From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Orthodox schism (disambiguation).

2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism

Emblem of Ecumenical Patriarch Monogram of Patriarch

Bartholomew I of Constantinople Kirill of Moscow
Emblems of both primates of their respective Churches (Ecumenical Patriarchate, Russian
Orthodox Church) when the schism happened
Date 15 October 2018 – present
 Orthodox schism
Also known as  Orthodox Church schism

Type Christian schism

Decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (11 October 2018) to:

1. grant autocephaly to Ukraine in the future

2. reestablish a stauropegion (church body responsible only to the
Ecumenical Patriarch) in Kiev, Ukraine
Cause 3. revoke the "Letter of issue" (permission) of 1686 which authorized the
patriarch of Moscow to ordain the metropolitan of Kiev[note 1]
4. lift the excommunications which affected clergy and faithfuls of two
unrecognized Ukrainian Eastern Orthodox churches (the UAOC and the
UOC-KP)

 Primary:
o Ecumenical Patriarchate
o Russian Orthodox Church
 Secondary:
o UOC-KP[α]
Participants
o UAOC[α]
o OCU
o UOC-MP[a]
o LOC[b]

Outcome  The severing of full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate by the
Russian Orthodox Church (and ROCOR).
 Creation of the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate.
 Creation of the PEWE and the PESEA by the Russian Orthodox Church.
 Recognition of the OCU's autocephaly by the Church of Greece, the
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, and the Church of Cyprus.

1
  Severing of communion with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of
Constantinople, Archbishop Ieronymos II of Athens, Patriarch Theodore
II of Alexandria, and Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus by the
Russian Orthodox Church.
 The UOC-MP cut ties with the Russian Orthodox Church over handling,
perceived betrayal, and consequences of the 2022 Russian invasion of
Ukraine. A similar outcome happens with the LOC several months later.

1. Both united to form the OCU on 15 December 2018. Part of the UOC-KP left the OCU
on 20 June 2019.

Part of a series on the

Eastern Orthodox Church

Mosaic of Christ Pantocrator, Hagia Sophia

Overview
 Structure
 Theology (History of theology)
 Liturgy
 Church history
 Holy Mysteries
 View of salvation
 View of Mary
 View of icons

Background
Organization
Autocephalous jurisdictions
Autonomous jurisdictions
Noncanonical jurisdictions
Ecumenical councils
History

 Church Fathers
 Pentarchy
 Byzantine Empire
 Christianization of Georgia

2
  Christianization of Bulgaria
 Christianization of Kievan Rus'
 Great Schism
 Russia
 Ottoman Empire
 North America
 Moscow–Constantinople schism
o 15th–16th c.
o 1996
o 2018

Theology
Liturgy and worship
Liturgical calendar
Major figures
List
 v
 t
 e

 v
 t
 e

Russo-Ukrainian War (outline)

A schism between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC, also known as the Moscow Patriarchate)
and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople began on 15 October 2018 when the former
unilaterally severed full communion with the latter.[1][2][3][4]

The resolution was taken in response to a decision of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople of 11 October 2018, confirming its intentions to grant autocephaly
(independence) to the Eastern Orthodox church in Ukraine in the future. The decision also stated
that the Holy Synod would immediately: reestablish a stauropegion in Kiev, i.e. a church body
subordinated directly to the ecumenical patriarch; revoke the "Letter of issue" (permission) of
1686[c] that had given permission to the patriarch of Moscow to ordain the metropolitan of Kiev;
[note 1]
and lift the excommunications which affected the clergy and faithfuls of two unrecognized
Ukrainian Eastern Orthodox churches. Those two unrecognized churches, the Ukrainian
Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv
Patriarchate (UOC-KP), were competing with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow
Patriarchate) (UOC-MP) and were considered "schismatics" (illegally segregated groups) by the
Patriarchate of Moscow, as well as by the other Eastern Orthodox churches.

3
In its decision of 15 October 2018, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church barred all
members of the Moscow Patriarchate (both clergy and laity) from taking part in communion,
baptism, and marriage at any church controlled by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.[2][3] Before that,
in response to the appointment of two exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine, the
Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate had decided, on 14 September 2018, to break off
participation in any episcopal assemblies, theological discussions, multilateral commissions, and
any other structures that are chaired or co-chaired by representatives of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate.[5][6][7]

The schism forms part of a wider political conflict involving Russia's 2014 annexation of the
Crimea and its military intervention in Ukraine, as well as Ukraine's desire to join the European
Union and NATO.[8][9] This schism is reminiscent of the Moscow–Constantinople schism of 1996
over canonical jurisdiction over Estonia, which was however resolved after less than three
months.[10]

On 21 October 2019, Archbishop Ieronymos II of Athens, the primate of the Church of Greece,
sent a peaceful letter to Epiphanius, the primate of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU, that
was formed by the unification of the UOC-KP, UAOC, and parts of the UOC-MP on 15
December 2018). This decision was supported by the whole hierarchy (bishops) of the Church of
Greece, minus seven metropolitans. This decision meant that the Church of Greece recognized
the OCU. The ROC had announced previously it would break communion with any hierarch of
the Church of Greece who enters in communion with any hierarch of the OCU. On Sunday, 3
November 2019, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow did not mention the primate of the Church of
Greece in the liturgy, removing him from the diptych. On 26 December, the ROC broke
eucharistic communion with the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria, Theodore II, and
ceased commemorating him, because he had recognized the OCU the month before. On 20
November 2020, the Holy Synod of the ROC declared that Patriarch Kirill can no longer
commemorate Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus as a result of Chrysostomos'
commemoration of Epiphanius on 24 October 2020.

On 22 November 2022, the Patriarch of Alexandria Theodore II stopped the commemoration of

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow.[11][12][13]

Background
Further information: History of Christianity in Ukraine, History of the Russian Orthodox Church,
and 15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism

History of Eastern Orthodoxy in Ukraine

4
Kievan Rus' in the 11th century

After the baptism of Rus'[note 2] these lands were under the control of the metropolitan of Kyiv.
Among the 24 metropolitans who held the throne before the Mongol invasion, only two were of
local origin and the rest were Greek. Usually, they were appointed by Constantinople and were
not chosen by the bishops of their dioceses, as it should be done according to the canon.[14] After
the Mongol invasion, the southern part of Rus' was heavily devastated and the disintegration of
Kievan Rus' accelerated. Metropolitan Kirill II, who occupied the throne for 30 years, spent
almost all of his time in the lands of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' and visited Kyiv only twice, although
earlier he had come from Galicia and had been nominated for the post of metropolitan by Prince
Daniel of Galicia.[15] After the new Mongol raid in 1299, Metropolitan Maksim finally moved to
Vladimir in the north, and did not even leave a bishop behind. In 1303 a new cathedra was
created for south-west Rus' in Galicia and the new Metropolitan was consecrated by
Constantinople,[16] but its existence ended in 1355 after the Galicia–Volhynia Wars. In 1325,
Metropolitan Peter moved to Moscow, thus greatly contributing to the rise of the Grand Duchy
of Moscow, which gradually conquered other Russian principalities in the northeast of the
former Kievan Rus'. Another part of Kievan Rus' gradually came under the rule of the Grand
Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland, which entered into rivalry with Moscow. In
particular, the Grand Dukes of Lithuania sought from Constantinople a separate metropolitan for
the Orthodox who lived in their lands. Although the metropolitan in Moscow continued to retain
the title of "metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'", he could not rule the Orthodox outside the
borders of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Constantinople twice agreed to create a separate
metropolitan for Lithuania, but these decisions were not permanent, Constantinople being
inclined to maintain a single church government on the lands of the former Kievan Rus'.[17]

In 1439, Constantinople entered into union with the Rome. In Moscow, this decision was
rejected outright, and Metropolitan Isidor, consecrated by Constantinople, was accused of
heresy, imprisoned, and later expelled.[18] In 1448, the council of north-eastern Russian clergy in
Moscow, at the behest of Prince Vasily II of Moscow, elected Jonah the metropolitan of Kyiv
and all Rus' without the consent of the patriarch of Constantinople. In 1469 Patriarch Dionysius I
stated that Constantinople would not recognize any metropolitan ordained without its blessing.[19]
Meanwhile, the metropolis of Kyiv (de facto in Novogrudok) stayed under the jurisdiction of the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Moscow's de facto independence from Constantinople
remained unrecognized until 1589 when Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople approved the

5
creation of a new, fifth Orthodox Patriarchate in Moscow. This decision was finally confirmed
by the four older patriarchs in 1593.[20]

The Patriarch of Moscow became the head of "all Russia and Northern countries",[21][d] and
Chernihiv (now in Ukraine) was one of his dioceses.[22] However, he had no power among the
Orthodox bishops of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, who remained under the rule of
Constantinople. At the same time, the Orthodox hierarchs of those lands were inclined to the
Union with Rome, despite the resistance of their parishes, who formed the Orthodox
brotherhoods (or fraternities) to keep their identity. On the way from Moscow, Jeremiah II
visited the lands of present-day Ukraine and committed an unprecedented act, granting
Stauropegia (direct subordination to the Patriarch) to many Orthodox brotherhoods. This
provoked the anger of the local bishops and soon the Union of Brest was proclaimed, which was
supported by the majority of the Orthodox bishops of the Commonwealth, including
Metropolitan Michail Rogoza. Officially, the Orthodox (but not the Eastern Catholic) Metropolis
of Kyiv in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was eliminated and re-established only in 1620,
in subsequent co-existence with Uniate Metropolis. That led to sharp conflict and numerous
revolts culminating in the Khmelnytsky uprising.[23]

In 1654, Russia entered the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; it quickly occupied,
for a while, the lands of present Belarus, and gained some power over the Hetmanate pursuant to
the Pereyaslav Agreement (1654). The official title of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow was "Patriarch
of Moscow and all Greater, Lesser, and White Russia". However, the Metropolitan of Kyiv
Sylvester Kosiv had managed to defend his independence from the Moscow Patriarchate. The
Moscow government, which needed the support of the Orthodox clergy, postponed the resolution
of this issue.[23]

In 1686, Ecumenical Patriarch Dionysius IV approved the new metropolitan of Kyiv, Gedeon
Chetvertinsky, who would be ordained by the Moscow Patriarchate and thus transferred, albeit
with certain qualifications, a part of the Kyiv ecclesiastical province to the jurisdiction of
Patriarchate of Moscow (the Russian Orthodox Church).[23]

In the 1924 Tomos (decree) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which granted independence to the
Polish Orthodox Church, the previous transfer of the Kyivan Church to the jurisdiction of
Moscow (in 1685–1686) was declared uncanonical.[24] In addition, the decree pointed out that the
conditions of the synodal "Act" of 1686 – which specified that the Russian Orthodox Church was
only to consecrate the metropolitan of Kyiv – were never adhered to by the Patriarchate of
Moscow.[25]

Post-Cold War, claims of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Russkiy mir

The historical rivalry between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church
intensified after the Cold War. Indeed, after the Cold War, Moscow and Constantinople both
emerged as "two centers of Orthodox power".[26]

Claims of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

6
The Patriarchate of Constantinople claims that:[26][e]

1. The [Ecumenical] Patriarch had the right to establish a court of final appeal for
any case from anywhere in the Orthodox world.
2. The [Ecumenical] Patriarch had the exclusive right to summon the other
Patriarchs and heads of Autocephalous Churches to a joint meeting of all of them.
3. The [Ecumenical] Patriarch has jurisdiction, ecclesiastical authority over
Orthodox Christians who are outside the territory of the local Orthodox Churches,
the so-called diaspora.
4. No new "Autocephalous" Church can come into being without the consent of the
Patriarch of Constantinople; this consent should express the consensus of the local
Orthodox Churches.

Russkiy mir

Main article: Russian world (concept)

See also: Second Cold War

Russkiy mir (literally "Russian world") is an ideology promoted by many in the leadership of the
Russian Orthodox Church. "This ideology, concocted as a reaction to the loss of Russian control
over Ukraine and Belarus after the fall of the Soviet Union, seeks to assert a spiritual and cultural
unity of the peoples descended from the Kyivan Rus, presumably under Russian leadership."[27]
[28]
Patriarch Kiril of Moscow also shares this ideology; for the Russian Orthodox Church, the
russkiy mir is also "a spiritual concept, a reminder that through the baptism of Rus, God
consecrated these people to the task of building a Holy Rus."[29]

On 31 January 2019, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow declared concerning the religious relationship
between the Russian Orthodox Church and Ukraine: "Ukraine is not on the periphery of our
church. We call Kyiv 'the mother of all Russian cities'. For us Kyiv is what Jerusalem is for
many. Russian Orthodoxy began there, so under no circumstances can we abandon this historical
and spiritual relationship. The whole unity of our Local Church is based on these spiritual
ties."[30][31]

This ideology was condemned as heretical by the Patriarchate of Alexandria on November 23,
2022.[11][13]

1996 schism over Estonia

Main article: 1996 Moscow–Constantinople schism

The Moscow–Constantinople schism of 1996 began on 23 February 1996, when the Russian
Orthodox Church severed full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople,
and ended on 16 May 1996 when the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate
reached an agreement establishing parallel jurisdictions.[32][33] The excommunication was in
response to the Ecumenical Patriarchate's decision on 20 February 1996 to reestablish an
autonomous Orthodox church in Estonia under the Ecumenical Patriarchate's jurisdiction.[32][34][35]

7
The 1996 schism has similarities with the schism of October 2018: both schisms were caused by
a dispute between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate concerning the
canonical jurisdiction over a territory in Eastern Europe over which the Russian Orthodox
Church claimed to have the exclusive canonical jurisdiction, such territory being a part of the
former Soviet Union, which upon its collapse had become an independent state. The break of
communion in 1996 was made by Moscow unilaterally, as in 2018.[10]

September 2018: Russian Orthodox synod's "retaliatory

measures" and the aftermath
Further information: Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine § Ecumenical Patriarch's
legates in Ukraine and reactions of the Russian Orthodox Church

On 14 September 2018, in response to the appointment of two exarchs (deputies of the

Ecumenical Patriarch) in Ukraine, Daniel (Zelinsky) and Hilarion (Rudnyk), and in response to
the Ecumenical Patriarchate's plans to grant autocephalous status to the Eastern Orthodox church
in Ukraine, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church held an extraordinary session to
take "retaliatory measures" and decided:[5][6]

1. To suspend the liturgical prayerful commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew of

Constantinople.
2. To suspend concelebration with hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
3. To suspend the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in all Episcopal
Assemblies, theological dialogues, multilateral commissions and other structures
chaired or co-chaired by representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
4. To adopt a statement of the Holy Synod concerning the uncanonical actions of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine.

