Hello, since this topic is so complex I had to cut things here and there I would still like to mention in this comment for anyone who is interested: 02:00 To be precise, there are actually five ancient Patriarchates, the fifth being the Patriarch of Rome, who is the Pope. However, the Pope and the Western church split from the Eastern church in 1054 in an event known as the ‘Great Schism’, which separated the Roman Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church indefinitely. Therefore, although still considered one of the ancient Patriarchs, the Pope is not part of the structure of the Orthodox church. If you like to know more, here is a great video explaining this event in detail: ua-cam.com/video/Q_s9Rcsg5UI/v-deo.html 03:43 One of the reasons why the church of Russia became independent from Constantinople is the fact that the last Byzantine Emperors, in an act of desperation, converted to Roman Catholicism. The Church in the Byzantine Empire then entered into communion with the Holy See (the Pope), which was outright rejected by the Russians. However, this did not save the Byzantines from the Ottomans and this communion became meaningless after 1453. 05:37 To clarify, while the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to grant autocephaly to a church, he cannot force the other autocephalous churches to recognise churches to which he grated it. He can invite them to do so, but as mentioned in the video, only three churches have done so far.
Technically Eastern Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian church because Protestantism is a classification of many separate churches rather than a church itself.
Ref: 05:37 this is what I also knew from the history of the Orthodox Church .. I also read that there is a deep hidden antagonism between the two patriarchates namely the Constantinople and Russian one. Having said that it is vital that we stay united and avoid further schismatic actions that would result into a weaker and vulnerable church.
Another nerd point, there were originally 4 patriachates; Rome, where Sts Peter & Paul were martyred, Alexandria where Mark the Evangelist founded the predecessor to the Coptic Church, and Antioch, which was St Peter's first diocese, and Jerusalem, by St James the Righteous. Constantinople was founded by St Andrew, but it was not an especially important See until the Roman empire was split between the Greek and Latin halves. "Western" or Latin Christianity rejected Caesaropapism, where secular authority merges with the Church and exerts control over the head of the Church with the right of appointment. This role is performed by the Pope in Rome and has his own country (the vatican) to ensure that secular governments do not interfere directly with doctrine through the right of appointment and dismissal. This is especially so after the Avignon Papacy. The 'prisoner of the Vatican' debacle where the Pope refused to acknowledge the Kingdom of Italy's jurisdiction over him lead to the Lateran treaty, which meant that he got his own little country and Italy was recognised by the Pope in return.
you never heard about this cause it puts Russia in a bad light. Russia basically controls any info that comes out if eastern Europe. If Russia does not want you to know something they will make it so
You didn't hear about it because westerners generally only care about Catholic & Protestant affairs. Like when the (Catholic) Pope dies and the following papal election. While matters of the Orthodox Church are more of a concern amongst former-eastern bloc countries. People media outlets in Eastern Europe do care about it, however.
@@dukenukem8381 what!? That's utter crap. Russia has no control over media outlets outside of it. There's plenty of anti-Russian media outlets in Ukraine and the like. The real question is - why aren't *western* media outlets reporting about these affairs to western audiences - and the answer is in my former comment.
@@dukenukem8381 Talk about being delusional. Now Russia is the one with media influence? Majority of Eastern Euro countries are in the EU, and especially when its the topic of Ukraine there's nothing that could get in the way of int'l media reporting on it. They don't because religious schisms are irrelevant (to them). There's been countless schisms in the modern age, including within Eastern Orthodoxy.
In Greece we have an archbishop, not a patriarch, as the ecumenical patriarch is the Greek patriarch but only in name...in the southern half of the country... the northern half or the "new provinces" as they are technically called, is under the direct jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarch. Although the archbishop still handles the bishoprics. Oh and don't get me started on Crete - The whole thing is a mess but in the words of one Todd Howard: "It just works".
You wanna hear an interesting and confusing fact, or actually, many? The autocephalous church of greece holds power over just half the land and about 6/10 of greek population. The island of crete is under the jurisdiction of the semi autonomous from the ecumenical patriarchate church of Crete with roughly 620k people; then the 5 metropolises of dodekanisos are directly under the jurisdiction of the patriarchate ( I don't know how many people). Then the metropolises of the new lands (northern and eastern Aegean, Thrace, Epirus, Macedonia and the area of elassona in thessaly) while belong to the patriarchate, are "on loan for the season" under the stewardship of the autocephalous church of greece. And then is the autonomous monastic state of Mount Athos. So if you think the situation over there in ukraine with the 2 churches, one russian backed and one constantinople backed is confusing, just think how little is greece in relation to the size and population of ukraine
The more I find out about the internal schisms of the "Orthodox" church, the more I see that it is proto-Protestantism. Rome was correct, before Vatican II, of the universal supremacy of the Pope over all churches in the world. And, as always, Rome is presented as demonic while in actuality they did a lot to create a dogmatic and societal hegemony throughout all Catholic countries. There are always Judases in the Church, but to throw the baby out with the bath water is insanity.
Not really the same, although Constantinople, Greece, Cyprus are 3 separate Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, they are all pretty much aligned and united on all issues. Russia and Ukraine have been at war for years and Ukraine doesn't want its church controlled by Russia
I was going to say the opposite - thank you for not making it seem like it is all just secular politics by including the historical background and emphasising that Constantinople and Moscow have not been very good friends for almost 600 years. 😄
@@ghostapostle7225 I never said it was not. However, many western (and to some extent also eastern) commentators make it seem like it is exclusively secular politics. They completely ignore the historical and canonical context.
8:45 Phyletism in orthodoxy does NOT mean the creation of autonomous and autocephalous churches. It means creating them based on ETHNICITY instead of delimiting canonical territories. Phyletism means there are at least four different orthodox churches in my home city (Budapest) while non-phyletism includes the idea of creating a single orthodox church in America, for example. Moscow has historically stood for non-phyletism declaring the whole Russian Empire its canonical territory. Orthodox churches on the Balkans tend to be rather phyletist - this is why we have so many orthodox churches present in Hungary. There is no Hungarian orthodox church but there are Romanian, Serb, Greek, Russian etc. orthodox christians in Hungary, more or less having their own churches here. The delimitation between Athens and Constantinople is a beautiful example of non-phyletism, anyway.
I note that from a Roman Catholic perspective, this issue is kind of foreign. This may be due to historically the Papacy resisted attempts of nations to control the local Church seen especially in the Investiture Controversy and present in various forms historically afterwards. Ironically, what really helped the Popes finally centralize the Church in various nations is the rise of secularism. With the separation of Church and State, many nations finally stopped attempting to interfere with bishop appointments and allowed the Pope to dictate the policies of local churches. So although there are different customs in various nations, as a Catholic, it never feels far from home to stop by the local church and go to Mass.
There is only one ethnicity which is sacred, heavenly, angel-like and orthodox in this poor world, and it is the Russian ethnicity. As long as all true Christians in this world are Russians, there is no need of more than one Patriarchate in the world. If a single person converts to true Christianity, he will also embrace the Russian language and culture.
@@BiharyGabor And i can say what i said, because i am Italian and i have been Ukrainian Orthodox from 2004 to 2008 and then i converted to Hinduism in 2009 and i am still a Hindu now!
Amen! ✝️🙏🏻🕯️ Messages of unity are essential in my opinion while many from both sides are spreading hate to one another and criticising each other over minor issues that were not even the cause of the schism. May Orthodoxy rise again! ☦️☦️☦️
Dont overestimate importance of religion in Russia. Most people who call themselves christians in Russia havent read the bible, dont go to church, they are not part of real life community, that can gather and do something together. For them being christian is just a way to be part of abstract group of "normal" people, traditionalist, patriarchal.
As it ever was. The bible was only printed and available in the early 1500s. Christianity dominated Europe and the Americas without the bible. Most people in the world could not even read until just over 100 years ago. There has never been a well catechised majority in any Christian nation in all of Christian history. Never been a real life community anywhere ever. But it does not matter if the movers and shakers in power are educated and committed as 80 percent will go along with it. 2 to 5 percent of very committed people can transform a nation as most people are sheep. They follow, they don't resist. Just look around you to see all the idiots wearing useless masks and taking experimental drugs for a virus that only old people are dying from.
@@snuurferalangur4357 That's not what he said. He was pointing out, correctly, that literacy is a very recent trend and that even the Bible wasn't mass printed until the 1500s. On top of that, Western Europeans didn't have access to Bibles in their own languages, it was Latin which nobody knew. In the East it was in Greek, Syriac, Arabic and Church Slavonic, etc so far more people actually understood it (if they were literate).
If religion really would have that great importance in russia it would be lot more peaceful society without mafia. Now Russia has totally non christian fame all over the world. Orthodoxy is not about outward things like going to Church but after that ropping your neigbour.
First the schism between Rome and Constantinople, then schism between Constantinople and Moscow. What would Jesus Christ say to the Pope, the Patriarchs, the Metropolitans and the Archbishops?
"Anyone for more wine, oh by the way the churches, power structures and cult of personalities you've built are completely blasphemous." -jesus, when he gets back
Moscow's patriarch want to replace the Constantinople patriarch as number one for a long time. Constantinople justified its place as the new Rome, to take the position from the Pope. But since Constantinople lost power under Islamic rule, Moscow sees itself as 3rd Rome.
So given how Russia is supposed to be the third Rome, and is considered "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic", doesn't it make it the Roman Catholic Church? Checkmate orthos
A couple things... 1) Protestantism is not a denomination. It is numerous denominations not in communion with each other. Nor do they share an overarching tradition that binds them. So Eastern Orthodoxy is the 2nd largest group in Christianity, followed by the Anglican Communion. 2) there is a semi-recognized American Patriarchate, but not everyone accepts it, making its status sort of like the Ukrainian one, but without the political overtones.
