to comply with the fifth point of the Constantinople Synod decree in which the Patriarchate appeals to all sides involved that they avoid appropriation of Churches, Monasteries and other properties.
Filaret's appropriation of the title of archimandrite of the Kiev Caves and Pochaev Lavras falls in line with his many times announced claims to these monasteries sacred for the millions of Orthodox Ukrainians. When Constantinople took decision on reinstating him (though it is not clear in which rank – patriarch? metropolitan?) it called upon "all involved parties to avoid the appropriation of churches, monasteries and other property, and any other acts of violence and retaliation." And Ukrainian President Poroshenko has assured that no property redistribution would occur. However, can one believe these calls and assurances when the chief leader of the schism, now justified by Constantinople, does not hide his plans of seizing the main holy sites of the canonical Ukrainian Church, while the nationalistic groups are ready to commit the seizure with his 'blessing'? It seems that only the absence of tomos of autocephaly still deters from violent actions those willing to do away with the canonical Church as quickly as possible.
The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia held its session the day before yesterday, and members of the Synod charged me with a duty to appeal to representatives of all the Local Orthodox Churches with a request to convene a pan-Orthodox meeting over the Ukrainian issue. Until all the developments in the Ukrainian church life are discussed and a conciliar decision is taken, our position will remain unchanged.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)