A statement was released the same day explaining the situation and the sanctions taken to protest
against the Ecumenical Patriarch's behavior.[36]

On the same day, ROC Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) clarified the situation in an interview,
stating that this decision is not a rupture of Eucharistic communion and does not concern the
laity, but nonetheless added:[37]

But we refuse to concelebrate with hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople since every
time they mention the name of their Patriarch during the liturgy while we have suspended it. [...]

We do not think, of course, that all this will finally shut the door for dialogue, but our today's
decision is a signal to the Patriarchate of Constantinople that if the actions of this kind continue,
we will have to break the Eucharistic communion entirely. [...]

[A]fter the breaking-off of the Eucharistic communion, at least a half of this 300-million-strong
population will no longer recognize him as even the first among equals.

8
On 23 September 2018 Patriarch Bartholomew, during a Divine Liturgy he was celebrating in
the Saint Fokas Orthodox church declared that he "had sent a message that Ukraine would
receive autocephaly as soon as possible, since it is entitled to it"[38][39]

On 30 September 2018, in an interview to Izvestia Daily published on the official website of the
Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations, Metropolitan Hilarion
commented: "The Russian Church does not need to fear isolation. If Constantinople continues its
anti-canonical actions, it will place itself outside the canonical space, outside the understanding
of church order that distinguishes the Orthodox Church."[40]

On 2 October 2018, Patriarch Kirill of the ROC sent a letter to all the autocephalous Orthodox
churches to ask them to hold a "Pan-Orthodox discussion" concerning the question of Ukraine's
autocephaly.[41][42][43][44]

On 5 October 2018, the Metropolitan Pavel, head of the Belarusian Orthodox Church (exarchate
of the Russian Orthodox Church), announced there would be a meeting of the Holy Synod of the
Russian Orthodox Church on 15 October in Minsk. He said that "The situation with the
Orthodox Church in Ukraine will be on the agenda of the meeting".[45] This meeting had been
announced previously on 7 January 2018 and was at the time "most likely to take place in mid
October."[46]

On 9 October 2018, Metropolitan Hilarion, chairman of the Department of External Church

Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church warned that "if the project for Ukrainian autocephaly
is carried through, it will mean a tragic and possibly irretrievable schism of the whole
Orthodoxy." He added that

ignoring sacred canons shakes up the whole system of the church organism. Schismatics in other
Local Churches are well aware that if autocephaly is given to the Ukrainian schismatics, it will
be possible to repeat the same scenario anywhere. That is why we state that autocephaly in
Ukraine will not be "the healing of the schism" but its legalization and encouragement.[47]

Autocephaly of the Eastern Orthodox church in Ukraine

Main articles: Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and Unification council of the
Eastern Orthodox churches of Ukraine

Patriarch Bartholomew signing the tomos of autocephaly of the OCU. Epiphanius I of Ukraine
(wearing a white klobuk) stands behind him.

9
On 11 October 2018 the synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced that it would grant
autocephaly to the "Church of Ukraine" in the future. In the same decision the Holy Synod
announced that it will immediately: reestablish a stauropegion (church body ruled directly by the
Ecumenical Patriarch[48]) in Kyiv, revoke the legal binding of the letter of 1686,[c][note 1] and lift the
excommunications which affected clergy and faithful of two Ukrainian Orthodox churches (the
UOC-KP and the UAOC).[49] Those two churches, the UOC-KP and the UAOC, were competing
with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (UOC-MP) and were considered
"schismatics" (illegally segregated groups) by the Patriarchate of Moscow,[3][50][51][52] as well as by
the other Orthodox churches.[53][54] This decision led the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox
Church to break full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate on 15 October 2018, which
marked the beginning of the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism.[55][56] Support for the grant of
autocephaly had been expressed by the Ukrainian President and the Verkhovna Rada in June
2018,[57] and before that by the Rada in June 2016.[58]

On 15 December 2018, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) was formed after a unification
council between the UAOC, the UOC-KP, and two bishops of the UOC-MP;[citation needed]
Epiphanius was elected primate of the OCU during this unification council.[59][60] Most of the
hierarchs of the UOC-MP ignored the council and over half of them had sent invites back to the
Ecumenical Patriarch.[61][62][63]

On 5 January 2019, Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, signed the

official decree (tomos) that granted autocephaly (independence) to the Orthodox Church of
Ukraine and officially established the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. On 6 January, after a Liturgy
celebrated by Metropolitan Epiphanius and Patriarch Bartholomew, Patriarch Bartholomew read
the tomos of the OCU and then gave it to Metropolitan Epiphanius.[64][65] On 8 January 2019, the
tomos was brought back to Istanbul so that all the members of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate could sign the tomos.[66] The tomos was signed by all members of the Holy Synod of
the Ecumenical Patriarchate on 9 January 2019.[67][68][69][70] The tomos, signed by all members of
the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, was brought back to Ukraine on the morning of
10 January 2019.[71][72][73][74]

Right after the granting of the tomos of autocephaly to the OCU (6 January 2019), a leadership
conflict arose within the OCU.[75]

Break of communions with the other autocephalous Eastern

Orthodox Churches by the Russian Orthodox Church
Break of communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate

On 15 October 2018, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, meeting in Minsk,
decided to cut all ties with the Constantinople Patriarchate. This decision forbade for any
member of the ROC (both clergy and laity) joint participation in all sacraments, including
communion, baptism, and marriage, at any church worldwide controlled by Constantinople.[2][3]
At the time of the schism, the Russian Orthodox Church had over 150 million followers, more
than half of all Eastern Orthodox Christians.[76] The same day, after the synod, a briefing for

10
journalists was given by Metropolitan Hilarion, chairman of the Department of External Church
Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church, in which he declared that "the decision on complete
cessation of the Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople was taken
today."[77] On 18 October 2018, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has expressed
"complete support of the position taken by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow,
following its meeting of 15th October 2018" and severed Eucharistic communion with the
Ecumenical Patriarchate.[78]

The break of communion was done in response to a decision of the Holy synod of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate on 11 October 2018 which confirmed the intention of moving towards
granting autocephaly (independence) to the Eastern Orthodox Church in Ukraine, and to
immediately: reestablish a stauropegion (church body ruled directly by the Ecumenical
Patriarch[48]) in Kyiv, revoke the legal binding of the letter of 1686,[c][note 1] and lift the
excommunications which affected clergy and faithful of two Ukrainian Orthodox churches.[49][79]
Those two churches, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) and the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), were competing with the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (UOC-MP) and were considered "schismatics" (illegally
segregated groups) by the Patriarchate of Moscow,[3][50][51][52] as well as by the other Eastern
Orthodox churches.[53][54]

Doctor in theology Cyrill Govorun [uk] of the UOC-MP argued that the break of communion
between the churches of Moscow and Constantinople did not constitute a real schism (like the
schism of 1054), but a "slit".[80] The American Protestant magazine Christianity Today called the
break of communion between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church the
"biggest schism since 1054" and "the biggest Christian schism since the Protestant
Reformation"[81]

On 17 October, Metropolitan Hilarion, head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External
Church Relations, was interviewed by the BBC Russian Service; this interview was published on
the official website of the Department of External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox
Church the very same day. Hilarion declared: "As of today, we have very clearly stated: the fact
that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has recognized a schismatic structure means for us that
Constantinople itself is now in schism. It has identified itself with a schism. Accordingly, we
cannot have the full Eucharistic communion with it." Hilarion added that when members of the
Russian Orthodox of Moscow Patriarchate pay visits to the monasteries on Mount Athos, they
cannot participate in the sacraments (for example, receive communion), and promised
punishment to any priests who participate in the divine services together with the local clergy.[82]
[83]
It is known that Russia makes large donations to the monasteries on Athos: the sum of $200
million was announced by a source close to the Moscow Patriarchate[84] and confirmed by
Hilarion in his interview. Hilarion hinted that "[h]istory shows that when Athos is concerned
over something, the monasteries on the Holy Mountain do find ways to inform the Patriarch of
Constantinople about it" and called on Russian businessmen to switch donations to Russian
sacred places.[82][83]

On 29 December, during an interview to the channel Russia-24, Metropolitan Hilarion declared

the Patriarch of Moscow had informed during the last meeting of the Supreme Diocesan

11
Assembly of Moscow that that faithfuls of the ROC could communicate in the territory of the
Mount Athos, but only in the Saint Panteleimon Monastery.[85] The territory of the Mount Athos
is under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Hilarion declared the Saint Panteleimon
Monastery "belongs to the Constantinople Church, as do all monasteries on Mt. Athos, but we
know that it was built with Russian money by Russian monks and houses a Russian and
Ukrainian monastic brotherhood, all rites are performed in a Slavic language and the laity who
come there may take communion in it [...] But not in other Athos monasteries".[85][86][87][88]

On 27 September 2021, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow declared he was "very much upset by the fact
that today the Patriarch of Constantinople has lapsed into schism because he took communion
together with schismatics and recognized self-ordained clergy who do not have lawful
consecration by canonical hierarchs"[89][90]

On 3 December, Ecumenical Patriarch, despite the decision of the Moscow Patriarchate, states
there is no schism between Moscow and Constantinople.[91]

Break of communion with the Archbishop of Athens

Further information: Orthodox Church of Ukraine § Church of Greece

On 17 October 2019, the Holy Synod of the ROC reacted to the announcement that the Church
of Greece had recognized the OCU. The Holy Synod stated: "If the Ukrainian schism is really
recognized by the Greek Orthodox Church and its Primate – either in the form of a joint service,
liturgical commemoration of the leader of the schism or sending official letters to them – it will
be a sad testimony to the deepening division in the family of local Orthodox Churches. [...] We
cease the prayer and Eucharistic communion with those bishops of the Greek Church who have
entered or will enter into communion with representatives of the Ukrainian non-canonical
schismatic communities. [...] the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church authorizes his
Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia to stop the commemoration of the name of
His Beatitude Archbishop of Athens and the entire Greece in the diptychs if the Primate of the
Greek Church begins to commemorate the head of one of the Ukrainian schismatic groups during
divine services or takes other actions indicating the recognition of the Ukrainian schism."[92][93][94]
In the same statement, the Holy Synod announced that the ROC would not be blessing
pilgrimages of faithfuls of the ROC to Greek dioceses whose hierarchs are in communion with
representatives of the OCU.[95][96][94]

On 21 October 2019, Archbishop Ieronymos II of Athens and all Greece, the primate of the
Church of Greece, sent a peaceful letter to Epiphanius, the primate of the OCU. This decision
was supported by the whole hierarchy (bishops) of the Church of Greece, minus 7 Metropolitans;
[97]
the Metropolitan of Piraeus later said he in fact did not support this decision, explaining: "My
phrase 'I disagree but support the archbishop' was distorted beyond recognition."[98] This decision
meant that the Church of Greece recognized the OCU.[99][97][100] The head of the external relations
department of the ROC, Metropolitan Hilarion, stated that the ROC regretted this decision and
that "the Greek Church is not independent, there is no full autocephaly, full independence, half
of its hierarchs are hierarchs of the Constantinople Patriarchate, it does not have its own external
policy, and therefore it always follows in the footsteps of the Constantinople Patriarchate."