Great job, Politics with Paint. It was a very beautiful video from the visual side. But I'm slightly dissatisfied about the context. You didn't mention Kievan metropoly that was reestablished during the cossack times and regognized by Jerusalem's and Konstantinopole's patriarchs. Unfortunately, it was later integrated by force into the Moscow patriarchy in 1686 during the Ivan Samoylovych's rule over the Eastern Hetmanshchyna. In 1687 patriarchate of Constantinople recognize that action as illegal, Ukrainian church lost its independence until 2019.
@@МиланЈовановић-м3б same was done in the USSR. Large parts of today's Ukraine became part of Ukraine under Soviet rule and the ethnic makeup and identities weren't clear cut. Eastern and Southern Ukraine was mostly Russians and a whole plethora of immigrants invited by the Tsars from all over Russia and Europe. That's why those regions have minorities of Bulgarians, Greeks, and Germans. I'm not even talking about Jews who were the biggest minority. Western Ukraine was annexed only in the 20th century and it's nationalism was a lot more defined as it was in isolation from other Eastern Slavs and fighting for autonomy inside the Austrian empire first and then inside Poland. The modern Ukrainian is actually based on dialects from Western Ukraine and that basically decided what Ukrainian nationalism will look like. The Soviets had a policy of supporting movements of naturalisation of the population, encouraging identification to the nationality of the Republic one was living in. This way all the nationalities in modern Ukraine that was pieced together from different regions were told "you are now all Ukrainians". It was ok when the USSR with it's internationalism was around and it wasn't really important how you adhered to the principle of being Ukrainian. That's how we got a big on paper Ukrainian population that considers itself Ukrainian but understands it differently. But now after USSR's demise politicians jumped to exploit national identity in its search for power and influence polarizing people and driving them against eachother.
@@МиланЈовановић-м3б They probably won't, and that's fine as long as they realize their nations are relatively young and stop hijacking history. It's the same old story repeating itself with Bulgarians and Macedonians, Serbs and Montenegrins, Russians and Ukrainians etc.
My mom works as a train conductor. And around 2013 , so before all this conflict, her train was driving through Ukraine and in one of the stops a Priest aproached her to ask for some water from the train. She asked what happened and the lady working at that train station said its been a week since he's been sleeping on that train station. I think this separation of russia/ukranian priests in ukraine has been going on long before tgis conflict
1)The ancient Patriarchates are not the "prestigious" ones. They are the ones established by an Ecumenical Council. The rest of them were established by decision of the one in whose the territory they belonged to curve this piece of land out of itself and grant it autocephaly. Thus they can always take it back. Especially in this case it was not even given to Moscow to have it as part of its lands but simply to run it while still belonging to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
@@peepoclown1 No, that's not correct. I 've studied ecclesiastical law in law school. If you don't like hearing it from me find some other lawyer specialising in church law to explain it to you. All Churches except the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (+Rome) and the Church of Cyprus have their autocephaly based on a Tomos issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (all of them except Georgia which i am not sure about it. It could be under Antioch) which granted them in the first place and can revoke them as well. Also in most of them there are a number of detailed provisions and obligations of the newly autonomous Church in order to keep its status. For example the Church of Greece has to abide to 12 provisions which include Patriarchical privileges, recognitions, exceptions etc etc.
@@eleftheriosmas I beg your pardon, but I did not find a single source that would postulate the possibility of depriving the local Church of autocephaly.
Interesting. A follow-up-video with respect to the war would be great. Have - for example - recently more people joined the ukrainian church and left the russian church in response to the russian aggression?
Yes they have. Since the creation of the video, the OCU has grown from 45% to 75% of the Ukrainian Orthodox population. The UOC-MP has declined to around 5% (but do take the statistics with a grain of salt). Actually there have been whole parishes and even dioceses if I'm not mistaken migrating to the OCU. Also, update, the UOC-MP has also cut ties with Moscow since the war begun (but peacefully).
For anyone who wonders why the numbers at 8:20 are not in favour of the pro-ukrainian side, here's an explainer: 1. Moscow does not simply has its church represented in Ukraine directly, but rather through a "subsidiary" called UOCMP "Ukrainian orthodox church of the Moscowy Patriarchy" - . It has its own leader ("metropolit"), who has significant autonomy within his actions and statements. (E.g. he was wise enough to take up pro-ukrainian side in the recent conflict). 2. Historically, the most densely populated regions of the country (i.e. where most population lives) were those close to the Russian border. After the fall of the USSR and the restoration of the orthodox religion almost all churches in the region joined UOCPM, because it had larger network => had more money for the restoration and construction of new churches. 3. Ukraine is a country with an aging population, where the majority IS the older generation (People 40-60 y.o.). It's true that church still plays some place in Ukrainian life, but that is relevant mostly with older generations (who are, at the moment, still a majority). Among my peers, people born after the fall of the USSR, almost NONE go to church, the majority are secular (agnostics or atheists). Therefore, the situation is likely to change very soon, I guess.
Probably the same in russia, too. I don't think the Schism will change, but it will continue being used as a political tool by both, even if 5 people total still go to chuch))
It's interesting that as an American I've never heard of this schism going on and I like to think I keep up with current events in the news. It seems that this issue was pretty obvious in Europe and considering this video was made in 2020 it shows that it was only a matter of time before this schism combined with other grudges would eventually turn into a war.
Unfortunately, Russians have been using their church as a tool to further their agenda in the war. This would harm their legitimacy further as the church no longer acts independently from the state.
Wait for a year or three. You will see a major schism in the Roman Catholic Church. The Traditionalistd in there cannot abide Francis and his Marxist, Globalist. Freemasonic sympathies.
Not really. There's been countless schisms in the modern age, in different areas and churches, including within Eastern Orthodoxy. Mainstream media and int'l media just doesn't cover it because it's irrelevant to them.
It happens more often then you think but people not interested in religion don't really pay attention to it. In Catholicism we have some radical traditionalists who are schismatic or semi schismatic and there's talks that the German Bishops might break into schism. Though none of it is as big as what the Orthodoxy is going through now Don't even get me started on the protestants. They're churches are braking apart and reuniting all the time
I've been aware of the schism for two years but I did learn why people want to stop cutting down trees until last week. I thought the Byzantine church was basically cut in two now but now I understand it's more complex than that.
Glad to see that people are paying attention to the Church crysis! Unfirtunately I am forced to dislike it. Even considering the complexity of the topic this explanation seems to be just scratching the surface and omitting several important facts thus being far from perfect.
You kind of missed the fact there has been a Ukrainian Orthodox Church with a massive amount of power in the ROC. Istanbul came into Ukraine, found the schismatics, and made a new church- in the face of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.
Orthodox Church has always been a tool. This time the patriarch is being used by nato/us. Never forget while orthodox people were being slaughtered during then uprisings in the Balkans in the late 19th century the patriarch In Constantinople was telling them it’s a sin to fight against the sultan. 😂😂
The way you talk is so funny 😂 Istanbul came? What?! Where?! Those are political problems for the corrupt clergy. How does this affect you access to churches? Even if you can’t get in to a church, how does this prevent you from praying or being a good Christian? As long as you can worship freely, let the politics to the bishops.
yes because the Patriarch of Constantinople is a cia plant, after he passes there will be no support for the new uoc and then the minor schism will be undone
This is the biggest issue of orthodoxy right now and I am really worried about it. I'm from Cyprus and our Archbishop recognised the new church of Ukraine, so now the Russians don't recognise him. Orthodoxy is democratic, but the Archbishop did that without the agreement of the council. Our bishops are very split on the matter and this creates further separation among the church. Ukraine's new church consists of bishops who were previously excommunicated from Orthodoxy as they were heretics. Then the Ecumenical Patriarch decided not to just communicate them again, but also give them an autocephalous church. He messed with politics when he shouldn't have and now the church is at great risk. But the common people should just stay out of the politics because sooner or later this divide will heal. We have survived through millennia; the one holly catholic and apostolic church.
The Ukrainian government supported separation from the Russian Church, because in the context of Russian annexation of Crimea and aggression in the south of Ukraine, it became untenable to allow an ideological branch on Kremlin to control religion in Ukraine. If you wonder, Russian government is very aggressive against the other churches and ngo's precisely for this reason. Thus, it was not a purely religious event, but ideological and political.
Orthodox Church has always been a tool. This time the patriarch is being used by nato/us. Never forget while orthodox people were being slaughtered during then uprisings in the Balkans in the late 19th century the patriarch In Constantinople was telling them it’s a sin to fight against the sultan. 😂😂Fuck that patriarch in Turkey
Being in Timişoara 🇹🇩 where, Calvinists, Luthersns, Roman, and Byzantine Rite Catholics, Serbian and Romanian Orthodox Catholics, al, have a fine array of Cathedrals and Churches, along with some German Baptists who have been around for centuries.... and a synagogue and a mosque! Where it all comes together.
Oh my goodness thank you for not simply saying Kyivan Rus was Russian history. It gave me goosebumps to hear you say it was the history of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. So refreshing to all these other history videos just simply calling it "Russian" history. You earned my sub
@@enderman_666 Maybe they go a little bit too far, because Russians have spent the last 200-300 years pretending that all Eastern Slavs were basically Russians. And have basically done everything they could to destroy their separate cultural identities. Eastern European Nationalism doesn't make good neighbours. And the worst version of Eastern European Nationalism is probably Russian Nationalism, followed narrowly by Serb Nationalism.
