New book: Cypriot hierarch’s examination of Ukrainian crisis now available in English

Jordanville, New York, July 5, 2021

Photo: bigcommerce.com Photo: bigcommerce.com Late last year, His Eminence Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus published a book examining the burning Ukrainian issue from the point of view of the sacred canons of the Church.

Met. Nikiforos is one of the authoritative Cypriot hierarchs who vocally supports the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and vocally denounces Archbishop Chrysostomos’ unilateral decision to enter into communion with the Ukrainian schismatics.

And thanks to Holy Trinity Publications in Jordanville, New York, His Eminence’s study, The Ecclesial Crisis in Ukraine and its Solution According to the Sacred Canons, is now available in English.

The book can be ordered from the Holy Trinity Publications bookstore, and it is available for Kindle from Amazon.

The monastery’s announcement from March describes Met. Nikiforos’ work:

It is essential reading for all Orthodox believers who want to more fully grasp what the Ukrainian ecclesial crisis means for the future of their Church. It will also assist others to see beyond a shallow characterization of this crisis as a political event in the context of relations between Russia and the West. It makes clear that at the heart of this conflict is an ecclesiological dispute requiring a conciliar solution. Accordingly, Metropolitan Nikiforos writes with deep respect and honor for the venerable Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople while standing firmly in opposition to its recent actions.

In the book, Met. Nikiforos examines several important questions:

  • Which Patriarchate’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction does Ukraine belong to?

  • Who has the right to grant autocephaly and under what conditions?

  • Does the Ecumenical Patriarchate have the canonical right to accept appeals from clerics outside its jurisdiction?

  • Who is the head of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

OrthoChristian earlier published a translation of His Eminence’s 10 conclusions as included in the book. Notably, he concludes that the Moscow Patriarchate was justified in breaking communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople:

Accordingly, the Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate acted correctly, guided by the canons (Apostolic Canons 10 and 11, Canon 5 of the First Ecumenical Council, Canon 2 of the Council of Antioch) when it decided to interrupt Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in hopes that the reasons that led to the break in communion would be canceled, and the ties between the two Churches would be restored again in “peace and love,” with the subsequent restoration of Eucharistic communion between them.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!