12
Hilarion stated that he hoped "no other regional church will follow this sad example."[101][102][103]
Thereafter, the Pilgrim Centre of the Patriarchate of Moscow, which is the official pilgrimage
centre of the Moscow Patriarchate, released a list of dioceses of the Church of Greece which
were considered "undesirable for pilgrimage" and to which the pilgrims of the Russian Orthodox
Church were "not blessed" to go in pilgrimage. This list namely contained the diocese of Athens
of the primate of the Church of Greece. This list was done on the basis of 17 October 2019
decision of the Holy Synod of the ROC not to bless pilgrimages to dioceses whose hierarchs
enter in communion with representatives of the OCU.[104][105][106]

On 2 November, Metropolitan Hilarion stated: "We said that if the archbishop of Athens
officially recognizes the Ukrainian schism, his name will be removed from the diptychs of the
Russian Orthodox Church. What does that mean? It means that the patriarch will not mention the
archbishop of Athens in his services, the same way as he is not mentioning the patriarch of
Constantinople. I think he will not be mentioned this coming Sunday when the patriarch holds
his service. That means we are stopping Eucharistic communion with the archbishop of
Athens."[107][108]

On Sunday, 3 November 2019, Patriarch Kirill did not mention the primate of the Church of
Greece in the liturgy, removing him from the diptych.[109][110][111][112]

Break of communion with the Patriarch of Alexandria

On 8 November 2019, the Moscow Patriarchate announced that Patriarch Kirill would stop
commemorating the Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa after the latter and his Church
recognized the OCU that same day.[113][114][115] On 25 November 2019, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow
temporarily suspended the Moscow mission of the Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa.[116]
[117]
The future closing of the representation of the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Moscow was
announced.[118]

On 6 December 2019, the Holy Synod of the UOC-MP announced it had severted eucharistic
communion "with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and with the Churches and hierarchs who
have recognised  the schismatics"[119][120]

On 24 December 2019, Metropolitan Hilarion said that "[i]f the Patriarchate of Alexandria sides
with the schism, then we might, of course, have to create parishes for our believers, because they
won't be able to take communion at churches of the Patriarchate of Alexandria."[121][122] Two days
later, the Synod of the ROC in Moscow announced it severed full communion with the Patriarch
of Alexandria and ceased commemorating him. In addition, the Synod of Moscow decided to
suspend the activities of the metochion (embassy) of the Alexandrian Patriarchate under the
Moscow Patriarchate. It was also decided that the Representation of the Patriarchate of Moscow
under the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Cairo would become a parish of the ROC. As for the
parishes of the ROC in Africa, they will be removed from the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of
Alexandria and will be granted stauropegial status, that is, they will be transferred to the direct
subordination of the head of the ROC, Patriarch Kirill.[123][124][125][126]

13
On November 23, 2022, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, meeting under the
chairmanship of Patriarch Theodore II, decided the following things :[11][12][13]

1. Interruption of commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscow, Cyril, until he comes back to his
senses.

2. Deposition of the Russian Metropolitan Klin Leonidas, accused of interfering in the territory
of an autocephalous Orthodox Church (Alexandria).

3. Condemnation of the ideology of the Russkiy mir as contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Break of communion with the Archbishop of Cyprus

On 20 November 2020, the Holy Synod of the ROC declared that Patriarch Kirill can no longer
commemorate Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus as a result of Chrysostomos'
commemoration of Epiphanius on 24 October 2020.[127][128][129][130]

Further escalation
Further information: Reactions of the Eastern Orthodox churches to the 2018 Moscow–
Constantinople schism § Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Russian priests in Turkey

On 10 November 2018, Metropolitan Hilarion, heads of the Moscow Patriarchate's Office for
External Relations said during a TV program on Russia-24 that the ROC had no choice but to
"send priests of the Russian Orthodox Church" to Turkey, "[a]nd this will continue as long as the
Patriarch of Constantinople is in schism". He said the ROC did not do so before because Turkey
is a territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but that the ROC now does because the Ecumenical
Patriarchate is in schism.[131][132]

On 12 November 2018, it was reported that the first priest was sent by Patriarch Kirill to Istanbul
(Turkey) "at the request of Russian believers who live in Turkey".[133] On the same day, the
Russian Orthodox Church announced a divine liturgy had been held on 11 November in Istanbul
and would be regularly held. The ROC also reported the words of the priest who had led the
divine liturgy who said that after the 15 October 2018 decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
numerous Russian Orthodox believers of Turkey had asked the Moscow Patriarchate to provide
them with "pastoral care".[134] On 14 December the Ecumenical Patriarchate published a
statement by Metropolitan Sotirios of Pisidia in which he condemned the plans of the ROC priest
to celebrate a Divine Liturgy in Belek (Turkey) with the help of the Russian consulate and
without the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which has canonical jurisdiction over this
territory.[135]

On 30 December 2018, Interfax reported that the ROC was building a church on the territory of
the embassy of Russia in Ankara.[136]

14
Dissolution of the AROCWE

Main article: Joining of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the
Moscow Patriarchate

On 27 November 2018, the Ecumenical Patriarchate decided to dissolve the Archdiocese of

Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe (AROCWE) "thereby entrusting its faithful to the
Hierarchs of the Ecumenical Throne in Europe".[137][138][139] ROC officials responded with a
reminder of the 2003 proposal of Alexy II to move to the Moscow Patriarchate.[140] This decision
was made without any official requests from the hierarchs of the diocese and caused confusion.
[141]
On 15 December, Pastoral Assembly of AROCWE decided to call an Extraordinary General
Assembly (EGA), scheduled for 23 February 2019. On 23 February, 191 out of the 206 voters of
EGA voted against the dissolution.[142]

At the next Extraordinary General Assembly on 7 September 2019, 104 voters out of the 186
(58.1%) voted in favor of the AROCWE being subordinated to the Moscow Patriarchate, but that
was less than two-thirds of the votes needed to make such a decision.[143][144] Despite this, the
head of AROCWE John (Renneteau) [ru] on 14 September personally came under the jurisdiction
of the Moscow Patriarchate.[145] On 3 November, the AROCWE delegation in Moscow received a
letter on the reunification of the archdiocese with the Moscow Patriarchate.[146] Some of
AROCWE members joined the newly established "Vicariate of Russian Tradition of the
Metropolis of France" which remained faithful to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.[147][148]

Creation of the PEWE and the PESEA

On 26 November 2018, Metropolitan Hilarion declared that the ROC would send a priest in
South Korea and declared the plans "to create a full-fledged parish", because until the 1950s in
Korea was a Russian Spiritual Mission whose faithful were in the 1950s transferred to the
Ecumenical Patriarchate's jurisdiction. The priest was scheduled to be sent by the end of the year.
[149]

On 28 December 2018, in response to the Ecumenical Patriarchate's actions in Ukraine,[150] the

Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church decided to create the Patriarchal Exarchate in
Western Europe (PEWE), the Spanish-Portuguese diocese, as well as the Patriarchal Exarchate in
South-East Asia (PESEA).[151][152][153][154][155][156] On the same day, in an interview with Russia-24
channel,[157] Metropolitan Hilarion, head of the Synodal Department for External Church
Relations of the ROC, declared the ROC "will now act as if they [Constantinople] do not exist at
all because our purpose is missionary, our task is to educate, we are creating these structures for
ministerial care about our flock, there can be no such deterring factors here", and that the ROC
will take charge of the Orthodox faithfuls of its diaspora instead of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
[158][159]

Further protests by the ROC

On 26 February, during the first 2019 session of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate,[160]
the Holy synod adopted a statement saying that the granting of the tomos by the Ecumenical

15
Patriarchate "to the so-called 'Orthodox church of Ukraine,' created artificially by a merger of
two schismatic organizations, deepened the division between [Eastern] Orthodox Christians in
Ukraine and worsened ever more considerably the inter-confessional relations." The ROC also
blamed the action of the Ukrainian parliament regarding the UOC-MP.[161][162]

On 7 October 2019, the ROC officially released comments by the Secretariat of the Biblical and
Theological Synodal Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church. "The document discusses the
problems of apostolic succession among schismatic "hierarchs", the limits of application of the
oikonomia principle, issues of the lack of legitimacy of the OCU, the distortion of the role of the
first bishop in the Orthodox Church, and explains the suspension of Eucharistic communion."[163]
[164]

Omission of commemoration of all other primates by Patriarch Kirill

On 7 January 2019, during the festive Christmas liturgy in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior,
Patriarch Kirill of the ROC did not mention a single name of the primates of other local
Orthodox Churches, with whom the ROC is in canonical communion. Such commemoration[note 3]
is demanded by a church charter and is a centuries-old tradition. In contrast to this, the head of
the newly created Orthodox Church of Ukraine, Metropolitan Epiphanius, solemnly listed the
names of all the primates, including the "Most Holy Patriarch of Russia Kirill".[165][166][167]
Epiphanius later explained that he had done this after the Ecumenical Patriarch had instructed
him (Epiphanius) to do so, and that Filaret had instructed him not to mention Kirill.[75]

On 20 November 2019, during the patriarchal liturgy, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow did not
commemorate by name any of the primates of the local Eastern Orthodox Churches, saying only
"Remember, Lord, the Orthodox Patriarchs."[168]

On 21 November 2019, Patriarch Kyrill and Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem concelebrated
a liturgy together. During this liturgy, they commemorated each others, but did not
commemorate any of the other Eastern Orthodox primates.[169]

Moscow Patriarchate receives priests from the Patriarchate of Alexandria

In September 2021, after Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria concelebrated a liturgy with Met.
Epiphanius of Kyiv of the OCU, the Holy Synod of the ROC declared the ROC was accepting
priests who wanted to leave the Church of Alexandria to join the ROC due to their disapproval of
the recognition of the OCU by the Church of Alexandria.[170][171]

On 29 December 2021, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church under Patriarch Kirill
announced that 102 priests of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, from eight African countries, would
be received into their jurisdiction, and that Dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church would be
erected in Africa under an Exarchate.[172][173]

UOC-MP cutting ties with ROC

16
In May 2022, the Council of bishops of the UOC-MP has cutting ties with ROC over handling,
perceived betrayal, and consequences of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.[174][175][176]

Reactions
International community

See also: Orthodox Church of Ukraine § Reactions from states

 Russia: On 12 October 2018, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, "held an operational
meeting with the permanent members of the Security Council" (the Security Council of
Russia) that discussed "a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues, including the
situation around the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine", according to Putin's press
secretary Dmitry Peskov.[177] On 31 January 2019, concerning Ukraine Putin declared that
the Russian authorities "consider any interference in church affairs absolutely
unacceptable." Putin added: "We have respected and will respect the independence of
church affairs, especially in a neighboring sovereign country. And yet we reserve the
right to respond and do all we can to protect human rights, including the right to freedom
of religion".[178][179]
 Ukraine: Ukraine's president, Petro Poroshenko, enthusiastically welcomed
Constantinople's October decision,[180][181] and presented the Ukrainian Church's
independence as part of Ukraine's wider conflict with Russia, and Ukraine's desire to
integrate with the West by joining the European Union and NATO.[8][9][182] On 28
November 2018, Ukrainian President Poroshenko declared that the Kerch Strait incident
was provoked by Russia in order to force Ukraine to declare martial law and therefore to
prevent Ukraine from receiving its tomos of autocephaly.[183][184]
 United States: The Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, urged all sides to respect the
independence of "Ukraine's Orthodox community", reiterating the United States' "strong
support for religious freedom and the freedom of members of religious groups".[185]
 Belarus: the President of Belarus, the country in which the synod of the Russian
Orthodox Church which decided to sever communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate
took place, met members of the synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on 15 October
2018 after the ROC's decision to sever communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.[186]
[187]

 Montenegro: On 21 December 2018, the Montenegrin President said the State of

Montenegro had the responsibility to consolidate the autocephaly of the unrecognized
Montenegrin Orthodox Church.[188][189][190] On 11 June 2019, the Montenegrin President
said he hoped for a "Ukrainian scenario" so that the Montenegrin Church could be
recognized as autocephalous.[191]

Reactions of the Eastern Orthodox churches

Main article: Reactions of the Eastern Orthodox churches to the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople
schism

17
Numerous Eastern Orthodox churches took position concerning the question of the canonical
jurisdiction over Ukraine, whether before or after this schism.

Canonical issues
Main article: Annexation of the Metropolitanate of Kyiv by the Moscow Patriarchate

The schism has its root in a dispute over who between the Patriarchate of Moscow and the
Patriarchate of Constantinople has canonical jurisdiction over the See of Kyiv and, therefore,
which patriarchate has canonical jurisdiction over the territory of Ukraine. "[T]he principal
argument proposed [concerning the granting of the ecclesiastical status of autocephaly to
Ukraine by the Ecumenical Patriarchate] is that Ukraine 'constitutes the canonical territory of the
Patriarchate of Moscow' and that, consequently, such an act on the part of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate would comprise an 'intervention' into a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction."[25] The
Patriarchate of Moscow's claim of canonical jurisdiction is based mostly on two documents: the
Patriarchal and Synodal "Act" or "Letter of Issue" of 1686, and a 1686 Patriarchal Letter to the
Kings of Russia. Both those documents are reproduced in the "Appendix" section of a study
published by the Ecumenical Patriarch called The Ecumenical Throne and the Ukrainian Church
– The Documents Speak.[25] The Church of Constantinople claims the Church of Constantinople
has canonical jurisdiction over the See of Kyiv and that the documents upon which the Russian
Orthodox Church bases its claim of jurisdiction over said See of Kyiv do not support the ROC's
claim.