@@larslundandersen7722This is idiotic, for the last 200-300 years there has been no Ukrainian or Belarusian nationality. These are Old Russian dialects. Their statehood and national significance they received literally by accident after the collapse of the Soviets
@@aleksklyar you my friend are either a troll or extremely historically illiterate (although if you're from the West I can forgive you since Eastern Europe is a part of the world that Westerners have very little knowledge of, and the knowledge they have is very generalized).
Orthodoxy is not an organized religion. Left out of this video is the numerically small but significant Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, whose members exist mostly in Western Ukraine, Poland, the US and Canada. They worship using g the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and follow Orthodox praxis but are part of the Catholic Church (notice I did not say ROMAN Catholic, which is a term used only in English speaking countries). The Catholic Church is not organized in a similar manner.
That schism was unexpected but I feel like even though it's underreported, I did not know of this means a lot of people underestimated the significance, holy crap!
May the Orthodox Churches of eastern Europe including Russia and the Orthodox churches of the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea have a better future of cooperation and have no more problems of schisms like the The Great Schism of 1054.
I kind of feel like it should also be mentioned that the current Patriarch of the ROC is closely aligned with the current Russian government, so imo, even though Phyletism is a concern, Putin is also probably asking Kirill to pull strings. An independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church greatly reduces the chance that Russia could ever occupy it again. And we all know Putin gets a half chub at the thought of annexing Ukraine.
Nah that just regular approach to orthodox christianity if they majority in a nation because their believer very conservative even Greece openly recognize Orthodoxy become national religion.
@@humanoidform7556 that is NOT regular approach, Mr. Kirill is playing politics clearly for Russian imperialism. That does not happen in Greece lol which planet do you come from?
@@pop-n-rock maybe yes in a regional context but for foreign relations of course not they are super neutral, the evidence was just look at the 2008 conflict between Georgia and Russia, Moscow patriarchet didn't recognize the Abkhazian Orthodox Church. About Greece this is from Wikipedia lists the countries that have state religions : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion About me i am just Australian with Belarusian and orthodox heritage who studying International relation
@@humanoidform7556 Kirill made the video Byzantium, talking bad and antagonistically against the Greeks.Just go on and watch it and do not delete again my comment..
As a catholic (I know both services, ancient Latin and Modern in national language), I have no Problem with orthodox, they're my best Brothers, and I met also two bishops of the orthodox church, one was the archibishop of Montenegro, during a royalist convention in Rome (the Queen of Italy, Elena was from there). ✝️♥️☦️
"History teaches us that we learn nothing from history" Same thing happened in the past when Patriarchate of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Holy See of Rome (before 1054) each claimed supreme authority over each other and that lead to a series of sad like the Schism between Oriental Orthodox Church and Greek Orthodox Church in 451. There are literally 0 dogmatic differences between the 2 Churches. (Russian Patriarchate actually recognized Oriental Orthodox Churches as a response to Constantinople Patriarchate recognizing Ukrainian Patriarchate). As an epilogue, the divine punishment for such foolish behaviour of Church leaders didn't hesitate to come: • In 476 *Rome* falls and Odoacer (barbarian) becomes King of Italy • In 638, the Rashidun Caliphate conquer *Antioch* and *Jerusalem* • In 646, Alexandria falls under Rashidun Caliphate • In 1543, Constantinople is conquered by Mehment the II
how did you take from it that the Ecumenical Patriarch claimed any sort of Supremacy? The whole problem was that Rome was trying to interfere outside its Jurisdiction and promoting contending beliefs without any regard for the other Hierarchs.
Interesting video. I watched it with mixed feelings where I am as atheist just shake my head. On the other hand I was intrigued by the "political" angle and how Putin have used the "Russian" orthodox church for his own mean deeds.
It was the Patriarchy of Constantinople that raised and blessed the Patriarchy of Moscow 4 centuries ago. Kiev in Ukraine is older. The Russian Orthodox Church was founded with the mission from the Pope of Rome and Cyril and Methodius two monks of Constantinople, the East of the Church. Constantinople is the seat of the Patriarchy second in honour to Rome. Since the split between the East and Western Church the Patriarch of Constantinople exercises both honour and jurisdiction over the Orthodox Church. Ukraine is not Russia. It has its own Patriarchy and it is right it has its own canonical independence from the Russian Patriarch. It is perfectly correct that a Patriarchy like Moscow that itself was created by Constantinople accept the Patriarchal decision. The Orthodox Church must respect the correct order and respect the ancient juridiction of Constantinople supporting it. The ancient patriarchies of which you mention include Rome. These are apostolic...meaning founded by an apostle. It's disrespectful and wrong to think Russia should think of the Orthodox Church as being its empire. Patriarchs are to work together and Constantinople rightly has the jurisdiction to decide disputes. These decisions are binding. Moscow is in error on this. In the West under the bishop of Rome there are Patriarchies as well. Like Milan, Venice, Lyon etc.
The problem is that the great Constantinople collapsed long ago, and its main temple, the Cathedral of St. Sophia, was turned into a mosque. The Patriarch of Constantinople is a citizen of Turkey, the former Ottoman Empire, an enemy of Orthodoxy. It is quite logical that Moscow began to exert more influence on the entire Orthodox world after the fall of Constantinople. For centuries Russia has dreamed of recapturing Constantinople, but the West has always intervened at the last moment. There is no more Constantinople, there is the city of Istanbul, and its patriarch is just a pitiful puppet in the hands of the West.
Restauration of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine was absolutely legal and the fact that Russia opposees it makes Russia guilty of the whole problem. Should have let Ukraine have her own Church long ago.
@@TheBobVova according to all orthodox canons every country is to have her own church. Ukraine and Russia are 2 separate countries and therefore they are to have 2 separate churches.
You are not exactly right about the Kievan Rus. It could be considered a period when Kiev had most influence, rather than a state, since there was not central leader to all of the duchies: Vladimir-Yaroslavl, Kiev, Chernihiv, Galits, Volyn, Polotsk, Tver, Rostov, Lithuanian, and the Republic of Novgorod established as a 'joint venture' of slavs and danes. After the decline of Kiev, Vladimir-Yaroslavl and Rostov caused by the Mongol invasion, could the duchy of Moscow (as well as Moscow itself) emerge as a place both situated on a river and being placed far enough from Poland and Lithuania. The same goes for Kiev being important for religious matters during 14 century and onwards. De jure that's the case, however, Kiev was completely deserted after Mogols came, and when Patriarch came from his hideout in Vishgorod, he almost immideately left for Vladimir in 1299, which became capital of the Church up untill 1448
Sure, but the Kievan Metropoly still continued to exist and it included territories of modern Ukraine and Belarus. The Russians later subjugated the Kievan Metropoly and even burned its records in Kiev in a "mystical" fire during the era of Peter the 1st.
@@alekshukhevych2644 it did, i tell you more, it even had some of modern territories of Russia, since one of Kievan-Chernihiv mitropolites main Cathedrals was in Bryansk. However, your latter words dispute one another. It is because metropoly is a lower title than a patriarchy to begin with. Metropoly was a Province or City-state-level church, which gets its title from any Patrirch and Patriarchy is a Civilization-level Church, given the title by the Patriarch of Constantinople (so called Universal Patriarch). So it didn't need to be subjugated to begin with, it was lover rank up from 16th century and onwards, while Kiev became an integral part of Russia in 1708. I've never heared about a fire during Peter 1st era in Kiev, since the 1st thing he did after incorporation of Kossak frontiers is established a fire brigade there, bc Kiev had suffered a number of severe fires from 15th century. However, it didn't help during a major fire caused by french invasion (I must admit, it could be Russians that burned the town to slow down french pace of attack) in 1812, during which most of the papers of Kievan Metropoly were destroyed
@@hegoyyoutubination Yes but dont forget that the Russian church itself split from the Kievan Metropoly illegally and got patriarchy through bribes and machinations. The Russian church is about 500 years old but modern Russian church was established by Stalin. Eitherway Constantinople did everything that it is allowed to do. Constantinople is allowed to grand autocrphaly just like it did so for other churches. Im not talking about those fires. The fire in questioned happened in the end of the 17th century I think in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra around the period when the Russian church took over the Kievan Metropoly. Ancient documents and manuscripts perished relating to church and state matters of Southern Rus- Ukrainian lands. The fire was ordered by the Russian ruiling elite. Three Russian old strategies to subjugate Ukraine. 1. Is army. 2. Is language. 3. Is Russian instated institutions (Free Cossack Hetmanat became “Little Russian Collegium) 4. Last but not least CHURCH.