7/5/2021

See also
Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos, on All Aspects of the Ukrainian Question Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos, on All Aspects of the Ukrainian Question
Met. Isaiah of Tamassos Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos, on All Aspects of the Ukrainian Question Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos, on All Aspects of the Ukrainian Question
An Interview with His Eminence Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos and Orinis. Part 1
Metropolitan Isaiah (Kykkotis) of Tamassos
His Eminence Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos and Orinis gave an interview to the Romfea Church news agency, which we have translated into English in three parts, frankly answering all the questions about his position regarding the actions of Constantinople, the West, and Moscow, and also commenting on the behavior of the Archbishop of Cyprus. Cypriot Metropolitan: The Russian Church Was Justified in Breaking Communion with Constantinople Cypriot Metropolitan: The Russian Church Was Justified in Breaking Communion with Constantinople Cypriot Metropolitan: The Russian Church Was Justified in Breaking Communion with Constantinople Cypriot Metropolitan: The Russian Church Was Justified in Breaking Communion with Constantinople
The Conclusions of Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos’ Canonical Study of the Ukrainian Issue
Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos and Tellyria
The witness of Met. Nikiforos and his new book is especially important because it demonstrates that, despite the loud insistences of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Ukrainian scandal is not about Russians rejecting the special role of Constantinople and the Greek people within the Church, but rather, it is a question of fidelity to the Orthodox canons and theology. Cypriot hierarch publishes book with Orthodox stance on Ukrainian issue according to sacred canons Cypriot hierarch publishes book with Orthodox stance on Ukrainian issue according to sacred canons Cypriot hierarch publishes book with Orthodox stance on Ukrainian issue according to sacred canons Cypriot hierarch publishes book with Orthodox stance on Ukrainian issue according to sacred canons
His Eminence Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus has published a book examining the burning Ukrainian issue from the point of view of the sacred canons of the Church.
Comments
Justin10/21/2021 5:09 pm
From reading the excellent concise summation of the situation in this book, does anyone else come to the conclusion that not only Moscow should suspend commemoration and communion with Constantinople, but all Orthodox churches and orthodox Christians ought to as well? And does anyone else find that conclusion conspicuously lacking in the Metropolitan's solution? Maybe it seems drastic, but supposing all the Orthodox suspended communion Bartholomew would either say OK, I'm headed to Rome anyway, or he'd suddenly be faced with the reality of what he's done and call a council to resolve. Am I missing anything here?
Walter DuBlanica7/11/2021 4:58 am
Bartholomew should stay out of Slavic Orthodox church affairs. Slavic Orthodox need to look to Moscow for their leadership.
Gregory7/9/2021 8:46 pm
Speculation and interpretation based upon ones bias and pre-suppositions is not how orthodox Christian dogma and doctrine comes into existence. It may be the methodology of some Christian sects, and Protestant denominations, but it’s not the orthodox way. We use the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the ecumenical councils to define orthodox Christian theology. With that said, I would like to ask; where does it say in the teachings of the Holy Fathers or the Ecumenical Councils that “if the patriarch of Constantinople grants a transfer and asks that his name be commemorated first before the patriarch to whom the transfer is granted, that means that the patriarch of Constantinople has the right to revoke the transfer whenever it pleases him, regardless of the amount of time that has passed!” Answer: NOWHERE! Saying things like “obviously” before you make a nonsensical and unorthodox statement, doesn’t suddenly make it orthodox dogma! You really need to learn how the Holy Spirit operates in the Orthodox Church before you make such ridiculous and dumbfounded claims.
Editor7/8/2021 11:33 am
Rufus, please read the history in the articles we have posted, or elsewhere, before you try to argue that somehow, some way, the MP is at fault for the CPs raid on the Ukrainian Church. You're saying that since Kiev has not consistently commemorated the CP before Moscow during these 300 years, Moscow is the one one who should have complained? The burden would have been on Constantinople to complain before the end of the statute of limitations. But 300 years have passed, the canonical Ukrainian Church has not asked for autocephaly, especially not from Constantinople, and Pat. Bartholomew's supposed revocation is entirely unlawful, and moreover unneeded.
Rufus7/8/2021 12:00 am
Ukraine was not within Constantinople's jurisdiction in 1992 when the Metropolitan of Kiev petitioned the Ecumenical Patriarch for autocephaly. However, when in 2018 the Patriarch of Constantinople revoked the 1686 transfer, then it was conceivably within his jurisdiction to do so. The key is whether or not the 1686 transfer was revocable. That transfer's glaring condition that the Patriarch of Constantinople would be commemorated first in Kiev before commemorating the Moscow Patriarch indicates that the transfer could be revoked. If those terms were not acceptable 300 years ago, then why is Moscow only complaining about it now? It's way past the 30 year limit for Moscow to complain about such disagreements.
Editor7/7/2021 9:45 pm
Rufus: Precisely. No one questioned questioned the MP's jurisdiction over Kiev for 300 years, until a defrocked metropolitan declared himself patriarch. Your point?
Mark7/7/2021 7:46 pm
“This was a transfer that was obviously meant to be revoked if needed. The fact that the Kievan metropolitan stopped commemorating Constantinople first was simply neglect on the part of Kiev, most likely compounded by the dissolution of the Russian Church by the Bolsheviks.” really? It’s not obvious to me or any other right-minded and critical thinking person! Just because you say something and claim it to be true dear Rufus, doesn’t make it so! Sorry if I hurt your ego, but you are no arbtrar of truth, no matter how badly you would like to think that you are!
Raphael 7/7/2021 7:41 pm
Has anyone reading these comments ever watched a debate between a Christian and an atheists or a Christian and a Muslim? The thing you will notice time and time again is the “straw-man” tactic that the losing Muslim or atheist will utilize every time they start losing. When they are really in hot water the antagonists of Christ’s Holy faith will start to use what is commonly known as a “red herring” argument. A red herring is thrown into the debate in an attempt to try and distract and mislead the listeners from the real point and subject being debated. It’s very sad to see those who try and defend the Istanbul Patriarchete’s crimes against the church using the very same tactics that atheists and Muslims use when they have no legitimate argument for their position! It’s very sad indeed and underscores the spirit of the EP and his defenders. Either “Rufus” hasn’t read His Eminence’s book at all or he is purposely making a false statement so as to mislead the readers into believing something that is untrue. I will pray that his conscious convict him if it is the latter, but as for his claim that the book does not address this false idea that the EP can change its mind 300 + years later is very much dealt with in the first 3 chapters of the book, and the false argument present by the likes of “Rufus” are utterly refuted by His Eminence! Proving that “Rufus’s “ argument is as fake as his name!
Rufus7/7/2021 5:08 am
The limit of time for jurisdictional disputes is 30 years, but there was no serious dispute over Moscow's jurisdictional responsibility for the Kievan eparchy until 1992 with Metropolitan Philaret.
Editor7/7/2021 12:16 am
Rufus, the book is not evading the question of whether the 1686 transfer was revocable or not. There was simply no need to restate the obvious. If the gramota conveyed a temporary nature, any revocation becomes impossible after the standard statute of limitations. Canonically that limitation is about 30 years. We are talking about 300 years here. If you would really like to understand the history, OrthoChristian.com has published numerous articles by scholars and historians that show how false Constantinople's claim to any power to "revoke" the reunion of the Kiev Metropolia with the Moscow Patriarchate is. For example: https://orthochristian.com/116338.html, https://orthochristian.com/115189.html, https://orthochristian.com/116338.html, and https://orthochristian.com/129186.html
Rufus7/5/2021 5:50 pm
Amazingly enough, this book completely evades the important question of whether or not the transfer of 1686 was revocable or not. The correspondence from Moscow to Constantinople that preceded the transfer specifically asked for a "fraternal" union between Moscow and Kiev, not a paternal one. Moscow's request was exactly what was provided by Constantinople. The request of a "fraternal" union was satisfied by the mandate that the Patriarch of Constantinople always be commemorated first before Moscow. This was a transfer that was obviously meant to be revoked if needed. The fact that the Kievan metropolitan stopped commemorating Constantinople first was simply neglect on the part of Kiev, most likely compounded by the dissolution of the Russian Church by the Bolsheviks.
Here you can leave your comment on the present article, not exceeding 4000 characters. All comments will be read by the editors of OrthoChristian.Com.
Enter through FaceBook
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Enter the digits, seen on picture:

Characters remaining: 4000

Subscribe
to our mailing list

* indicates required
×