On 1 July 2018, the Patriarch Bartholomew said that Constantinople was the Mother church of
the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and declared that

Constantinople never ceded the territory of Ukraine to anyone by means of some ecclesiastical
Act, but only granted to the Patriarch of Moscow the right of ordination or transfer of the
Metropolitan of Kyiv on the condition that the Metropolitan of Kyiv should be elected by a
Clergy-Laity Congress and commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch. [It is written] in the Tomos
of autocephaly, which was granted by the Mother Church [Constantinople] to the Church of
Poland: "... original separation from our Throne of the Metropolis of Kyiv and of the two
Orthodox churches of Lithuania and Poland, which depend on it, and their annexation to the
Holy Church of Moscow, in no way occurred according to the binding canonical regulations, nor
was the agreement respected concerning the full ecclesial independence of the Metropolitan of
Kyiv, who bears the title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Throne..."[192]

The ROC considers this argument "groundless".[36]

Ecumenical Patriarchate's claims

The Ecumenical Patriarchate issued a document authored by various clerics and theologians
called The Ecumenical Throne and the Ukrainian Church – The Documents Speak.[25] This
document analyzes canonical historic documents (namely the Patriarchal and Synodal "Act" or
"Letter of Issue" of 1686 and the 1686 Patriarchal Letter to the Kings of Russia) to see if the
claim over the See of Kyiv by the Patriarchate of Moscow is canonical or not.[f]

18
The Ecumenical Throne and the Ukrainian Church concludes that:[25]

Through the autocratic abolition of the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch by each
Metropolitan of Kyiv, the de jure dependence of the Metropolis of Kyiv (and the Church of
Ukraine) on the Ecumenical Patriarchate was arbitrarily rendered an annexation and
amalgamation of Ukraine to the Patriarchate of Moscow.

All these events took place in a period when the Ecumenical Throne was in deep turmoil and
incapable "on account of the circumstances of the time to raise its voice against such capricious
actions" [...] The Church of Ukraine never ceased to constitute de jure canonical territory of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate.[...]

The Ecumenical Patriarchate was always aware of this despite the fact that, "on account of the
circumstances of the time", it tolerated the arbitrary actions by the Patriarchate of Moscow. [...]

The Ecumenical Patriarchate is entitled and obliged to assume the appropriate maternal care for
the Church of Ukraine in every situation where this is deemed necessary.

On 27 December 2016, Konstantinos Vetochnikov[g] wrote that the transfer of the See of Kyiv
from the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the authority of the Russian Orthodox
Church "never took place".[203] Later, Vetoshnikov made an analysis of the arguments of the
Russian Orthodox Church. He pointed out that, according to the strict dogmatic approach
(akribeia, ἀκρίβεια), the whole territory of Russia was originally subjected to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. After Muscovy had gone into schism in the 15th century, it received autocephaly
according to a more flexible approach (oikonomia, οἰκονομία) to heal this schism. The
Metropolitan of Kyiv at the same time remained within the jurisdiction of Constantinople. Then,
also according to the oikonomia approach, the right to ordain Metropolitans of Kyiv was
transferred to the Patriarch of Moscow. This was not a change in the boundaries of the Moscow
Patriarchate eparchy, as it was issued by a document of a lower level (ekdosis, ἐκδόσεως), which
was used for various temporary solutions. For pastoral reasons, the Ecumenical Patriarchate
subsequently did not assert its rights to this territory. But after the dissolution of the Soviet
Union there was a split among the Orthodox of Ukraine, and the Russian Church for 30 years
failed to overcome this split. And now, also for pastoral reasons, the Ecumenical Patriarchate
was forced to act in accordance with the principle of akribeia, and so it decided to abolish the
right to ordain Metropolitans of Kyiv which had been earlier transferred to the Moscow
Patriarchate in accordance with oikonomia.[204][205]

Arguments against the Ecumenical Patriarchate's claims

On 20 August 2018, the pro-Moscow anonymous site Union of Orthodox Journalists[206] analysed
the Ecumenical Patriarchate's claim of jurisdiction over Ukraine and concluded the See of Kyiv
had been transferred to the Patriarchate of Moscow. They added that even if the Ecumenical
Patriarchate decided to abrogate the 1686 transfer, the territory covered in 1686 by the See of
Kyiv's territory was "a far cry from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of today" and covered less
than half of Ukraine's current territory.[207]

19
In its 15 October 2018 official statement, the Russian Orthodox Church gave counterarguments
to the Ecumenical Patriarch's arguments.[50]

Metropolitan Hilarion, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church
Relations, declared in an interview that Constantinople's plan to "grant Autocephaly to a part of
the Russian Orthodox Church [...] that once was subordinate to Constantinople [...] runs counter
to historic truth". His argument is that the entire territory of Ukraine has not been under
Constantinople's jurisdiction for 300 years because the Kyiv metropolis that was incorporated
into the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686 was much smaller (it did not include Donbass, Odesa and
some other regions) and therefore does not coincide with the present-day territory of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church.[208] A similar argument was given on 13 November in a live phone
interview to Radio Liberty by the Head of the Information and Education Department of the
UOC-MP, Archbishop Clement.[209]

Archbishop Clement of the UOC-MP considers that "to revoke the letter on the transfer of the
Kyiv Metropolis in 1686 is the same as to cancel the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils of the
4th or 7th centuries."[210]

On 8 November 2018, the Union of Orthodox Journalists analyzed the same documents as The
Ecumenical Throne and the Ukrainian Church (the Patriarchal and Synodal "Act" or "Letter of
Issue" of 1686 and the 1686 Patriarchal Letter to the Kings of Russia) and again concluded that
the See of Kyiv had been "completely transferred to the jurisdiction of the Russian Church in
1686".[211]

Possibility of a pan-Orthodox synaxis on the question of Ukraine

The possibility of a pan-Orthodox synaxis (consultative assembly or conference) has been raised
before and after the official break of communion.

On 29 September 2018, Alexander Volkov [ru], the press secretary of the Patriarch of Moscow,
declared that the local Eastern Orthodox churches may initiate a pan-Orthodox Synaxis on the
issue of granting autocephaly to the Church in Ukraine, however the problem was that the
convening such a synaxis is "a prerogative of the First among the Equals, that is, the Ecumenical
Patriarch". Volkov noted that

Others [sic] forms [of pan-Orthodox synaxis] exist, too [...] There are the elders of the Church
who can take this task upon themselves. [...] If you look at the Diptychs [the table specifying the
order of commemorating the Primates of Orthodox Churches – TASS], the next in line [after the
Ecumenical Patriarch – TASS] is the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria. Or else, there is
the so-called synaxis of the eldest Patriarchs– of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch[212]

On 7 November, answering the question "Who could, for instance, convene a Pan-Orthodox
Council and chair it?", Metropolitan Hilarion declared in an interview, which was published on
the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church's Department for External Church Relations,
that it was "obvious" that the Ecumenical Patriarch could not chair a Pan-Orthodox Council since

20
"the most important problems in the Orthodox world are linked with precisely his anti-canonical
activity".[213]

On 4 December, when asked about the fact that convoking a pan-Orthodox council was a
prerogative of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan Hilarion replied:

which canons ? [...] I believe those canons do not exist, the Ecumenical councils were not
convoked by the Ecumenical Patriarch, they were convoked by the emperor. The fact the
Patriarch of Constantinople has been given the right to convey councils in the 20th century is the
result of a consensus reached by the local Orthodox churches. It is not at a personal initiative that
the council is convoked, but only with the consent of all the local churches. We had, until
recently, the first among equals, that is the Patriarch of Constantinople, who convoked the
councils in the name [...] of the local Orthodox churches. Now, the unifying element is no more
the Patriarchate of Constantinople which, so to speak, autodestroyed itself. It is its decision. [...]
We have to think about the future: who will convoke the councils, will it be the Patriarch of
Alexandria, or another Patriarch, or else we will generally not have a council? Whatever. The
Patriarch of Constantinople, as long as he stays in schism, even if he convokes a council the
Russian Orthodox Church will not take part in it.[214]

In an interview published on 21 February 2019 in the Serbian magazine Politika,[215] the

Ecumenical Patriarch said: "As for the provision of autocephaly with the consent of other
Orthodox Churches, this did not happen, because it is not a tradition in our Church. All the
Tomoses of the autocephaly that were granted to the newly created autocephalous churches
(Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Athens, Warsaw, Tirana and Presov) were
provided by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and this was not preceded by any agreement or
negotiation at the Pan-Orthodox level."[216]

Thus far, Patriarch John X of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch,[217][218] Patriarch Irinej
of the Serbian Orthodox Church,[218] Archbishop Chrysostomos II of the Church of Cyprus,[219]
Metropolitan Sawa (Hrycuniak) of the Polish Orthodox Church,[220] Metropolitan Tikhon of the
Orthodox Church in America,[note 4][221] Archbishop Anastasios, primate of the Albanian Orthodox
Church,[222][223][224][225] three hierarchs of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitans Gabriel of
Lovech, John of Varna and Veliki Preslav, and Daniel of Vedin),[226] and the Holy Synod of the
Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia[227] have expressed their desire for a pan-
Orthodox synaxis or pan-Orthodox council over the question of Ukraine in various statements.
On 12 November 2018, the Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church published a
communiqué in which they requested the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod.[228][229]

In 2019, the Ecumenical Patriarch declared in a letter to Patriarch John X of Antioch that he
would not convene a pan-Orthodox council on the question of Ukraine.[230][231][232]

Proposal of the Patriarch of Jerusalem

On 21 November 2019, Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem announced he would like to gather
in Jordan with the other Eastern Orthodox primates "in the spirit of fellowship – koinonia – so

21
that counsel will be taken together for the preservation of our unity in Eucharistic
communion."[233][234][235][236]

This initiative was welcomed by the ROC;[237][238] Metropolitan Hilarion, head of the DECR, also
added that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem had a "historic primacy" within the Eastern Orthodox
Church.[239]

In December 2019, the Holy Synods of the OCCLS[240][241] and of the ROC[242][243] supported the
proposal of meeting.

On 22 November, the primate of the Church of Greece declined the invitation.[244] At the
beginning of January, the primate of the Church of Cyprus said he had not replied to the
invitation because he "considered it prudent not to answer" and did not consider this meeting a
"serious act", and added that "only the Ecumenical Patriarch, no one else" had the right to
convene such a council.[245] At few days later, the answer of the Ecumenical Patriarch to the letter
of invitation of the Patriarch of Jerusalem was reported; the Ecumenical Patriarch stated he
refused the invitation and asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to stop his initiative of meeting.[246][247]
[248][249]
A few days later, the primate of the Church of Greece reiterated that he would not attend
Patriarch Theophilos III's meeting.[250] Later, it was reported that the Orthodox Churches of
Albania,[251] Poland, Alexandria,[252][253] Georgia,[254] Bulgaria[255][256] and Antioch[257] had stated
they would not come. The Romanian Orthodox Church said it would be present at the gathering,
but would not be presented by its Patriarch but by a delegation.[258]

The gathering took place on 26 February 2020. Were present the delegations of: the ROC with
Patriarch Kirill as leader, the Church of Jerusalem with Patriarch Theophilos as leader, the
Serbian Church with Patriarch Irinej as leader, the OCCLS with primate Met. Rastislav as leader,
the Polish Church with Abp. Abel (Poplavsky) of Lublin as leader, and the Romanian Church
with Met. Nifon Mihăiță [ro] as leader. After the gathering, the participants released a common
statement.[259][260][261][262]

Orthodox Church schism – a question of

sovereignty
The rival camps in the current schism in the Eastern Orthodox Church have a lot more to fight
about than church governance. Their dispute is being cast by Ukraine as a matter of national
sovereignty, an integral part of its drive to align with the West against Russian aggression.

Paralleling political divisions, the largest Orthodox church in the world – the Moscow
Patriarchate – is suddenly in schism with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (as it is
still called), which is considered to be the most venerable.

22
Their dispute hinges on the decision earlier this autumn by Patriarch Bartholomew I of
Constantinople to lift the ex-communication of two formerly unrecognised Ukrainian churches,
and to move towards merging them into a single ‘autocephalous’ Church of Ukraine,
autocephaly being the highest level of ecclesiastical self-rule in Orthodox Christianity. The
Russian Church, however, regards Ukraine as its canonical territory and refuses to recognise a
Ukrainian Orthodox Church independent of its jurisdiction. In retaliation, Patriarch Kirill of
Moscow has cut off all relations with Constantinople.

1054 and all that

The split is being described as the greatest rupture in Christianity since the Great Schism of
1054, which divided Eastern Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism. It threatens to split Orthodox
Christianity between those churches that remain loyal to their notional leader in Istanbul and
those that choose to side with the Russian patriarch.

But is this rupture as significant as has been reported? Throughout history, the Orthodox Church
has had a thoroughly centrifugal character with rival churches and dissident groups repeatedly
breaking apart, often as a result of nakedly political squabbles, only to reconcile again.

The 2018 rift is not even the only schism between Moscow and Constantinople in recent
decades. In 1996, they split over a dispute that parallels the current one, namely the latter’s move
to detach the Estonian Church from Moscow. But then Estonia was not being offered
autocephaly, but rather the lesser status of ‘autonomy’, and the Estonian Church is much less
important to Moscow and Orthodoxy as a whole than Ukraine.

But even if the current schism looks like a trivial dispute on paper, the rival camps have a lot
more to fight about than a question of church governance. Politically, President Petro
Poroshenko has explicitly cast it as a matter of Ukrainian sovereignty and its desire to align with
the West against Russian aggression. Meanwhile, in the ideological arena, the Orthodox world
faces a dangerous build-up of bad blood.