@@alekshukhevych2644 why do you call it a split of Moscow instead of a split BETWEEN Moscow and Kiev? Since it basically was an attempt of creating a unifying entity for both lands under Rzecz Pospolita and Moscowian rule. Moreover, if you say that modern Russian (or former Moscowian-Vladimir Church) Church is established by Stalin, so are Ukrainian (or former Kievan-Chernihiv-Galits Church) and Lithuanian (or former Volyn-Vilno Church), because they were under the same pressure during 1930-1940s. I got what fire you are talking about, the Great Kievan Fire of 1718, so both you and I admit that it DID HAPPEN, unlike you called it a '"mystical" fire' in your 1st commentary. Yes, it did damage the Lavra and its archives, however, for Russian Emperor there was no point in destroying it since there was a vast number of important RELIGIOUS books, same as in 17th century in Veliki Novgorod. It was because firefighting services were bad as well as most of structures in both Kiev and Novgorod were of wood, not because Russian tsar had an idea of burning 2 important towns amidst a war with Sweden (it's basically shooting your own leg). You said 3 basic principles of creating a new subject, wheather it is a puppet state (like it was with the Oranje dynasty creating Belgium or with the Osmans creating Bosnia) or a province out of a frontier land (like it was with the British fighting Vrijstaat in South Africa or with Mexicans and the USA fighting vaqueros in California and Texas). I would prefer to count Ukraine as a second one, since cossacs were a community similar to the boers: no taxes, no big empire controlling them, most were engaged in agriculture and trade (so-called Chumaks), as well as had a number of states fighting them - Shaka, Ndebele and Zulu states for boers (who they defeated at Battle of Bulawayo in 1893) and Crimean tatars and Ottomans for Cossacs (who they defeated at Battle of Kafa in 1616). So, they were incorporated into Russia the same way boers were - after signing a peace treaty and making them Mercenaries to conquer Muslims of Sibera and Far East (Buryatia, Khabarovsk and Omsk are established by Russian Cossacs, with cossak being a profession similar to colonist in Africa, rather than a nationality or an army), so they had no need in subjugation of institutions (one of which is Army, I wouldn't consider it as a separate entity), but to create new, which were of Empirial state type instead of a Colonial Union (again, the same as was in Africa). And, as a PS, I would like to mention, that it was admitted by Russian historians, that their word Malorossia is of Greek origin and is a mistake-in-translation. It was taken from ΛίγοΡωσία (LigoRusia) with Ligo meaning both small and close, and Bysantinians meant it is a Rus (Rusia) that is close to Constantinople, not small
@@hegoyyoutubination I say the Russians split because it was them who illegally split from the Kievan Metropoly. Cossacks werent just free men, they had their own state and they entered into an alliance with the Tsar. The Tsar later used his peverage to subjugate them. Russians still claim that the Perejaslac accords, the ones signed between Hetman Khmelnytskik and the Tsar was lost. They have them, but they do not want the world to see them because it will prove that it was an agreement on equal and partnership terms. As for Malorossija, yes I am aware of the origin of the term. But the issue is not with the term, the issue is with Russian Empire destroying Ukrainian cossack institutions and replacing them with Russian en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_Hetmanate
@@vladodobleja748 Of course I love romanians as well! You guys are awesome! I was just naming slavs for that comment though but I feel the same way for you guys too my orthodox brothers (Edit: and moldovans too)
@@greekfirewateryt4581 Love Greece-Serbia and Bulgaria very much,we have a great brotherhood together,Greece was one of the biggest supporters of Romania and Bulgaria joining the EU !
☦️🇬🇷🇨🇾🇲🇰🇬🇪🇦🇲🇷🇺🇺🇦🇧🇾🇷🇸🇲🇪🇧🇬🇪🇪🇱🇻🇱🇹🇪🇹🇪🇷🇷🇴🇲🇩☦️ #KeepOrthodox Our enemies are atheist, muslims and heretics never other Orthodox Brother ☦️ We must remember it always Χριστόσ Ανέστη Αληθώς Ανέστη
@@AndronikosNikephoros Heaven? Sure sure . I'm just saying that hating normal people that are atheists/muslims is borderline crazy behaviour. You do realise it's their choice, right? Hatred is never the way. If you're not content with the choices muslims or atheists make , then that's sadly your problem. I myself am neither atheist or muslim, but I believe that we're all still people and despising a whole group of people is not the way to go .
Why are atheists enemies? I literally don't give a fuck what you do with your life, so why should you care about mine? Go be Orthodox or whatever, I don't care. But we're only enemies if you say so.
Hello, since this topic is so complex I had to cut things here and there I would still like to mention in this comment for anyone who is interested:
02:00 To be precise, there are actually five ancient Patriarchates, the fifth being the Patriarch of Rome, who is the Pope. However, the Pope and the Western church split from the Eastern church in 1054 in an event known as the ‘Great Schism’, which separated the Roman Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church indefinitely. Therefore, although still considered one of the ancient Patriarchs, the Pope is not part of the structure of the Orthodox church. If you like to know more, here is a great video explaining this event in detail: ua-cam.com/video/Q_s9Rcsg5UI/v-deo.html
03:43 One of the reasons why the church of Russia became independent from Constantinople is the fact that the last Byzantine Emperors, in an act of desperation, converted to Roman Catholicism. The Church in the Byzantine Empire then entered into communion with the Holy See (the Pope), which was outright rejected by the Russians. However, this did not save the Byzantines from the Ottomans and this communion became meaningless after 1453.
05:37 To clarify, while the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to grant autocephaly to a church, he cannot force the other autocephalous churches to recognise churches to which he grated it. He can invite them to do so, but as mentioned in the video, only three churches have done so far.
Return to Rome.They are not perfect but if we don't we will
be worse off than the fragmented Protestant church.
Technically Eastern Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian church because Protestantism is a classification of many separate churches rather than a church itself.
@@robertjarman4261 ... It should be the other way around. Rome was the one who left the 4 original Patriarchates.
Ref: 05:37 this is what I also knew from the history of the Orthodox Church .. I also read that there is a deep hidden antagonism between the two patriarchates namely the Constantinople and Russian one. Having said that it is vital that we stay united and avoid further schismatic actions that would result into a weaker and vulnerable church.
Another nerd point, there were originally 4 patriachates; Rome, where Sts Peter & Paul were martyred, Alexandria where Mark the Evangelist founded the predecessor to the Coptic Church, and Antioch, which was St Peter's first diocese, and Jerusalem, by St James the Righteous. Constantinople was founded by St Andrew, but it was not an especially important See until the Roman empire was split between the Greek and Latin halves.
"Western" or Latin Christianity rejected Caesaropapism, where secular authority merges with the Church and exerts control over the head of the Church with the right of appointment. This role is performed by the Pope in Rome and has his own country (the vatican) to ensure that secular governments do not interfere directly with doctrine through the right of appointment and dismissal. This is especially so after the Avignon Papacy. The 'prisoner of the Vatican' debacle where the Pope refused to acknowledge the Kingdom of Italy's jurisdiction over him lead to the Lateran treaty, which meant that he got his own little country and Italy was recognised by the Pope in return.
Regardless of if people are religious or not, religious history is so fascinating and has so many deep layers to it.
For Pride.
Peoples have much of imagination and creat Nice stories,when tools long enough it becomes believing,Faith then religion.
@@koksalceylan9032 wow another edgy athist better post this on r/athist
It’s an onion!
like an onion
Why have I never heard about this? This is fascinating!
By the way, I love your channel. Keep making amazing content like this please
you never heard about this cause it puts Russia in a bad light. Russia basically controls any info that comes out if eastern Europe. If Russia does not want you to know something they will make it so
You didn't hear about it because westerners generally only care about Catholic & Protestant affairs. Like when the (Catholic) Pope dies and the following papal election. While matters of the Orthodox Church are more of a concern amongst former-eastern bloc countries. People media outlets in Eastern Europe do care about it, however.
@@dukenukem8381 what!? That's utter crap. Russia has no control over media outlets outside of it. There's plenty of anti-Russian media outlets in Ukraine and the like. The real question is - why aren't *western* media outlets reporting about these affairs to western audiences - and the answer is in my former comment.
@@dukenukem8381 Talk about being delusional. Now Russia is the one with media influence? Majority of Eastern Euro countries are in the EU, and especially when its the topic of Ukraine there's nothing that could get in the way of int'l media reporting on it. They don't because religious schisms are irrelevant (to them). There's been countless schisms in the modern age, including within Eastern Orthodoxy.
@@alexvig2369 So whats the Westerners source of info on Russia tell me.
thank for this informative video. It helps with trying to understand some of the many nuances of the current crisis.
In Greece we have an archbishop, not a patriarch, as the ecumenical patriarch is the Greek patriarch but only in name...in the southern half of the country... the northern half or the "new provinces" as they are technically called, is under the direct jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarch. Although the archbishop still handles the bishoprics. Oh and don't get me started on Crete -
The whole thing is a mess but in the words of one Todd Howard: "It just works".
Why is the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria seperately autocephalous? i don’t see that many Greeks in Egypt currently
@@ayanlethesomali7357 What are you talking about?? %5/10 of Egypt is Coptic Christians. That's more Christian than Czechia
What's up with Crete and why do you have this North-South divide?
@@vladodobleja748 you mean Cyprus?
@@esotericulmanist8331 yes
You wanna hear an interesting and confusing fact, or actually, many? The autocephalous church of greece holds power over just half the land and about 6/10 of greek population. The island of crete is under the jurisdiction of the semi autonomous from the ecumenical patriarchate church of Crete with roughly 620k people; then the 5 metropolises of dodekanisos are directly under the jurisdiction of the patriarchate ( I don't know how many people). Then the metropolises of the new lands (northern and eastern Aegean, Thrace, Epirus, Macedonia and the area of elassona in thessaly) while belong to the patriarchate, are "on loan for the season" under the stewardship of the autocephalous church of greece. And then is the autonomous monastic state of Mount Athos. So if you think the situation over there in ukraine with the 2 churches, one russian backed and one constantinople backed is confusing, just think how little is greece in relation to the size and population of ukraine
The more I find out about the internal schisms of the "Orthodox" church, the more I see that it is proto-Protestantism. Rome was correct, before Vatican II, of the universal supremacy of the Pope over all churches in the world. And, as always, Rome is presented as demonic while in actuality they did a lot to create a dogmatic and societal hegemony throughout all Catholic countries. There are always Judases in the Church, but to throw the baby out with the bath water is insanity.
Not really the same, although Constantinople, Greece, Cyprus are 3 separate Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, they are all pretty much aligned and united on all issues.
Russia and Ukraine have been at war for years and Ukraine doesn't want its church controlled by Russia
This was a great video!
Why are there no comments? Btw first :)
Never heard about this before. Great vid.
