Uniat priests calls for depriving Orthodox from basic civil rights

I just saw this one on YouTube and it is very good.  Here what it says about this video in the "About" section of the YouTube page: (with original spelling).

"UA priest calls to deprive parishioners of Moscow Patriarchate churhces of rights to be elected and work in official organizations.  A bit ironic, as in fact he talks not about churches in Russia, but canonical local Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Church which formally subordinates to Moscow Patriarchate and is opposed by not-recognized "Church of Kyiv Patriarchate" which splitted from Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Church after Philaret (patriarch of Kyiv Patriarchate) failed to be elected as new Patriarch in the beginning of 90's".

Now, longtime readers already know that I do not recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as a legitimate part of the Russian Orthodox Church (for details, read this: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/02/russia-and-islam-part-two-russian.html where I explain this little known but crucial issue) and I also oppose the use of the term "canonical" in the sense of "recognized by the powers that be" which is, apparently, how the author (and most modernist and ecumenist Orthodox people understand it to be).  In the Ukraine one side recognizes one Orthodox Church as "canonical" because the secular power in Kiev happens to recognize it as such (for purely political reasons) and calls the other "schismatic" while the other side also recognizes one Orthodox Church as "canonical" because the secular power in Moscow happens to recognize it it as such (also for purely political reasons) as calls the other "schismatic.  In the authentic Christian tradition "canonical" does not mean "recognized by the secular regime" but rather "in accordance with Church canons".  That is a topic where neither the Ukie Church nor the Moscow Patriarchate wants to go, or even mention [those interested in the topic, please see the note at the bottom of this page].  With all these caveats in mind, I have to say the following:

What this Uniat priest proposes is quite amazing.  Not only do they want to seize the church buildings which belong to the "autonomous" Ukrainian Orthodox Chruch to which the Moscow Patriarchate granted autonomy (for purely political reasons, what else?) but he wants to deprive of political rights (hold an official position) those Ukrainians who attend these "autonomous" UOC parishes.  The Ukies call that "lustration".  See for yourself:


I have been getting a lot of flak from offended Latin Christians about my posts in which I claim that the Vatican is the "creator" of the Ukraine and that it still plays a central role in feeding the anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox hatred in the Ukraine.  I already posted one such example recently, and today I am posting this second one.  Not because I want to bash Latin Christians, but because  I believe, strongly, that the truth about the Ukraine cannot be understood unless the behind-the-scenes "feeder mechanisms" are brought to light.  And since my blog has never been a popularity contest, I fully plan to continue "covering" this topic (-: it will never get me as much flak as my unrepentant use of the "AngloZionist" anyway :-)

To me, this is quite simple, really: intellectually honest Latin Christians will be distressed by this, but they will not bother denying it or "explaining it away", and they will do whatever they can in their personal lives to oppose and denounce this.  Those less encumbered by honesty will try hard to deny it, blame "a few bad apples", try to find "Orthodox equivalents" in the past or say they personally never saw any manifestation of anti-Orthodox hatred (those interested in the techniques used by these Latins can see here and here).  

Still, I hope that most readers will find this topic relevant, important and not discussed elsewhere (which is one of the key goals of this blog).

Some of you might point out that the Moscow Patriarchate has a long record of using state power to persecute non-MP Orthodox Christians.  This is quite true, even today.  But I would point out a crucial difference: in the past, such actions were the result of the policies of the top MP clergy - bishops, not priests - and in more recent times, I would even argue that only a small minority of MP bishops.  This is a small consolation of those on the receiving end of such actions (they typically get their parishes taken away by OMON forces), but I think that it is important to be honest here and say that nowadays the vast majority of MP laity and a strong majority of MP clergy does not support that kind of thuggery.  That does not make the MP more legitimate in a (correctly used) canonical sense, but it most definitely makes it much more "Christian" in an ethical sense, certainly more than it was even 15-20 years ago.  Uniat hatred for Orthodoxy is a normal and widespread phenomenon, it is a core feature of the Uniat identity and it has no equivalent inside the Moscow Patriarchate.

Finally, just to preempt another attempts at equating the unequatable, you may notice that this Uniat is disguising himself - with cross and all - as an Orthodox priest.  You will never see an Orthodox priest disguising himself as a Latin.  This is a purely Latin thing to do to con the ignorant.  Likewise, the Units are obliged to accept the Frankish version of the Symbol of Faith (aka "Creed") in which the words "and the Son" (or filioque) are added to the original text, but they are not obliged to say that when they recite the Symbol.  This "believing one thing, but not saying so" is also a unique Latin feature which serves the same purpose at the disguise: to con the ignorant and erase visible differences (not matter how crucial - there is no higher dogma in Christianity then the Symbol).  This is also why the Latins always speak of geography (eastern Churches) or appearances (eastern Rite) but almost never about fundamental dogmatic disagreements (of which there are plenty!) or about the undeniable fact that the West has been Orthodox for the first 1000 years of its history.

Cheers,

The Saker

Note for those interested in the topic:

In the true Christian tradition a Church *never* derives its authenticity (or, to misuse the modern term again, its "canonicity") from the secular state nor from the number of churches (in the sense of church, parish, *buildings*) you have acquired courtesy of state patronage.   As I have mentioned it here in the past, the "criterion  of truth" or the "authentic Christian character" from a Church is derived according to the following ancient principles:

The full unadulterated preservation faith "which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian" (St. Athanasius)

and

The full unadulterated preservation of that "which has been believed everywhere, always and by all" (Saint Vicent of Lerins).  So no innovations, especially no dogmatic ones.

The short-term combining the two above is often referred to as "consensus of the Fathers" (consensus patrum): that upon which the saints and councils of the early Church agreed upon. 

One could say that the innovating "got-their-canonicity-from-the-secular-state" Churches are all in communion with each other, but not in communion with the original, early Church.