Orthodox history and geopolitics

The Eastern Orthodox Church has no central authority akin to that of the Pope. Rather, it consists
of a collection of independent churches, each headed by a patriarch, that share a single
communion. These separate churches are to varying degrees tied to their respective nations (as in
the Greek Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, etc.). Yet the
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople does hold a certain first-among-equals status among
them, being the heir to the spiritual leadership of the Byzantine Empire, the birthplace of
Orthodox Christianity.

But Byzantium is long gone and, far from the trappings of the spiritual leader of the Roman
Empire, Bartholomew is housed in a modest ‘cathedral’ in Istanbul, and his patriarchate is
limited to a slice of northern Greece and the negligible number of Orthodox Christians remaining
in the Republic of Turkey. His approximately four million congregants contrast with the 150
million or so faithful belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church under the spiritual guidance of

23
Patriarch Kirill. The Moscow Patriarchate’s congregation equals or possibly exceeds in number
that of all other Orthodox churches combined. As such, Moscow has long had pretentions of
being the true leader of Orthodox Christianity.

The regional organisation of the Apostolic Christian churches originates as a direct copy of the
Roman Empire’s provincial administration. Therefore, when autocephaly was first granted to a
daughter church outside the empire’s control, with Byzantine recognition of a Bulgarian Church
in 927, it established the precedent that Constantinople could grant religious independence in the
same way that the emperor could grant political self-rule. Thus autocephaly has been closely tied
to nationhood throughout Orthodox history, and so for a nation and people to be respected as
distinct and equal members of the Orthodox family, their independence must be expressed in
both political and ecclesiastical terms.

To a large extent, Russia’s refusal to recognise Kievan self-rule is in keeping with its perennial
contempt for Ukrainian nationhood. In ecclesiastical terms, the granting of self-rule is supposed
to signify the recognition that the given Christian community has achieved spiritual maturity and
deserves to stand as one of the co-equal pillars of the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Russia is unwilling to grant Ukraine the same religious independence that the Byzantine Empire
was forced, as a consequence of military defeat, to grant Bulgaria. Byzantium was never able to
reabsorb the Bulgarian nation into its realm, even after it was reconquered in the 11th century.
We must also remember that Ukraine is the birthplace of Russian Orthodox Christianity,
beginning with the conversion of Kievan Rus in the 10th century. Kirill’s full title is actually
‘Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus’.

Western decadence versus Eurasian family values

In many ways this schism comes down to a simple left-right divide, for Moscow’s bid to be the
leader of Orthodoxy is attached to a particular view of what Orthodoxy should be. Much like
Russia as a whole, the Russian Church has in recent years cultivated an ideological brand for
itself, drawing praise from reactionaries around the world for standing up for traditional values
against the decadence and perversion of liberal modernity. Many in the Orthodox world see the
advance of the West since the Cold War as having advanced the deracination of individualism
and moral relativism, leading to the dissolution of faith, family and, therefore, civilisation.

The concerns vary. Sometimes Islam is the enemy or, at any rate, Muslim migrants to Europe
represent the ‘whip of God’ come to punish and subjugate faithless Europeans for their ‘issues of
gender, childlessness, abortions, nudist beaches, and shameless women’. Other times Islam is
seen as an ally, as when the Russian Church made common cause with the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation, in order to advocate a view of human dignity on the UN Human Rights
Council more in keeping with ‘traditional values’.

Homosexuality is very often the target, as when Patriarch Kirill expressed his deep wariness
about the spread of same-sex marriage in the West, viewing it as part of a trend of detaching the
law from ‘our God-given moral nature’. ‘The Church can never redefine good and evil, sin and

24
righteousness’, he argued, as well as that the apparent deconstruction of the family ‘poses a
significant threat to the existence of the human race’.

In all cases, Russia emerges as the supposed bulwark against the liberal West and all of its
instruments of social decay. Thus although Kirill has, according to his critics, shaped the Russian
Church into an arm of the Russian state and been a font of Putinist reactionary propaganda –
having among other things called Putin’s presidency a ‘miracle of God’ – there are those who see
both men together as leading the defence of Christendom.

Long criticised by Orthodox traditionalists for his perceived liberalism and excessive
ecumenism, Bartholomew’s decision is seen by the Russian side as working in step with
American imperialism, seeking to detach Ukraine from Holy Russia according to some of the
same Westward-leaning impulses behind the Euromaidan protests. In doing so, he draws support
from those Orthodox Christians who would oppose their religion becoming further identified as a
tool of Russian imperialism, ideological or otherwise. This is a particularly powerful motive in
Greece, where a potent mix of national and religious pride nurtures deep mutual bitterness
between Greek and Russian Christians.

Given that Russia continues to encroach on Ukrainian geographical sovereignty, those who
refuse to bow to Moscow’s claimed ecclesiastical sphere of influence have ample reason for
concern. Yet it is dangerous to let political disputes fan the flames of civilisational enmity.
Considering that Aleksandr Shchipkov, Russian social scientist and adviser to the Chairperson of
the Russian State Duma, has stated that Kiev and Constantinople are aiming to bring the
Orthodox Church into compliance with the ‘new world order’ and all its modernist errors, ‘be it
transhumanism, abortions, same-sex marriages, juvenile justice, social Darwinism or what have
you’, it would seem that the flames have been fanned more than enough.

To Recognize a “Church” Having Hierarchs

Without Apostolic Succession is a Serious
Challenge
Protopresbyter Anastasios Gotsopoulos

Necessary clarifications:

25
1. This article was written with fear and trepidation before the danger of recognition by the Local
Churches of episcopal “consecrations” without Apostolic succession, which threatens to
irreversibly tarnish the episcopal body of global Orthodoxy.

I will be sincerely glad if it’s confirmed that I am mistaken in any of the information I have
brought forth or if I have come to wrong conclusions.

2. In order to avoid a scandal, I am completely silent about the moral qualities of the “bishops”
of the schismatic groups in Ukraine, for here the expression of the apostle Paul is appropriate: It
is a shame even to speak… It is amazing, however, how recklessly and hastily they were granted
“autocephaly” and are now demanding recognition from the other Orthodox Churches,
challenging the inter-Orthodox Church consciousness.

3. I hope that circumstances will not force us to publish such kinds of information to the disgrace
of those who recognize people with such qualities as pastors of the people of God.

***

26
 Protopresbyter Anastasios Gotsopoulos
According to the announcement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on October 11, 2018, the Holy
Synod of the Ecumenical throne decided to accept “the petitions of appeal of Philaret Denisenko
and Makary Maletich, and their followers… Thus, the above mentioned have been canonically
reinstated to their hierarchical or priestly rank, and their faithful have been restored to
communion with the Church.”

As for Philaret’s appeal, we mentioned in our earlier publication1 that the Ecumenical throne
already examined Philaret’s appeal in 1992 and rejected it then. We will also note that since then,
for twenty-six years in a row, Philaret not only did not show any respect for the decision of the
competent Church court, but also violated it, ignoring the pan-Orthodox recognition of his
conviction, having committed the most serious Church crimes (having performed dozens of
ordinations while defrocked, having formed a schismatic Synod, having declared himself a
patriarch, having entered into communion with the schismatics of other Churches, and having
infested Ukraine and other areas with their altars, etc.), of provoking a schism and the confusion
of the people.

Consequently, the Moscow Patriarchate’s conviction, brought in his case in 1992, was not
subject to appeals in accordance with the 4th Canon of the Council of Antioch, the 22nd

27
Apostolic Canon, the 37th Canon of the Council of Carthage (according to The Rudder) due to
the decades-long anti-canonical and defiant behavior of Philaret.

As for Makary Maletich, the leader of the schismatic “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox
Church (UAOC),2 his case is fundamentally different and is extremely serious for all of
Orthodoxy.

Note that Maletich’s group is represented in the new “autocephalous” church by fifteen
“bishops,” while there are fifty bishops in all (that is, Maletich’s bishops make up thirty percent
of the total number of hierarchs of the new church).

It is also worth noting that those defending the Phanar’s choice in the Ukrainian question talk
about Philaret and his notorious “rehabilitation,” while they are completely silent about the much
more serious situation with Makary.

He is never mentioned. This is cause for particular concern for us because while the Russian
Orthodox Church has competently advanced serious accusations (some of which were
published), the competent bodies both of the Phanar and of the new “autocephalous” church in
Kiev remain silent. They provide no explanations to refute the allegations, thus creating the basis
for widening concern.

In the announcement of the act of the restoration of Makary, the Ecumenical Patriarch speaks
about Makary Maletich’s appeal, which (as is known) was submitted for the purpose of
canceling the verdict against the bishop.

However, Makary Maletich had no right to submit an appeal as he hadn’t been condemned by an
ecclesiastical court as a bishop.

He was a protopresbyter of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate),

then left its jurisdiction and joined the schismatic UAOC. The [canonical] Church of Ukraine
removed him from ministry.

On November 3, 1996, being a member of the schismatic UAOC, he was “consecrated” as a

“bishop” by hierarchs having no canonical consecration, namely Dmitry Yarema, Igor Isichenko,
and Methody Kudryakov.

All three who “consecrated” Makary have no Apostolic succession, as they received their
consecrations from a known charlatan—the self-consecrated Vincent Chekalin.3

However, due to the fact that Makary was in a schismatic group, in which he was “consecrated,”
the Russian Orthodox Church didn’t deal with his case and, of course, never judged him in the
status of “bishop.”

Consequently, two very important questions arise.

28
 1. If no judgment against “bishop” Makary Maletich exists, then what guilty verdict did
he appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch? And, following from that, what guilty verdict was
overturned by the Patriarchal and Synodal decision of October 11, 2018?

2. When and by what canonical consecration did Makary receive the “hierarchical rank?”
When was he deprived of the “hierarchical rank,” which he acquired, in order to restore
him now to this rank by decision of the Patriarchate? How did the Holy Synod of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate “reinstate [Makary] to the hierarchical rank?” Could it be
possible that the Synodal Patriarchal decision on the appeal compensated for the lack of
Apostolic succession in his episcopal consecration? And since when do the “canonical
prerogatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople to accept appeals from hierarchs and other
clergy from every autocephalous Church” also include the correction of the absence of
Apostolic succession in an episcopal ordination?

The bishops of the UAOC (making up thirty percent of the new “autocephalous” church of
Ukraine) were consecrated by two people: one deposed, and one self-consecrated! The deposed
former bishop John Bodnarchuk and the self-consecrated charlatan Viktor (Vincent) Chekalin,
who in the 1990s “consecrated” the first “bishops,” establishing a group of schismatics and non-
canonical and Apostolic succession-less hierarchy for the UAOC.

Let’s be more specific.

John Bodnarchuk was the bishop of Zhytomyr of the Moscow Patriarchate, in the bosom of
which he was canonically consecrated as a bishop on October 23, 1977 by Metropolitan Philaret
(Denisenko) of Kiev and other bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which was in
canonical communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and all Orthodox Churches.

However, he separated from his Church and therefore on November 14, 1989 was deposed by
decision of the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate. He never submitted an appeal. He was a
member of the schismatic UAOC and, being deposed, together with Vincent Chekalin
consecrated the first “bishops” in the UAOC schism.

In 1992, he appealed to the Moscow Patriarchate to return to the Russian Orthodox Church, but
in 1993 he joined the schismatic “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate” (UOC
KP) under the leadership of Philaret (Denisenko).

Viktor (Vincent) Chekalin was a deacon of the Russian Orthodox Church. He was never
ordained as a priest or as a bishop, not even in a schismatic group. In 1987, he was a teacher in
an agricultural school in the Kaluga Province, where (on the basis of complaints from the parents
of students) he was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting minors.

After his early release in 1988, he declared himself the “Bishop of Yasnaya Polyana” of the
“True Orthodox Church.” He published texts where he critiqued the Church leadership of the
Russian Orthodox Church, accusing it of ecumenism and connections with other confessions.

29
In 1990, he moved to Jordanville in the U.S. in search of the support of the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside of Russia but was driven out and deported from the United States for stealing
antimensions and liturgical books.

He subsequently arrived in Ukraine and entered the UAOC in the imaginary status of a bishop of
the “catacomb church,” where together with the deposed bishop John Bodnarchuk, he founded
the hierarchy of the UAOC, having “consecrated” Vasily Bodnarchuk and Andrei Abramchuk
(3/24/1990 and 4/7/1990).

Later, at the end of 1990, he joined the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church (Uniate), and the Uniate
Vladimir Sternyuk, the bishop of Lvov, appointed him the “first hierarch of the Russian Catholic
church” (Uniate) on behalf of the pope of Rome, with the right to consecrate and receive bishops
and to found dioceses, and all other rights in terms of management, having also issued a
corresponding letter. Chekalin proceeded to create Greek Catholic (Uniate) communities in
Latvia and Russia.

In 1991, the Vatican officially recognized that Vincent Chekalin has no canonical hierarchical
consecration, is not a bishop, and is not subject to the Uniate Metropolia of Lvov, while Bishop
Vladimir Sternyuk was removed from his position for his cooperation with Chekalin.

In the early 1990s, Chekalin deceived a married couple from among his spiritual children and
kidnapped their ten-year-old son and fled to Australia with him. There he presented the child as
his son and received a new ID with the name Vincent Berg, and Australian citizenship.