I am in the oca
wonderful to see a youtuber final explore the political angle of the Schism, been wanting to see that since it started! Awesome work!
I was going to say the opposite - thank you for not making it seem like it is all just secular politics by including the historical background and emphasising that Constantinople and Moscow have not been very good friends for almost 600 years. 😄
It is not politics, it is God and Putin fighting against the wicked ! Sorry, i meant "Putin and God"
@@grigoriitorkel2485 Sorry, but it's obviously politcally motivated. It was almost the same kind of issue with the 15-16th century schism.
@@ghostapostle7225 I never said it was not. However, many western (and to some extent also eastern) commentators make it seem like it is exclusively secular politics. They completely ignore the historical and canonical context.
@@Canonicisme it is the old joke. What said Putin before, standing for the throne of God...? Out of my way, that is my seat. Hahaha.
The two types of comments
"It does not matter if your religious or not ,religion history is fascinating "
"DEATH TO THE HERETIC!"
@Mohammed Khetran So did everyone who lived in a Medieval mindset
purge the non catholic unbelivers
@Mohammed Khetran they are atheists ya prick. So that means they are not using their values. So you are plain wrong.
I'm Catholic.
Both are correct
Well, this flowered into relevance.
it happens when you bring artillery to religious dispute
8:45 Phyletism in orthodoxy does NOT mean the creation of autonomous and autocephalous churches. It means creating them based on ETHNICITY instead of delimiting canonical territories. Phyletism means there are at least four different orthodox churches in my home city (Budapest) while non-phyletism includes the idea of creating a single orthodox church in America, for example.
Moscow has historically stood for non-phyletism declaring the whole Russian Empire its canonical territory. Orthodox churches on the Balkans tend to be rather phyletist - this is why we have so many orthodox churches present in Hungary. There is no Hungarian orthodox church but there are Romanian, Serb, Greek, Russian etc. orthodox christians in Hungary, more or less having their own churches here.
The delimitation between Athens and Constantinople is a beautiful example of non-phyletism, anyway.
I note that from a Roman Catholic perspective, this issue is kind of foreign. This may be due to historically the Papacy resisted attempts of nations to control the local Church seen especially in the Investiture Controversy and present in various forms historically afterwards. Ironically, what really helped the Popes finally centralize the Church in various nations is the rise of secularism. With the separation of Church and State, many nations finally stopped attempting to interfere with bishop appointments and allowed the Pope to dictate the policies of local churches. So although there are different customs in various nations, as a Catholic, it never feels far from home to stop by the local church and go to Mass.
There is only one ethnicity which is sacred, heavenly, angel-like and orthodox in this poor world, and it is the Russian ethnicity. As long as all true Christians in this world are Russians, there is no need of more than one Patriarchate in the world. If a single person converts to true Christianity, he will also embrace the Russian language and culture.
@@Canonicisme O c'mon 😃
@@BiharyGabor And i can say what i said, because i am Italian and i have been Ukrainian Orthodox from 2004 to 2008 and then i converted to Hinduism in 2009 and i am still a Hindu now!
@@Canonicisme Now it is clear. You are a person completely lost in confusion. I am sorry for you and hope you find something better in life than this.
May we pray for the return of full communion between the two Patriarchates🙏🏻☦️
Amen! ✝️🙏🏻🕯️
Messages of unity are essential in my opinion while many from both sides are spreading hate to one another and criticising each other over minor issues that were not even the cause of the schism. May Orthodoxy rise again! ☦️☦️☦️
Or not....I rather see Catholics into our Greek churches than Russian arrogancy
Won't happen as long as dictator Putin is in control of Russia
@@richlopez4466 that’s where prayer comes in.
@@vanmars5718 that's the Christian spirit
This is like Sam O'Nella's smart cousin who makes great history videos in stead of jokes.
You mean sam o’nella DOESNT make great history videos???
So just, German Sam O'Nella
@@proudtitanicdenier4300 I see what you did there :)
@@ohitsstar1241 He doesn't if you aren't 12 years old.
@@peterolesen3567 so i see you are a big fan of his
Technically the ancient patriarchs are five but the one in Rome is now the pope
There is also a pope in Alexandria.
The patriarchy of Rome is lowkey the "last man standing" among the ancient ones though
@@riograndedosulball248 the other 4 still exist, they haven’t fallen apart
@@dewd9327 but under in muslim majority
@@riograndedosulball248 the patriarchate of Rome fell to satanism etc.
The Constantinople circle looks like it has a mouth 🤣🤣
its a ball
OMG THAT WASN'T A MOUTH?!
Shit, it isn't! It's a crown of some sort.
I didn't notice!
In the beginning there was the word,...figure out where the word came from !
Aha, I thought it was a mouth until I saw your comment.
The ukrainian one is wearing a facemask
Dont overestimate importance of religion in Russia. Most people who call themselves christians in Russia havent read the bible, dont go to church, they are not part of real life community, that can gather and do something together. For them being christian is just a way to be part of abstract group of "normal" people, traditionalist, patriarchal.
As it ever was. The bible was only printed and available in the early 1500s. Christianity dominated Europe and the Americas without the bible. Most people in the world could not even read until just over 100 years ago.
There has never been a well catechised majority in any Christian nation in all of Christian history. Never been a real life community anywhere ever. But it does not matter if the movers and shakers in power are educated and committed as 80 percent will go along with it.
2 to 5 percent of very committed people can transform a nation as most people are sheep. They follow, they don't resist. Just look around you to see all the idiots wearing useless masks and taking experimental drugs for a virus that only old people are dying from.
When I went to Russia I saw a lot of young people going in and praying at church. The churches in western countries are dying massively.
@@snuurferalangur4357 That's not what he said. He was pointing out, correctly, that literacy is a very recent trend and that even the Bible wasn't mass printed until the 1500s. On top of that, Western Europeans didn't have access to Bibles in their own languages, it was Latin which nobody knew. In the East it was in Greek, Syriac, Arabic and Church Slavonic, etc so far more people actually understood it (if they were literate).
@@greggrimer1428 your paragraph was so good why ruin it with anti masker bullshit.
If religion really would have that great importance in russia it would be lot more peaceful society without mafia. Now Russia has totally non christian fame all over the world. Orthodoxy is not about outward things like going to Church but after that ropping your neigbour.
First the schism between Rome and Constantinople, then schism between Constantinople and Moscow.
What would Jesus Christ say to the Pope, the Patriarchs, the Metropolitans and the Archbishops?
Probably: "What in the name of God's Arse are you doing?"
"Anyone for more wine, oh by the way the churches, power structures and cult of personalities you've built are completely blasphemous."
-jesus, when he gets back
God would say what He has always said to His creatures, "Even as your fail, I Love you still."
It’s all about power
Facepalm
The UA-cam algorithm sure has a good sense of timing.
More like analysis of what is being searched for.
Moscow's patriarch want to replace the Constantinople patriarch as number one for a long time. Constantinople justified its place as the new Rome, to take the position from the Pope. But since Constantinople lost power under Islamic rule, Moscow sees itself as 3rd Rome.
Oh yes, the romans were knowed yo be good Christians, and every Christian nation wants to be associated with that name
So given how Russia is supposed to be the third Rome, and is considered "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic", doesn't it make it the Roman Catholic Church?
Checkmate orthos
@@CantoniaCustoms Catholicism is a herecy of Orthodox church
Bullshit, Madrid is the Third Rome
@@DonPedroman Madrid is nothing, just a european village
Brilliant. Precise and easy to understand. Keep up the great work.
A couple things...
1) Protestantism is not a denomination. It is numerous denominations not in communion with each other. Nor do they share an overarching tradition that binds them. So Eastern Orthodoxy is the 2nd largest group in Christianity, followed by the Anglican Communion.
2) there is a semi-recognized American Patriarchate, but not everyone accepts it, making its status sort of like the Ukrainian one, but without the political overtones.
Protestantism is basically an umbrella term for anyone that isn’t Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon.
@@ranelgallardo7031 bro said Mormon 💀
@@ranelgallardo7031 i red Morons
@@ranelgallardo7031 Mormons may as well be Muslims.
@@SpencerLemay What?! Are you this high? They don’t worship Mohammad.
This was really informative! Thanks!!
This video needs a part 2 now.
Great job, Politics with Paint. It was a very beautiful video from the visual side. But I'm slightly dissatisfied about the context. You didn't mention Kievan metropoly that was reestablished during the cossack times and regognized by Jerusalem's and Konstantinopole's patriarchs. Unfortunately, it was later integrated by force into the Moscow patriarchy in 1686 during the Ivan Samoylovych's rule over the Eastern Hetmanshchyna. In 1687 patriarchate of Constantinople recognize that action as illegal, Ukrainian church lost its independence until 2019.
I am a new convert to orthodoxy and found this very helpful
This has a lot to do w what’s happening today. Good vid
The thing with the montengrin orthodox church is that like three people would attend it because three people want it
All three of them being former communists, therefore current atheists...
Daily reminder that Montenegrins are Serbs.
@@МиланЈовановић-м3б same was done in the USSR. Large parts of today's Ukraine became part of Ukraine under Soviet rule and the ethnic makeup and identities weren't clear cut. Eastern and Southern Ukraine was mostly Russians and a whole plethora of immigrants invited by the Tsars from all over Russia and Europe. That's why those regions have minorities of Bulgarians, Greeks, and Germans. I'm not even talking about Jews who were the biggest minority. Western Ukraine was annexed only in the 20th century and it's nationalism was a lot more defined as it was in isolation from other Eastern Slavs and fighting for autonomy inside the Austrian empire first and then inside Poland. The modern Ukrainian is actually based on dialects from Western Ukraine and that basically decided what Ukrainian nationalism will look like. The Soviets had a policy of supporting movements of naturalisation of the population, encouraging identification to the nationality of the Republic one was living in. This way all the nationalities in modern Ukraine that was pieced together from different regions were told "you are now all Ukrainians". It was ok when the USSR with it's internationalism was around and it wasn't really important how you adhered to the principle of being Ukrainian. That's how we got a big on paper Ukrainian population that considers itself Ukrainian but understands it differently. But now after USSR's demise politicians jumped to exploit national identity in its search for power and influence polarizing people and driving them against eachother.
@@МиланЈовановић-м3б
They probably won't, and that's fine as long as they realize their nations are relatively young and stop hijacking history. It's the same old story repeating itself with Bulgarians and Macedonians, Serbs and Montenegrins, Russians and Ukrainians etc.
@@enderman_666 it is Russians who hijacked history of Ukraine. Ukraine is older.
My mom works as a train conductor. And around 2013 , so before all this conflict, her train was driving through Ukraine and in one of the stops a Priest aproached her to ask for some water from the train. She asked what happened and the lady working at that train station said its been a week since he's been sleeping on that train station. I think this separation of russia/ukranian priests in ukraine has been going on long before tgis conflict
1)The ancient Patriarchates are not the "prestigious" ones. They are the ones established by an Ecumenical Council. The rest of them were established by decision of the one in whose the territory they belonged to curve this piece of land out of itself and grant it autocephaly. Thus they can always take it back.
Especially in this case it was not even given to Moscow to have it as part of its lands but simply to run it while still belonging to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
No, it's not autocephaly if you can take it back.
Funny thing is the Moscow patriarchate was never really given a Tomos itself. Thus making its "autocephalous" status illegitimate
@@peepoclown1 No, that's not correct. I 've studied ecclesiastical law in law school. If you don't like hearing it from me find some other lawyer specialising in church law to explain it to you. All Churches except the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (+Rome) and the Church of Cyprus have their autocephaly based on a Tomos issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (all of them except Georgia which i am not sure about it. It could be under Antioch) which granted them in the first place and can revoke them as well.
Also in most of them there are a number of detailed provisions and obligations of the newly autonomous Church in order to keep its status. For example the Church of Greece has to abide to 12 provisions which include Patriarchical privileges, recognitions, exceptions etc etc.
@@anonymousbloke1 Don't spread nonsense 'bout Tomos. The practice of issuing Tomos for autocephaly arose only in the 19th century.
@@eleftheriosmas I beg your pardon, but I did not find a single source that would postulate the possibility of depriving the local Church of autocephaly.
Interesting. A follow-up-video with respect to the war would be great. Have - for example - recently more people joined the ukrainian church and left the russian church in response to the russian aggression?
I was wondering this exact thing.
Yes they have. Since the creation of the video, the OCU has grown from 45% to 75% of the Ukrainian Orthodox population. The UOC-MP has declined to around 5% (but do take the statistics with a grain of salt). Actually there have been whole parishes and even dioceses if I'm not mistaken migrating to the OCU. Also, update, the UOC-MP has also cut ties with Moscow since the war begun (but peacefully).
@@andreasm5770 thanks!
Great content! I'm really glad that I found your channel thanks to Kraut.
The ancient Patriarchs were established in the 300s
What absolutely not
The ancient Patriarchies were established by the Apostles themselves, Peter and Paul for Antioch, for instance.
@Dharma Defender Yes, actually there is, such as in the writings of some of the early church fathers.
@Dharma Defender Wrong, most of the ones that matter are considered reliable, for many reasons.
Hi I'm your 500th subscriber!!
Good and quite qualitative information on a complex topic! Bravo 👏
I love your videos, please continue making them!
Awesome topic! I wish and hope the fighting and disagreement ends with happiness for both 👏
Happiness for both is impossible when one of them is Russia.
As the person above said, if one of them is Russia, it will not end well for both.
For anyone who wonders why the numbers at 8:20 are not in favour of the pro-ukrainian side, here's an explainer:
1. Moscow does not simply has its church represented in Ukraine directly, but rather through a "subsidiary" called UOCMP "Ukrainian orthodox church of the Moscowy Patriarchy" - . It has its own leader ("metropolit"), who has significant autonomy within his actions and statements. (E.g. he was wise enough to take up pro-ukrainian side in the recent conflict).
2. Historically, the most densely populated regions of the country (i.e. where most population lives) were those close to the Russian border. After the fall of the USSR and the restoration of the orthodox religion almost all churches in the region joined UOCPM, because it had larger network => had more money for the restoration and construction of new churches.
3. Ukraine is a country with an aging population, where the majority IS the older generation (People 40-60 y.o.). It's true that church still plays some place in Ukrainian life, but that is relevant mostly with older generations (who are, at the moment, still a majority). Among my peers, people born after the fall of the USSR, almost NONE go to church, the majority are secular (agnostics or atheists).
Therefore, the situation is likely to change very soon, I guess.
Probably the same in russia, too. I don't think the Schism will change, but it will continue being used as a political tool by both, even if 5 people total still go to chuch))
It's interesting that as an American I've never heard of this schism going on and I like to think I keep up with current events in the news. It seems that this issue was pretty obvious in Europe and considering this video was made in 2020 it shows that it was only a matter of time before this schism combined with other grudges would eventually turn into a war.
Unfortunately, Russians have been using their church as a tool to further their agenda in the war. This would harm their legitimacy further as the church no longer acts independently from the state.
It’s extremely new and odd to see a church schism in the 2010s.
Wait for a year or three. You will see a major schism in the Roman Catholic Church. The Traditionalistd in there cannot abide Francis and his Marxist, Globalist. Freemasonic sympathies.
Not really. There's been countless schisms in the modern age, in different areas and churches, including within Eastern Orthodoxy. Mainstream media and int'l media just doesn't cover it because it's irrelevant to them.
@@greggrimer1428 bruh you are quite the conspiracy theorist. Please go away and play with your measles.
@@greggrimer1428 The traditionalists already left. And it caused nothing but a small whimper.
It happens more often then you think but people not interested in religion don't really pay attention to it. In Catholicism we have some radical traditionalists who are schismatic or semi schismatic and there's talks that the German Bishops might break into schism. Though none of it is as big as what the Orthodoxy is going through now
Don't even get me started on the protestants. They're churches are braking apart and reuniting all the time
your videos are so good!!! I love them!! Make more!!!!
I've been aware of the schism for two years but I did learn why people want to stop cutting down trees until last week.
I thought the Byzantine church was basically cut in two now but now I understand it's more complex than that.
Excellent video, excellent topic, excellent everything.
The Carman music in the background is fitting. Lol
Thank you for your deep analysis of our problems with Russia...
Very good presentation of a complicated issue.
I hope for a settlement on good terms for all sides.
Keep up the good job!
one the cia plant that is the Patriarch of Constantinople passes on Russia and Constantinople will be together again
This channel feels like a spiritual successor to brainforbreakfast, keep it up!
fantastic vid, I knew some of that history, but you summarized and explained excellently
Nice video man
Glad to see that people are paying attention to the Church crysis! Unfirtunately I am forced to dislike it. Even considering the complexity of the topic this explanation seems to be just scratching the surface and omitting several important facts thus being far from perfect.
What kind of omitted facts were omitted?
Great video I’m surprised I’ve never heard about this before
Have been waiting a lot of time to truly understand this, thanks a lot! New sub
I live in constantinople. Ive never heard of this. Good video!
so are you a turk
@@reigenlucilfer6154 yes.
@@Emre-tf8hp cool, why do you call it constantinople instead of istanbul
@@reigenlucilfer6154 saying "istanbul" in an english sentence just sounds off to me
@@Emre-tf8hp i see, are you an atheist?
I am a Greek and embrace all my Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters. Enough of this! Very well done video.
Schism is disgusting for us
No religious Ukrainian supported this
Have you ever been to the ex-soviet states? Most of the people specially the Gen-Z are agnostic and atheists. They aren't buying religion at all.
@@boybutchpatriot3477 I never supported the schism, but situation is rather more complicated that is seen from the outside
Cuckolds even didnt care than moscow ortodoxy blessing rockets what hits to hospitals
"schism" are something more worth for anti-humanity cuckolds
❤️☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️❤️
🇷🇴 Love to all my Orthodox Brothers!
A very very important topic!! Thank you so much fir giving some clarifications!!
Thank you so much for this material. Very informative indeed. How about a similar video "Uniatism."
You kind of missed the fact there has been a Ukrainian Orthodox Church with a massive amount of power in the ROC. Istanbul came into Ukraine, found the schismatics, and made a new church- in the face of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.
Orthodox Church has always been a tool. This time the patriarch is being used by nato/us. Never forget while orthodox people were being slaughtered during then uprisings in the Balkans in the late 19th century the patriarch In Constantinople was telling them it’s a sin to fight against the sultan. 😂😂
The way you talk is so funny 😂 Istanbul came? What?! Where?! Those are political problems for the corrupt clergy. How does this affect you access to churches? Even if you can’t get in to a church, how does this prevent you from praying or being a good Christian? As long as you can worship freely, let the politics to the bishops.
@@SI-cd7xs Moscow's patriarch is power hungry and wants to become some kind of pope.
yes because the Patriarch of Constantinople is a cia plant, after he passes there will be no support for the new uoc and then the minor schism will be undone
@@cherubin7th lies
This is the biggest issue of orthodoxy right now and I am really worried about it. I'm from Cyprus and our Archbishop recognised the new church of Ukraine, so now the Russians don't recognise him. Orthodoxy is democratic, but the Archbishop did that without the agreement of the council. Our bishops are very split on the matter and this creates further separation among the church. Ukraine's new church consists of bishops who were previously excommunicated from Orthodoxy as they were heretics. Then the Ecumenical Patriarch decided not to just communicate them again, but also give them an autocephalous church. He messed with politics when he shouldn't have and now the church is at great risk. But the common people should just stay out of the politics because sooner or later this divide will heal. We have survived through millennia; the one holly catholic and apostolic church.