The child’s mother later accused Chekalin several times of kidnapping and molesting a minor,
but attempts to return the child to the family were unsuccessful. In Australia, Chekalin long
presented himself as the victim of political repression in the USSR, as a bishop of the Anglican
church, and a “psychiatrist of a secret KGB school.”

In September 2018, Chekalin was sentenced in Australia to four years and three months
imprisonment for numerous acts of fraud and falsification, as he presented himself as a
psychiatrist, presenting fake diplomas. He was also charged with sexual crimes against minors.
Evidence of the charges has been published in the Australian media and online.

Unfortunately, the majority of the “hierarchs” of the UAOC received their consecration from
such “hierarchs,” without any Apostolic succession.

The “hierarchy” of the UAOC appeared on March 24, 1990, with the “consecration” of Vasily
Bodnarchuk as “bishop” by the deposed former Moscow Patriarchate bishop John Bodnarchuk
and the self-consecrated, that is, having no consecration to the episcopate, charlatan Vincent
Chekalin. Subsequently, on April 7, 1990, the self-consecrated Vincent Chekalin and Vasily
Bodnarchuk “consecrated” Andrei Abramchuk as a “bishop.”

After that, they created the “hierarchy” of the schismatic group under the leadership of Makary
Maletich—the “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.”

30
Today the Synod of the new “autocephalous” church of Ukraine under the leadership of the new
“metropolitan” Epiphany, which received a tomos of autocephaly from Constantinople, consists
of fifteen “bishops” of the UAOC of Makary Maletich, having received “consecration” from
John Bodnarchuk and the self-consecrated Vincent Chekalin. That is, thirty percent of the
“hierarchs” of the new “autocephalous” church of Ukraine have no Apostolic succession…

However, the greatest tragedy will occur if they find—God forbid!—Local Orthodox Churches
that, wishing to serve worldly purposes, recognize such consecrations as canonical and Spirit-
bearing…

So far, thank God, it hasn’t happened, but every Orthodox Church faces with fear and trembling
the danger of recognizing the self-consecrated, Apostolic succession-less, as canonical bishops
of the Church of Christ, which would irreparably tarnish the episcopal body of the global
Orthodox Church.

Protopresbyter Anastasios Gotsopoulos

Translated by Jesse Dominick

Pravoslavie.ru

5/7/2019

A Political Structure and an Unwanted

Autocephaly
An interview by Kathimerini with Metropolitan Hilarion
(Alfeyev). Part 2
Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev)

Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, the Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department

for External Church Relations, answered questions from the Greek newspaper Kathimerini on
Metropolitan Onuphry, forced autocephaly, and Russian-Greek relations.

Part 1: The Lord Has Entrusted Us With a Church That Has Existed for 1,000 Years

31
 Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and all Ukraine     

—You mentioned Vladyka Onuphry, his recognition, and so on. But then again, it’s often
noted that in the 1990s, Metropolitan Onuphry himself signed the letter asking for
autocephaly. Perhaps you just pressured him and forced him to stick to a position in favor
of the Russian Orthodox Church?

—If you knew His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry, then you would understand that he is a
person who cannot be pressured at all. He makes decisions as his hierarchical conscience tells
him and as the Holy Spirit tells him.

What happened in the early 1990s? Philaret Denisenko, then the Metropolitan of Kiev in the
Russian Orthodox Church, assumed he would become the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.
He was already the locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne, but the Local Council did not elect
him as Patriarch. He harbored great resentment and decided to become “patriarch” in Ukraine.
Soon after his return to Ukraine, having secured the support of then-President Kravchuk, Philaret
Denisenko demanded that the Ukrainian Church be given autocephaly. He convinced the
episcopate of the Ukrainian Church that it was necessary to sign this letter.

Vladyka Onuphry was young then, just consecrated as a bishop. He signed the letter together
with everyone, and then, when they began to understand, when they saw that it was all done to

32
divide the Ukrainian Church from the Russian Church, that everything was happening under
pressure from the secular authorities, the bishops one by one began to withdraw their signatures,
including Bishop Onuphry, now His Beatitude, the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine.

If someone suggests that we are pressuring him now, well, excuse me, but we don’t have any
means of doing so—neither political, nor financial, nor administrative. The Ukrainian Orthodox
Church is self-governing, with its own episcopate, its own Synod, and they independently elect
their bishops. The only thing that remains is the historical prayerful connection between the
Ukrainian Church and the Russian Church, but the Ukrainian Orthodox Church doesn’t want to
lose this connection, and therefore it doesn’t want autocephaly. Moreover, it doesn’t want
autocephaly on the basis of schismatics. Therefore, statements that we are exerting some kind of
pressure are absolutely untrue.

—Still, one of the arguments for autocephaly is that Ukraine has been an independent state
for a long time now. Perhaps the Russian Orthodox Church just dreams of somehow
preserving an empire that doesn’t actually exist?

—We’re not interested in any empire—we’re interested in the Church that exists in reality, that
is, the united Russian Orthodox Church, which has more than 100 million faithful, more than
40,000 parishes, and about 1,000 monasteries. We want to preserve it regardless of what political
borders arise on the canonical space of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Political borders have changed many times throughout the thousand years of the Russian
Church’s existence, but we don’t believe the emergence of new borders should lead to the
Church being divided up. Otherwise, we’d have to divide the Russian Church into fifteen parts,
the Antiochian Church into two or three, the Church of Jerusalem into three or four, and the
Alexandrian Church into more than fifty parts. After all, there are more than fifty states in
Africa. Why is there only one Church?

Therefore, we don’t see the need to listen to political arguments. We have to listen to the will of
the episcopate, the clergy, and the Church people. How did any autocephaly in Church history
begin? With this or that Church declaring its desire to receive independence. This process did not
always go smoothly. And unlike what the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople are
indoctrinating everyone with now, Constantinople certainly did not grant autocephaly in every
case.

For example, the Russian Church did not receive any tomos of autocephaly from the Church of
Constantinople. We’ve been living without such a tomos for more than 500 years now. The
Russian Church proclaimed its autocephaly when the Patriarch of Constantinople signed the
union with Rome, that is, there was not an Orthodox patriarch on the throne of Constantinople,
but a Uniate patriarch. Then our bishops had to gather and elect their metropolitan without the
sanction of Constantinople. Then the Patriarchate was established in Rus’, and when it happened,
gramotas were received, signed not by the Ecumenical Patriarch alone, but by all the eastern
patriarchs. They recognized the Moscow Patriarch as fifth in the diptychs, and recognized him
precisely in the rank of patriarch.

33
Therefore, those who now tell us that the Patriarch of Constantinople, you see, had the right to
grant autocephaly to Ukraine are incorrect. He had no such right. It cannot be done without the
consent of the Ukrainian Church people and the Ukrainian episcopate, and without the consent of
the Russian Church.

He deliberately violated the canons of the Church in order to harm the Russian Orthodox Church,
as, unfortunately, has happened in the past. For example, when the revolution happened in
Russia, the Renovationist schism emerged, and at first, then-Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) of
Constantinople did not support this schism, but his successor Patriarch Gregory VII actually
supported the Renovationists through his representative in Moscow.

We have documentary evidence of this. For example, a letter was sent to our Patriarch-confessor
St. Tikhon, which said: “We suggest that you immediately renounce the Patriarchal throne and
we consider that the Patriarchate in Russia should be abolished.” These actions were undertaken
by Constantinople at a time when the Russian Church was facing persecutions that the whole
world knew about. Our priests were being shot, our churches blown up, our monasteries
destroyed—and the Patriarch of Constantinople supported the schism within the Russian Church.

And now the Patriarchate of Constantinople has supported the schism within the Ukrainian
Church.

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev)     

—You know that Constantinople accuses the Russian Orthodox Church of systematically
undermining its ecumenical status, including by cultivating the theory of “Third Rome.” A

34
whole book on this was published in Greece saying you want to somehow lead Orthodoxy
in the world, because you have the largest flock. Is there any truth to this?

—There is not a single drop of truth in these claims, except that we are indeed the most
numerous Church. This fact is not something we get proud about, but something that imposes
great responsibility upon us for our flock, for preserving its unity.

If to touch upon the overblown mythology about the Russian Church, including the accusation
that we supposedly preach the “Third Rome” theory, then provide at least one official document
of our Church, one decision of our Church Council, the words of the Patriarch, or, for example,
my speeches, which would say that we recognize Moscow as the Third Rome. There are none.
This was an idea formulated several centuries ago and long since left in the past. It’s of no
interest to us, as we have no desire to lead world Orthodoxy. We are quite satisfied with the
place we occupy.

We officially recognized the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople when the document “On
Primacy in the Universal Church” was written and adopted at the Bishops’ Council of the
Russian Orthodox Church in 2013. It says there in black and white that we recognize the
Patriarch of Constantinople as first among equals in the family of the primates of the Local
Orthodox Churches. But we recognize him as first in honor, not first in power. We don’t believe
that the Patriarch of Constantinople has any authority outside his canonical jurisdiction or has the
right to interfere in the internal life of the other Local Churches—we categorically disagree with
such ideas.

The document I’m talking about was adopted in 2013, when we were in unity with the Patriarch
of Constantinople, but now this Patriarch is not to be found in our diptychs. Now there is a
different ecclesiological situation, reminiscent of situations that arose in the past, for example,
when Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople was teaching in the fifth century that the Theotokos
must be called the Christotokos. The Third Ecumenical Council was called, which the Patriarch
of Constantinople certainly did not preside over. He was accused there and was condemned for
his heresy. Then another Patriarch of Constantinople was elected. So, history knows situations
when the Church existed without an Orthodox patriarch on the throne in Constantinople.

Let us also recall that in the mid-fifteenth century, the Russian Church became autocephalous
because the Patriarch of Constantinople had signed the union with Rome; that is, at that moment,
there was not an Orthodox patriarch on the throne in Constantinople.

The Russian Orthodox Church perceives today’s situation the same way. Many Orthodox
believers are now saying there is no Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople because the Patriarch
of Constantinople has joined the schismatics. All of Russia, the entire Russian Orthodox Church
has seen pictures where Patriarch Bartholomew is concelebrating with the leader of the
Ukrainian schism. I think this situation has a very adverse impact on the overall climate of inter-
Orthodox relations. But I repeat: It’s incorrect to say that we break communion with one,
another, or a third Church. We don’t break communion with Churches, but stand for the
canonical tradition of the Church and uphold the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church. We will
never depart from this path.

35
—You have often spoken about pressure from outside on the decisions of the Patriarch of
Constantinople. As I understand it, you are referring to American diplomacy, which has
made the topic of Ukraine one of its top initiatives. In the end, the Patriarch in
Constantinople lives in an Islamic environment. He needs some kind of diplomatic support.
He turned to the United States, for example. The Russian Orthodox Church also works
very closely with the Russian government, with embassies, with the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. Why can’t others work with state structures, but the Russian Orthodox Church
can, for example?

—It’s very simple. Every primate of a Local Church decides who to work with. If such work is
aimed at defending the interests of his Church, at preserving the unity of Orthodoxy, then why
not work together? Why shouldn’t the Russian Church work with the Russian government in
building churches in Russia, teaching theology in universities, in ensuring that people have free
access to religion, to the Church?

If we were talking about the Patriarch of Constantinople working with the United States to
preserve Orthodox sacred treasures, to defend its interests on its own canonical territory, would
anyone object? I think not. But when the Patriarch of Constantinople relies on eternal forces for
actions aimed at destroying Orthodoxy unity, at damaging the Local Orthodox Churches, of
course we can’t agree with this. As for the Russian Orthodox Church, we’re not invading
anywhere, not taking anything away from anyone. We only take care to preserve the Church we
have received from our forebears.

***

Here the interviewer asks about Russia’s ties with Turkey and why more was not done about the
recent Agia Sophia crisis. Metropolitan Hilarion notes that Patriarch Kirill was the first primate
to speak out, then the Holy Synod expressed its concern, and then President Putin expressed
concern directly to Erdogan. The conversion of Agia Sophia and the Chora Monastery into
mosques is a great tragedy not only for the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but for all of
Orthodoxy, Metropolitan Hilarion says.

***

—Let’s go back to history a bit. Next year, the 200th anniversary of the Greek uprising
against the Ottomans for their freedom will be celebrated. Russia played a very important
role in this uprising. What is Greece for Church people in Russia? What is the Greek
Church and Greece? Despite all the problems, maybe something important enough
remains that we are united?

*** Metropolitan Hilarion first speaks about what Greece means to him personally. ***

—If we’re talking about relations between our Churches and our people in general, I would like
to express the hope that the Greek people will not forget the feat of the Russian soldiers who
took part in the liberation of Greece from the Ottoman yoke, spilling their blood on the Greek
land. I really hope that, despite the division that has arisen, we will be able to maintain our ties at

36
the cultural, spiritual, and ecclesiastical levels. Yes, we had to break off relations with several
hierarchs of the Greek Church now (hopefully temporarily), including its primate, but we
maintain unity with many other hierarchs.

I hope we will celebrate all such significant dates together. Our Churches have gone through a
very difficult history. The Russian Orthodox Church is a martyric Church. For seventy years, it
suffered from the godless authorities. Practically all of our bishops and clergy were physically
exterminated in the 1930s. Literally only a few remained alive. Many of our churches were
blown up, closed, destroyed, and wiped off the face of the Earth. We have come through all of
this, and for more than thirty years now there has been an unprecedented revival of Church life in
Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and in other countries of the Russian Orthodox Church’s canonical
responsibility.