I am from Russia, And i like it! Thanks for videos.
Thank you for the correct pronouncing of the "Belarusians"
*Blyetorussia*
Finally, a bibliography, I take of my hat to you sir
Until 1686 Kyivan Metropolis was independent from Moscow.
There was no Kyivan Metropolis jist Kievan and he was subordinate to Poland. Patriarch of all Rus was situated in Vladimir since 12th century.
Nice video. I find it quite odd that you didn't at least mention the Oriental Orthodox Church
Good video I hope you get more subscribers
I am surprised that you omitted any mention of the Uniate Church.
The Ukrainian government supported separation from the Russian Church, because in the context of Russian annexation of Crimea and aggression in the south of Ukraine, it became untenable to allow an ideological branch on Kremlin to control religion in Ukraine. If you wonder, Russian government is very aggressive against the other churches and ngo's precisely for this reason. Thus, it was not a purely religious event, but ideological and political.
Orthodox Church has always been a tool. This time the patriarch is being used by nato/us. Never forget while orthodox people were being slaughtered during then uprisings in the Balkans in the late 19th century the patriarch In Constantinople was telling them it’s a sin to fight against the sultan. 😂😂Fuck that patriarch in Turkey
Being in Timişoara 🇹🇩 where, Calvinists, Luthersns, Roman, and Byzantine Rite Catholics, Serbian and Romanian Orthodox Catholics, al, have a fine array of Cathedrals and Churches, along with some German Baptists who have been around for centuries.... and a synagogue and a mosque! Where it all comes together.
Today I learned: Chad and Romania have the same flag. An a Romainian on UA-cam used the wrong one :)
Christopher, are the German Baptists called Huterrites (after Jacob Hutter), from anabaptist roots?
Oh my goodness thank you for not simply saying Kyivan Rus was Russian history. It gave me goosebumps to hear you say it was the history of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. So refreshing to all these other history videos just simply calling it "Russian" history. You earned my sub
TBH I see more salty Ukrainians claiming the Rus' to be solely Ukrainian and that it has nothing to do with modern Russia.
@@enderman_666 Maybe they go a little bit too far, because Russians have spent the last 200-300 years pretending that all Eastern Slavs were basically Russians. And have basically done everything they could to destroy their separate cultural identities.
Eastern European Nationalism doesn't make good neighbours. And the worst version of Eastern European Nationalism is probably Russian Nationalism, followed narrowly by Serb Nationalism.
@@larslundandersen7722This is idiotic, for the last 200-300 years there has been no Ukrainian or Belarusian nationality. These are Old Russian dialects. Their statehood and national significance they received literally by accident after the collapse of the Soviets
@@aleksklyar you my friend are either a troll or extremely historically illiterate (although if you're from the West I can forgive you since Eastern Europe is a part of the world that Westerners have very little knowledge of, and the knowledge they have is very generalized).
@@aleksklyar Ukrainians and Belarusian were never russian dialects, but other east slavs equal to russians.
Well this is probably going to change a lot now due to the invasive only time will tell. Great video and cant wait for more great future videos!
awesome video
Great video!
Orthodoxy is not an organized religion.
Left out of this video is the numerically small but significant Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, whose members exist mostly in Western Ukraine, Poland, the US and Canada. They worship using g the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and follow Orthodox praxis but are part of the Catholic Church (notice I did not say ROMAN Catholic, which is a term used only in English speaking countries).
The Catholic Church is not organized in a similar manner.
That schism was unexpected but I feel like even though it's underreported, I did not know of this means a lot of people underestimated the significance, holy crap!
The thing about the church separating is it is purely based on identity politics.... it has nothing to do with the religion.
Excellent review, well done.
Good vid!
Great unbiased video at last is a sight to behold brothers
I am surprised how well-prepared and well-thought this material is. Great job!
May the Orthodox Churches of eastern Europe including Russia and the Orthodox churches of the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea have a better future of cooperation and have no more problems of schisms like the The Great Schism of 1054.
I kind of feel like it should also be mentioned that the current Patriarch of the ROC is closely aligned with the current Russian government, so imo, even though Phyletism is a concern, Putin is also probably asking Kirill to pull strings. An independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church greatly reduces the chance that Russia could ever occupy it again. And we all know Putin gets a half chub at the thought of annexing Ukraine.
correct
Nah that just regular approach to orthodox christianity if they majority in a nation because their believer very conservative even Greece openly recognize Orthodoxy become national religion.
@@humanoidform7556 that is NOT regular approach,
Mr. Kirill is playing politics clearly for Russian imperialism.
That does not happen in Greece lol which planet do you come from?
@@pop-n-rock maybe yes in a regional context but for foreign relations of course not they are super neutral, the evidence was just look at the 2008 conflict between Georgia and Russia, Moscow patriarchet didn't recognize the Abkhazian Orthodox Church.
About Greece this is from Wikipedia lists the countries that have state religions : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
About me i am just Australian with Belarusian and orthodox heritage who studying International relation
@@humanoidform7556 Kirill made the video Byzantium, talking bad and antagonistically against the Greeks.Just go on and watch it and do not delete again my comment..
As a catholic (I know both services, ancient Latin and Modern in national language), I have no Problem with orthodox, they're my best Brothers, and I met also two bishops of the orthodox church, one was the archibishop of Montenegro, during a royalist convention in Rome (the Queen of Italy, Elena was from there). ✝️♥️☦️
Why is it the more I learn about christian histroy, the more schisms I find?
Did not know this. Very informative good looking out.
"History teaches us that we learn nothing from history"
Same thing happened in the past when Patriarchate of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Holy See of Rome (before 1054) each claimed supreme authority over each other and that lead to a series of sad like the Schism between Oriental Orthodox Church and Greek Orthodox Church in 451. There are literally 0 dogmatic differences between the 2 Churches. (Russian Patriarchate actually recognized Oriental Orthodox Churches as a response to Constantinople Patriarchate recognizing Ukrainian Patriarchate).
As an epilogue, the divine punishment for such foolish behaviour of Church leaders didn't hesitate to come:
• In 476 *Rome* falls and Odoacer (barbarian) becomes King of Italy
• In 638, the Rashidun Caliphate conquer *Antioch* and *Jerusalem*
• In 646, Alexandria falls under Rashidun Caliphate
• In 1543, Constantinople is conquered by Mehment the II
how did you take from it that the Ecumenical Patriarch claimed any sort of Supremacy? The whole problem was that Rome was trying to interfere outside its Jurisdiction and promoting contending beliefs without any regard for the other Hierarchs.
@@thadeusgaspar224 i doubt its right to say divine punishment for something.
1453, not 1543* - Mehmed II was long dead by then...
Interesting video. I watched it with mixed feelings where I am as atheist just shake my head. On the other hand I was intrigued by the "political" angle and how Putin have used the "Russian" orthodox church for his own mean deeds.
As an atheist, you should get over yourself. The existence of God is irrelevant to the conversation.
@@m.streicher8286 not sure how to understand your comment but maybe it just proves that religions are a hoax and just a tool to manipulate?
Just one correction, it is the 2nd largest group, not 3rd. Protestantism cannot be considered a single group in any sense of the word.
Im an orthodox christian and it pains me to see 2 brothers of christ fighting a pointless war. pray that the persecution ends, and so does the war.
Yes but is it ok, to give indepedance to a country who just got a putsh by nazis ?
@@orangecobraEU Yes, because they arent the government in the nation.
one are Christian, another the dictator`s personality cult. where you noticed brothers? in Pasha`s Mersedes rolex?)
It was the Patriarchy of Constantinople that raised and blessed the Patriarchy of Moscow 4 centuries ago. Kiev in Ukraine is older. The Russian Orthodox Church was founded with the mission from the Pope of Rome and Cyril and Methodius two monks of Constantinople, the East of the Church. Constantinople is the seat of the Patriarchy second in honour to Rome. Since the split between the East and Western Church the Patriarch of Constantinople exercises both honour and jurisdiction over the Orthodox Church. Ukraine is not Russia. It has its own Patriarchy and it is right it has its own canonical independence from the Russian Patriarch. It is perfectly correct that a Patriarchy like Moscow that itself was created by Constantinople accept the Patriarchal decision. The Orthodox Church must respect the correct order and respect the ancient juridiction of Constantinople supporting it. The ancient patriarchies of which you mention include Rome. These are apostolic...meaning founded by an apostle. It's disrespectful and wrong to think Russia should think of the Orthodox Church as being its empire. Patriarchs are to work together and Constantinople rightly has the jurisdiction to decide disputes. These decisions are binding. Moscow is in error on this. In the West under the bishop of Rome there are Patriarchies as well. Like Milan, Venice, Lyon etc.
The problem is that the great Constantinople collapsed long ago, and its main temple, the Cathedral of St. Sophia, was turned into a mosque. The Patriarch of Constantinople is a citizen of Turkey, the former Ottoman Empire, an enemy of Orthodoxy. It is quite logical that Moscow began to exert more influence on the entire Orthodox world after the fall of Constantinople. For centuries Russia has dreamed of recapturing Constantinople, but the West has always intervened at the last moment. There is no more Constantinople, there is the city of Istanbul, and its patriarch is just a pitiful puppet in the hands of the West.