We very much hope that the sad events that have taken place in the Orthodox world will not
destroy the centuries-old ties that exist between our faithful and between our peoples.

—Thank you, Vladyka, for this informative interview.

—Thank you, Athanasios.

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev)

Translation by Jesse Dominick

DECR Communication Service

12/22/2020

The Topic of Autocephaly is the Only One

Worthy of a Pan-Orthodox Council
Bishop Irinej of Bačka

In his presentation at the “World Orthodoxy: Primacy and Conciliarity in the Light of Orthodox
Dogmatic Teaching” conference, the bishop of Bačka Irinej of the Serbian Orthodox Church
touched upon one of the most sensitive topics of inter-Orthodox relations, that is to say, the issue
of autocephaly.

37
    

Your Holiness,
Your Eminences and Your Graces,
My dear brother bishops,
All-honourable fathers the priests and monks,
Dear brothers and sisters,

I believe that the topic of the unity of the Church and conciliarity should most definitely include
the topic of autocephaly since autocephaly as the structure of church order throughout the
centuries should be the affirmation and strengthening of the conciliarity and unity of the Church,
while in actual fact it has become a wall of temptation and a stumbling block. It not only does
not serve the cause of strengthening the Orthodox faith and the growth of the body of the
Universal Orthodox Church, but above all it does not serve the soteriological goal of the
salvation of the souls of the faithful; on the contrary, unfortunately, it is used today as a weapon
and means for the destruction of church unity by aiming to redefine Orthodox ecclesiology.

The canonical disorder, canonical anarchy, interference and intervention into the canonical
territory of the other Local Orthodox Churches has already received a pitiful quasi-theological
treatment and justification. The pastoral aspect and soteriological perspective of the Church’s
mission in the world lose their relevance and are even ignored. All of this is happening before

38
our very eyes and is demonstrated in our time by the sad way in which the Patriarchate of
Constantinople – our Mother Church - has behaved, unfortunately forgetting what maternal care
and love actually mean.

If we examine ecclesiastical autocephaly in the historical perspective, in the context of all the
events of church history, then we may find various definitions and theories regarding what
autocephaly actually is, what it entails, the conditions for granting and receiving it and so on.
One hundred years ago the renowned Sergei Alexandrovich Troitsky, whom I consider to be
equally a Russian and Serbian theologian, wrote about the situation today in the land of Ukraine
as though he were witness to these events. And, like St. Sophrony (Sakharov), he expressed his
profound concerns regarding the actions and theories which arose a century ago in
Constantinople and which, unfortunately, are today being used for justification for its actions by
the more renowned theologians of the Church of Constantinople.

Fr om the various definitions and descriptions of the concept of autocephaly we can draw a very
simple conclusion: autocephaly is the right of bishops of a single church territory to call their
own independent episcopal council and choose their primate, the election of which is not subject
to confirmation or consent fr om a higher ecclesiastical centre but which is accepted by all the
Orthodox Churches. All the other elements and aspects of autocephaly are of secondary
importance: it is not so important who commemorates who, whether the holy myrrh is prepared
independently or whether it is received from Constantinople – these are merely details which do
not define the essence of autocephaly. In this sense, autocephaly, especially that which has come
about as a result of a serious crisis – a crisis that could be removed from church practice in
general – should have been the topic of the Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete. The Serbian and
Russian Orthodox Churches proposed and demanded that this topic be discussed at the Council. I
would even say that this topic should have been the only topic for a Pan-Orthodox Council. A
Council has never been akin to a scholarly or theological conference. Councils have always
examined problems, especially heresies or canonical violations, which threatened the unity of the
Church. Unfortunately, already at the early stages of preparation for the Council in Crete back in
the 1960s a catalogue was drawn up containing 105 different topics, which is far too many even
for a conference. And only towards the end were several topics announced that more or less
touched upon the challenges, trials and temptations which Universal Orthodoxy encounters.

The subject of autocephaly and the subject of ecclesiastical autonomy was worked upon for two
or three decades at the pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar meetings and conferences, at the conclusion
of which a pan-Orthodox text was adopted wh ere, unfortunately, there was only one issue upon
which there was disagreement – the means of signing a commonly accepted document (i.e., a
Tomos). And when in Chambésy at the preliminary sessions we started to touch upon the topic
of autocephaly, the president coldly and sharply told us that as so much time had been lost on
other topics (even though these were at times not so important), there was no time for the topic
of autocephaly and that it would not be on the agenda. And, as His Holiness Patriarch Kirill
correctly noted, it was for this reason (although I cannot assert this) that this topic was
deliberately removed from the agenda, and therefore if the Council had adopted a common
Orthodox position regarding autocephaly, as had been the case for decades, then this would have
prevented the tragic events which came about as a result of the anti-canonical interference by

39
Constantinople into the affairs of the inner life of the Russian Orthodox Church in the land of
Ukraine.

The concept of autocephaly developed over centuries. As is well-know, in the time of the
apostles each local Church was the fullness of the Catholic Church, which is to say, she was the
presence of the entire Catholic Church in a certain locality and in a certain time as the fullness of
the grace of the Holy Spirit in the communion of the bishop, priests and laity of the faithful
people of God.

For practical reasons, with the growth of the Church and her mission to the world it was
necessary to organize a system of so-called metropolitanates. During the period of the
Ecumenical Councils, especially up until the Fourth Ecumenical Council, there were more than
one hundred autocephalous metropolitanates within the Roman empire. But there also existed
metropolitanates outside of its confines, and its is vital to bear in mind that some Churches
located beyond the borders of the Byzantine or Roman empire were even older that the Church
of Constantinople. As a result, a system developed that proposed that several dioceses could be
become part of a single metropolitanate, while several metropolitanates could form a broader
unit known as an exarchate. The Fourth Ecumenical Council mentions the so-called exarch of the
diocese. According to some interpretations, this is the Patriarch of Constantinople, but I think
this to be unlikely. I adhere to the opinion of those who believe that the exarch of these dioceses
was the Primate of a very broad ecclesiastical structure.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council and after it definitively asserted the patriarchal system of
autocephalous Churches, by which was meant the pentarchy (the five apostolic ancient
Churches) and other Churches, for example, the Churches of Armenia and Georgia, which were
located beyond or were only partly within the confines of the empire, and which lived and
developed without the pentarchy.

The fate of this system of ecclesiastical structure and organization changed radically after the fall
of Constantinople when the Ottoman empire became the heir of fallen Byzantium. Even the
Sultan in his many titles was also called the ‘emperor of the Romans’, believing himself to be
their legitimate heir. And it was in this capacity that on the basis of his Muslim beliefs he granted
to the Patriarch of Constantinople rights and powers which he did not enjoy even under the
Roman Christian empire. The Patriarch of Constantinople became a so-called ethnarch (millet-
bashi) who had not only had pastoral care for Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman empire,
but also exercised political power over them, he could even gather taxes for the Sultan without
the direct participation of the Turkish authorities and bureaucrats.

So, in those times we can see the birth of some of the ideas which have gathered traction in the
twentieth century, as we have already mentioned. We have come this conclusion on the basis of
the history of the Tomes which Constantinople granted to autocephalous Churches or the
recognition of the autocephalous status of the Georgian Church; indeed, nobody can say that she
never had autocephaly, even though formulas were found in order not to mention the actual
granting of autocephalous status but merely the confirmation of autocephaly by the Church of
Antioch to the Georgian Church.

40
In the period from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when the Russian Orthodox Church
received autocephaly, we can trace the bolstering of the notion that Constantinople owns the
topic of autocephaly and unilaterally and autocratically decides the extent of each autocephalous
status and in what manner it is to be granted. In this sense, the Patriarchate of Constantinople
later would ever more restrict autocephaly. We may say that the autocephaly which the Russian
Church received was complete, genuine and authentic. Similar to it were the autocephaly of the
Serbian and Bulgarian Churches and a number of others, for example, the Romanian Church.
Other subsequent autocephalous were limited, and in time we end up with the so-called
“autocephaly” of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (it would be better to say the “pseudo-
Church”), wh ere there is no autocephaly as such at all.

There are some distinguished theologians in the Greek world (some of whom are friends from
my youth) who adhere to the very strange idea that it is only by the good will of the Patriarchs of
Constantinople (or, by contrast, the lack of good will) that there depends whether to grant
autocephaly to a particular Church. One of these theologians, to my regret and sorrow, has stated
that it was a great error on the part of Constantinople to grant autocephaly, as he expressed it, to
the “Russian Horde” and “amassed savages”. However, he completely ignores the fact that this
autocephaly (at first unofficial, but then real and vital) was a stance taken compelled by the fact
that at that time Constantinople had become a Uniate Church: metropolitan Isidore [who then
supported the Unia] had simply been expelled from Moscow and the Uniate programme had
been rejected.

Something similar happened with Serbian autocephaly in the thirteenth century. There was then
the Latin kingdom in Constantinople, while the remains of Byzantium and the Patriarch of
Constantinople found themselves in exile and emigration in Nicaea and other places. Serbia at
that time was located (and remains located) on the border between the Western Roman and
Eastern Roman world. The Catholic presence and proselytism were keenly felt – even St.
Sabba’s own brother in Montenegro was a Catholic. St. Sabba had to strengthen Orthodoxy in
his own land. This was not an uprising against the existing order, of which he was accused and
remains to be accused by some, but simply a struggle for Orthodoxy, which is one of the
fundamental aspects of the life and mission of an autocephalous Church

And then the period of the Ottoman rule came to an end. Byzantium no longer existed, the
Ottoman empire was no more, Constantinople was no longer the “city of Caesar and the Senate”,
no longer the city of the Sultan, and no longer the city of the Pentarch the Patriarch of
Constantinople. It is no longer even the capital of Turkey; it is a large but by no means capital
city. New autocephalous Churches have appeared over the past centuries – not always
voluntarily, and at times even compelled by circumstance. And in the modern epoch the
authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople has become considerably diminished. It has lost
its authority not only over all the countries and Churches which were under it at the time of
Turkish rule (as is well-known, at that time the Patriarchate of Constantinople simply used its
force to swallow up Trnovo in Bulgaria and Pečka in Serbia, as well as other jurisdictions; there
remained only those jurisdictions which were outside the borders of the Ottoman empire – for
example, the metropolitanate of Karlovci, known to Russians as Sremski Karlovci, which was a
centre of Russian emigré life and so on). Constantinople has been left without the majority of its
flock on its ancient territory of Asia Minor, while at the same we witness the emergence of the

41
neo-papist theories, familiar since the time of Meletius (Metaxasis) and then Athenagoras, and
especially, alas, in our day.

In this sense, when examining the practice of granting all forms and types of autocephaly, we
must distinguish between full, genuine autocephaly and incomplete, damaged, partial and
conditional autocephaly. An example of this is the Church of Greece. She never received full
autocephaly and does not enjoy full autocephaly to this day in that, although she elects her own
Council, the Council does not elect the Primate of the Church. There is no Primate in Athens –
there is only the Holy Synod, which has a president, but there is no Primate of the Church as
such. This is reminiscent of the situation in Russia during the Petrine period when there was no
patriarch, but only the Synod and ober-procurator. Further steps in this direction would mean a
visible, fictitious and in essence non-existing autocephaly, like [as set in the Tome granted by
Constantinople] the limitations of the autocephaly of the Church of the Czech Lands and
Slovakia and other such autocephalies.

But the “autocephaly” granted to the Ukrainian schismatics is not autocephaly or even autonomy.
The rights and freedoms enjoyed, for example, by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as an
autonomous and self-governing Church within the Russian Orthodox Church, or the rights and
freedoms once granted by our Serbian Church to the schismatics of northern Macedonia (they
accepted our proposals, but then rejected them) are far deeper, broader and more serious than the
supposed autocephaly that was granted to the Ukrainian schismatics. The Tomos granted to them
more than proposes numerous restrictions as it clearly states that their authority, hierarchy and
primate is to be the Patriarch of Constantinople. It is especially sorrowful that this ‘Tomos’ does
not even mention the Lord Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church as in in earlier Tomes of
autocephaly, but does state that the Patriarch of Constantinople is on earth the head of the
Church. This is, of course, completely unacceptable and impermissible for the Orthodox
conscience and signifies a revision of the Gospels and a revision of the New Testament in
general.

I ask myself and you, Your Holiness, dear fathers and brothers: what can be done today to find a
way out of this profound crisis which has been shaped by geopolitical factors, external pressure
and even completely open, direct interference by the Western powers, especially the most
powerful of the Western powers, and which also has its own internal soil, its own internal roots?
These are not only the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which are merely the
embodiment of a tendency which, unfortunately, is developing within the parameters of a new
theory of neo-papism.