You forgot that Ukraine is a country invented by Austria. It has never existed until late 19th century. Rus is Russia and so church is.
@@DmitryySergeevich Топай обратно в свое ватное болото, уруслар
Ukraine is Russia. Has always been and will always be Russian.
Very well said!
Awesome video man
Restauration of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine was absolutely legal and the fact that Russia opposees it makes Russia guilty of the whole problem. Should have let Ukraine have her own Church long ago.
Russia shouldn't.
@@TheBobVova according to all orthodox canons every country is to have her own church. Ukraine and Russia are 2 separate countries and therefore they are to have 2 separate churches.
@@OrkosUA Where is a church of Slovakia?
Я думаю даже не настолько правительство против из полит.соображений, насколько сама РПЦ продвигает свои монополистские интересы.
@@TheBobVova there is one
very good video !
You are not exactly right about the Kievan Rus.
It could be considered a period when Kiev had most influence, rather than a state, since there was not central leader to all of the duchies: Vladimir-Yaroslavl, Kiev, Chernihiv, Galits, Volyn, Polotsk, Tver, Rostov, Lithuanian, and the Republic of Novgorod established as a 'joint venture' of slavs and danes.
After the decline of Kiev, Vladimir-Yaroslavl and Rostov caused by the Mongol invasion, could the duchy of Moscow (as well as Moscow itself) emerge as a place both situated on a river and being placed far enough from Poland and Lithuania.
The same goes for Kiev being important for religious matters during 14 century and onwards. De jure that's the case, however, Kiev was completely deserted after Mogols came, and when Patriarch came from his hideout in Vishgorod, he almost immideately left for Vladimir in 1299, which became capital of the Church up untill 1448
Sure, but the Kievan Metropoly still continued to exist and it included territories of modern Ukraine and Belarus. The Russians later subjugated the Kievan Metropoly and even burned its records in Kiev in a "mystical" fire during the era of Peter the 1st.
@@alekshukhevych2644 it did, i tell you more, it even had some of modern territories of Russia, since one of Kievan-Chernihiv mitropolites main Cathedrals was in Bryansk.
However, your latter words dispute one another. It is because metropoly is a lower title than a patriarchy to begin with. Metropoly was a Province or City-state-level church, which gets its title from any Patrirch and Patriarchy is a Civilization-level Church, given the title by the Patriarch of Constantinople (so called Universal Patriarch). So it didn't need to be subjugated to begin with, it was lover rank up from 16th century and onwards, while Kiev became an integral part of Russia in 1708.
I've never heared about a fire during Peter 1st era in Kiev, since the 1st thing he did after incorporation of Kossak frontiers is established a fire brigade there, bc Kiev had suffered a number of severe fires from 15th century.
However, it didn't help during a major fire caused by french invasion (I must admit, it could be Russians that burned the town to slow down french pace of attack) in 1812, during which most of the papers of Kievan Metropoly were destroyed
@@hegoyyoutubination Yes but dont forget that the Russian church itself split from the Kievan Metropoly illegally and got patriarchy through bribes and machinations. The Russian church is about 500 years old but modern Russian church was established by Stalin. Eitherway Constantinople did everything that it is allowed to do. Constantinople is allowed to grand autocrphaly just like it did so for other churches. Im not talking about those fires. The fire in questioned happened in the end of the 17th century I think in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra around the period when the Russian church took over the Kievan Metropoly. Ancient documents and manuscripts perished relating to church and state matters of Southern Rus- Ukrainian lands. The fire was ordered by the Russian ruiling elite. Three Russian old strategies to subjugate Ukraine. 1. Is army. 2. Is language. 3. Is Russian instated institutions (Free Cossack Hetmanat became “Little Russian Collegium) 4. Last but not least CHURCH.
@@alekshukhevych2644 why do you call it a split of Moscow instead of a split BETWEEN Moscow and Kiev? Since it basically was an attempt of creating a unifying entity for both lands under Rzecz Pospolita and Moscowian rule.
Moreover, if you say that modern Russian (or former Moscowian-Vladimir Church) Church is established by Stalin, so are Ukrainian (or former Kievan-Chernihiv-Galits Church) and Lithuanian (or former Volyn-Vilno Church), because they were under the same pressure during 1930-1940s.
I got what fire you are talking about, the Great Kievan Fire of 1718, so both you and I admit that it DID HAPPEN, unlike you called it a '"mystical" fire' in your 1st commentary. Yes, it did damage the Lavra and its archives, however, for Russian Emperor there was no point in destroying it since there was a vast number of important RELIGIOUS books, same as in 17th century in Veliki Novgorod. It was because firefighting services were bad as well as most of structures in both Kiev and Novgorod were of wood, not because Russian tsar had an idea of burning 2 important towns amidst a war with Sweden (it's basically shooting your own leg).
You said 3 basic principles of creating a new subject, wheather it is a puppet state (like it was with the Oranje dynasty creating Belgium or with the Osmans creating Bosnia) or a province out of a frontier land (like it was with the British fighting Vrijstaat in South Africa or with Mexicans and the USA fighting vaqueros in California and Texas). I would prefer to count Ukraine as a second one, since cossacs were a community similar to the boers: no taxes, no big empire controlling them, most were engaged in agriculture and trade (so-called Chumaks), as well as had a number of states fighting them - Shaka, Ndebele and Zulu states for boers (who they defeated at Battle of Bulawayo in 1893) and Crimean tatars and Ottomans for Cossacs (who they defeated at Battle of Kafa in 1616). So, they were incorporated into Russia the same way boers were - after signing a peace treaty and making them Mercenaries to conquer Muslims of Sibera and Far East (Buryatia, Khabarovsk and Omsk are established by Russian Cossacs, with cossak being a profession similar to colonist in Africa, rather than a nationality or an army), so they had no need in subjugation of institutions (one of which is Army, I wouldn't consider it as a separate entity), but to create new, which were of Empirial state type instead of a Colonial Union (again, the same as was in Africa).
And, as a PS, I would like to mention, that it was admitted by Russian historians, that their word Malorossia is of Greek origin and is a mistake-in-translation. It was taken from ΛίγοΡωσία (LigoRusia) with Ligo meaning both small and close, and Bysantinians meant it is a Rus (Rusia) that is close to Constantinople, not small
@@hegoyyoutubination I say the Russians split because it was them who illegally split from the Kievan Metropoly. Cossacks werent just free men, they had their own state and they entered into an alliance with the Tsar. The Tsar later used his peverage to subjugate them. Russians still claim that the Perejaslac accords, the ones signed between Hetman Khmelnytskik and the Tsar was lost. They have them, but they do not want the world to see them because it will prove that it was an agreement on equal and partnership terms. As for Malorossija, yes I am aware of the origin of the term. But the issue is not with the term, the issue is with Russian Empire destroying Ukrainian cossack institutions and replacing them with Russian en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_Hetmanate
I’m Greek Orthodox, and all of the Slavic orthodox countries will forever be my brothers 🇬🇷🇨🇾❤️🇷🇸🇺🇦🇧🇬🇷🇺🇲🇰🇲🇪 ☦️☦️☦️
Romanians no?We are Orthodox too!
@@vladodobleja748 Of course I love romanians as well! You guys are awesome! I was just naming slavs for that comment though but I feel the same way for you guys too my orthodox brothers
(Edit: and moldovans too)
@@greekfirewateryt4581 Love Greece-Serbia and Bulgaria very much,we have a great brotherhood together,Greece was one of the biggest supporters of Romania and Bulgaria joining the EU !
@@greekfirewateryt4581 The only ones that I don't consider Orthodox are Russians and Belarussians,I hate them for what they do in Ukraine!
@@vladodobleja748 Of course we want you in the EU! We will make sure the west will never leave out the Balkans :D
Aged well, seems like Zelensky declared war on the Orthodox Church.
You are wrong
@@typhoon5807 says the guy who seemingly hasn't been following what's happening in Ukraine
@@saucy743 living there, your dreams about war with church are just dreams
cry, zigger)
@@espada_i_daga You're getting so late for your pride parade by commenting on every single comment that isn't pro-globohomo lol
great topic and explaination but a tip
no background music - it was in some parts hard to understand you
I wonder what the two are fighting over now? Hope it's nothing Major!
6:14, is it the Greek-Orthodox Church of Alexandria or the Coptic Church in Alexandria that recognized Ukraine?
coptics are not eastern orthorox.
Lol! "As long as I can drink booze" So funny...so true!
Given current hostilities with the Ukraine War, this is in need of a serious update...
☦️🇬🇷🇨🇾🇲🇰🇬🇪🇦🇲🇷🇺🇺🇦🇧🇾🇷🇸🇲🇪🇧🇬🇪🇪🇱🇻🇱🇹🇪🇹🇪🇷🇷🇴🇲🇩☦️
#KeepOrthodox
Our enemies are atheist, muslims and heretics never other Orthodox Brother ☦️
We must remember it always
Χριστόσ Ανέστη
Αληθώς Ανέστη
⬜🟦⬜ ⬜🟥⬜☦️✝️ ✅
Buddy , we're all still people... No need to antagonize anybody.
@@Its_Boki
Not all people are going to heaven. It is sad but that's God's will
@@AndronikosNikephoros Heaven? Sure sure . I'm just saying that hating normal people that are atheists/muslims is borderline crazy behaviour. You do realise it's their choice, right?
Hatred is never the way. If you're not content with the choices muslims or atheists make , then that's sadly your problem.
I myself am neither atheist or muslim, but I believe that we're all still people and despising a whole group of people is not the way to go .
Why are atheists enemies? I literally don't give a fuck what you do with your life, so why should you care about mine? Go be Orthodox or whatever, I don't care. But we're only enemies if you say so.