I can see a way out, on the one hand, in liberating ourselves, wherever possible completely, from
all external influence and pressure. We all know that it was not only the Ukrainian authorities
which exerted pressure when the schismatics were recognized automatically, with a single stroke
of the pen, not only as genuine bishops (something that has never happened before until the
present day) but also granted autocephaly, something quite unprecedented in the history of the
Church. All influence on the part of the authorities – both internal and external, as well as
pressure – is to be firmly avoided, it must be resisted, as shown by the example of the Russian
Orthodox Church throughout the seventy-year period of her history: she never bowed down to
any king other than the heavenly king and no lord other than the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is an

42
example for us all. I believe that this happened in other Churches, but not in such a grave
manner. What else can be done I consider to be the aim and meaning of the present conference –
to develop a healthy, truly Orthodox, patristic understanding and concept of autocephaly,
conciliarity and primacy (this triptych is organically inwardly connected), unlike the internal
ideologization and absolutization, which has been created by Constantinople, of an inner
secularized conception of autocephaly and in general the loss of a genuine ecclesiastical self-
awareness, without which we cannot go forward.

I consider this to be a very tragic situation, and a dangerous one, but I believe that as on the day
of Pentecost, as throughout the entire history of the Church, the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
The Saviour assures us that the gates of hell will not prevail over her, they cannot vanquish her,
and I am sure a solution of some sort will be found. For if this schism lasts for too long, then,
alas, a new schism of the sort we saw in the eleventh century will be inevitable, and guilt will
rest upon those who caused this schism.

God forbid that this should ever happen and may God grant that in time the situation will be
healed and that those who are already in advanced in years will live to see this day.

Bishop Irinej of Bačka

DECR Communication Service

10/4/2021

Self-validation as the OCU Schismatics'

Ultimate Goal
An interview with Archimandrite Markell (Pavuk), the
father-confessor of the Kiev Theological Academy and
Seminary
Deacon Sergei Geruk, Archimandrite Markell (Pavuk)

43
 Archimandrite Markell (Pavuk)     

—Father Markell, the streets of Kiev are teeming with billboards showing a smiling (sorry
but I think it is a spiteful grin) “metropolitan” Epiphany Dumenko, the head of the OCU
schismatic group, and one of his quotes. His statement about the recent anniversary
celebration of the Baptism of Rus’ reads as follows: “The 28th of July is the 1033rd
anniversary of the establishment of Ukrainian statehood.”[1] How could you comment on
this political statement? In your opinion, what is the goal of pseudo-metropolitan with
followers?

—Currently, their major goal is self-validation. To achieve this, for one, they use state political
leverage in an attempt to gain, in league with Patriarch Bartholomew, recognition of their
leadership by all Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, even sacrificing Philaret, who conceived
them, on their way. On the other hand, they initiated a massive rewriting of history. Their goal is
to underscore that not all Rus’, but Ukraine alone, is the rightful heir of St. Vladimir’s Baptism
—thus setting Ukraine against Russia and justifying their existence and schism. The Uniate
Greek Catholics have been applying the same tactics of self-validation ever since they fell away
from the Orthodox Church in 1596.

44
Self-validation is the chief character trait for those who fall away from God, even if they still
confess Him with their mouths. However, not self-validation, but a voluntary self-humiliation or,
in the terminology of hesychast tradition, humility, is the cornerstone of true Christianity. For
God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5).

—Does this special “rendering” of history have anything to do with the arrival of Patriarch
Bartholomew eagerly awaited by the schismatics?

—The arrival of Patriarch Bartholomew is another opportunity to establish their schismatic

identity. That’s exactly what every civil news outlet emphasized as they commented on the
arrival of the Patriarch. At the same time, through this kind of propaganda, it is important for
them to justify his arrival to the general public. They made an attempt to underscore that it isn’t
just a church hierarch attending to the interests of politicians who comes, but a spiritual leader;
and through him, as they insist, the state is retrieving the “church independence it lost some time
ago due to Moscow’s machinations.”

We can see here that the schismatics do not understand what the Church is all about. For them,
the Church isn’t a Theanthropic Body, who like a mother patiently brings together her children
scattered by sin all over the world. For them, she is merely a political institution that helps to
resolve their short-term state policies.

I should point out that a similar perception of the Church has occurred in history before. The
Great Schism of 1054 happened under similar circumstances, when the Roman Catholics fell
away from Orthodoxy. In the eighteenth century, Peter I and Empress Catherine the Great of
Russia, who pursued a policy of secularization, built up the relationship between the Church and
the state in a like manner. As a result, it led the upper class and the intellectuals away from the
Church, and this later culminated in the bloody events of the early twentieth century, when the
godless Bolsheviks rose to power armed with a political goal to annihilate the Christian faith.

—The fact that President Zelensky invited the Patriarch from Istanbul is every indication
that the state is continuing its policy of interference in the life of the Church—a policy
initiated by his predecessor Poroshenko in violation of the Ukrainian Constitution. Even
the invitation for the Pope of Rome to visit our country issued by Leonid Kuchma,
Ukraine’s former president, was more justified since the Pope arrived as the head of the
state of the Vatican. Doesn’t Bartholomew understand he is being dragged into the political
games of the world’s power players? Or, is it simply profitable for him to play out a new
schism on the territory of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church?

—Every man is driven by the desire to leave a certain legacy behind. The higher a politician’s or
church hierarch’s level, the stronger the temptation. Some will do it quietly, in humility, doing
good deeds and leading the life of an ascetic, like the Serbian Patriarch Pavle (†2009)—who, for
example, was celebrated for his meekness, great love of Christ, and unwillingness to attract the
attention of the world. Others get involved in dubious political projects thinking that by doing
this they serve Christ and the people, yet this kind of activity usually ends up with deplorable
results. How many tears of ordinary faithful Ukrainians were shed following the takeovers of the

45
Orthodox churches by the schismatics, but how many more will be shed since the visit by
Patriarch Bartholomew to Ukraine will nonetheless take place!

The visit of the Pope of Rome during Kuchma’s presidency didn’t bring any positive results for
our country either. It merely split the country by pitting the Orthodox of the east against the
Uniates of the west, and in the end it led to the first and second Maidan and the violence in
Donbass, further exacerbating Russophobia in society.

—During the recent service in the OCU, Dumenko commemorated the Orthodox
Patriarchs, including His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, but he called him not the Patriarch of
the Russian Church, as is his official title, but “Russia-based”…

—True. He always commemorates Patriarch Kirill of Moscow during his services but not
because of love or reverence, as should be the case for all Christians according to the Gospel, but
again, with the idea of self-validation and under the guise of compliance with the canonical law
requiring such a remembrance of Patriarch of Moscow. But it’s pure hypocrisy! Everyone knows
that he considers Patriarch Kirill, taunted by the nationalists with his message about the Russian
world and vocal support of President Putin, an enemy of Ukraine. At the same time, our
Orthodox priests who commemorate His Holiness Patriarch Kirill during liturgy are vilified by
the nationalist-leaning people in every possible way and even get expelled from their churches,
whereas Epiphany, as you see, can do so freely… It is the schismatics’ trademark behavioral
style—replete with lies, malice, and deceit.

—Speaking of language. “OCU” pretends to operate across all of Ukraine, since Dumenko
is called “His Beatitude of all Ukraine,” but why are their sermons and the services
conducted exclusively in Ukrainian? What does the Russian-speaking population of the
eastern and southern parts of Ukraine have to do, since there are registered “OCU”
parishes even there?

—For our Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Church Slavonic language of the church service is
not only the most convenient way to address God as it helps to quickly lay aside all worldly cares
during prayer. It is also an instrument used to achieve the spiritual union of Slavic nations—
Russians, Ukrainians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Orthodox Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks. The OCU, with
its forceful promotion of the Ukrainian language for use at a church service—not solely in
western but also eastern Ukraine—sets itself against a part of the population that views Russian
as its native language, for they learned it at mother’s knees. It once again attests to the fact that
their religious organization has nothing to do with the otherworldly supernatural essence but is a
purely political artifice. Their main goal is to drive the wedge of division between the Russians
and the Ukrainians even further and to “prove” that they aren’t two brotherly nations with
common history but two completely alien political entities.

—In connection with the topic of our conversation, please tell us a few words about the
significance of the recent Great Procession of the cross held on July 27.

—Above all else,despite the fierce attempts by opportunistic politicians, with their flattering
speeches about peace and unity in Ukraine, to bully and divide everyone, the procession of the

46
cross bore testimony to the spiritual unity of people from west to east and from south to north.
But 350,000 pilgrims walking in the procession from the St. Vladimir’s Hill to the Lavra is both
a great number and not enough if we remember that not ninety percent but at the most five to ten
percent of all Ukrainian citizens are church-going members of our Church. We still have got a lot
of work left lying ahead. The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few (Luke 5:2). These
words by the Savior retain relevance at all times.

The Great Procession of the cross in Kiev on July 27 of this year dedicated to the memory of the
Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir and the 1033rd anniversary of the Baptism of Rus

We must increase our preaching a hundredfold. When we are silent, the media landscape is filled
with those for whom, according to the words by Apostle Paul, their god is their belly, and glory
is in their name—who set their mind on earthly things (Philippians 3:19). Besides, when we are
silent, doesn’t it mean we see no significant difference between the lives of believers and non-
believers?

We must increase our preaching a hundredfold

Nowadays, it is imperative that we teach people to discern between truth and a lie, and what’s
more important, to lead them not to the bright earthly paradise like godless communists once
promised, in league with today’s nationalists, but to the Kingdom of Heaven. This Kingdom
inside every man isn’t built upon rage and pride, bribery and fraud but on humility and complete
forgiveness, love and truth of God.

—Father, what do you think—don’t the schismatics in the person of such figures as former
UOC metropolitans Alexander Drabinko and Simeon Shostatsky, archpriest Georgiy
Kovalenko, Pyotr Zuyev with others who held senior positions in our Church and stood
against the schism, condemning it, understand that they have bowed themselves to a policy
of opportunism in the creation of the “OCU”? Even that same Drabinko defended his
thesis on the topic of schism, while Georgiy Kovalenko was a UOC spokesman and
denounced schism in mass media in every way possible, while Pyotr Zuyev, who broke
away from Philaret in due time, used to write massive articles in “SOS” newspaper under
the headline, “Moscow is the third Rome, and their shall not be a fourth!”

—When they were still members of our Church, many of them, despite their missionary and
educational activity, harbored cold-hearted opportunism. Most likely it was because they carried
out their service not out of love but in order to please their vanity and ambitions, win fame, and,
once again, to gain self-validation. I speak of this with confidence, as I know many of them too
well and still pray for them in hopes that they will repent and return into the fold of the canonical
Church where they were baptized and took their oath during consecration; the Church that
entrusted them with her flock and elevated them to hierarchical positions. Alas, the interests of
ordinary believers have always been and still remain their lowest priority.

Every Christian is in a constant struggle of evil thoughts of self-indulgence over the good wishes
of selfless service to God and the people. Not everyone is always successful at their resolve to
oppose evil and establish themselves to do good. All of us can sometimes fall into various

47
temptations. But as long as we retain the spirit of repentance, all is not lost. Step by step, we are
winning small victories over ourselves and the evil one. The worst of all is when, instead of
condemning himself for his weaknesses and repenting, one begins to condemn others. That’s
how people end up in schism and religious sects. Constant condemnation and indignation against
other people promoted by media outlets greatly please a wicked man who doesn’t participate in
authentic church life. That’s how treason and all other adversities emerge.

—In your opinion, how should the faithful of the canonical Church think about all that’s
happening? Are there many people among the faithful who are inclined to view it as the
approaching time of persecution?

—The Lord Himself warned about the coming persecution of the faithful: If they persecuted Me,
they will also persecute you (john 15:20). The sin, compared to darkness by the holy fathers,
avoids light. We should rather worry about how we don’t become the reason for the persecutions
because of our own careless lives. The Lord speaks about it as well: Woe to the world because of
offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes! (Matthew
18:7). There is one positive and educational factor in persecutions. As St. John Chrysostom
writes, when everything is going well for us as Christians, we are prone to become slack. But a
time of persecution helps us to be vigilant. So, we must thank the Lord for everything, equally
for life’s pleasures and its afflictions. If we keep feeling this way, who shall separate us from the
love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or
sword? (Romans 8:35).

—And the last thing: The seventh anniversary of the enthronement of His Beatitude
Onufry at the Metropolitan See of Kiev is approaching fast. What is your assessment of
such a challenging time in the life of the Church headed by Her Primate, the Metropolitan
of Kiev and All Ukraine?   

—Typically, people inexperienced in spiritual life look at the church hierarchs and their service
with envy or even anger, seeing only the obvious, glitzy front of their activities. But as a matter
of fact, the higher the Church hierarch‘s rank, the more temptations of various forms he has to
endure, both from their flock and from those outside the Church. Sometimes the blows received
from friends are far more painful than from our foes. Thanks to his unceasing ascetic deeds of
prayer and repentance, our Blessed Metropolitan Onufry manages not only to preserve his
balance in life, never breaking down or faltering, but also to remain a steadfast supporter of
millions of people. He prays fervently for all of us while we pray for him, and that’s how we find
salvation amidst these temptations and troubles.

Deacon Sergei Geruk spoke with Archimandrite Markell (Pavuk)

Translation by Liubov Amrose

Pravoslavie.ru

8/25/2021

48
“Both Russian and Greek Orthodox
Christians Are Persecuted by the Godless of
This World”
An Interview with His Eminence Metropolitan Isaiah of
Tamassos and Orinis. Part 3
Metropolitan Isaiah (Kykkotis) of Tamassos

Part 1: Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos, on All Aspects of the Ukrainian Question

Part 2: When You Love Someone, You Tell Him the Truth

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. In the end, Metropolitan
Isaiah answered how, in his view, a resolution to the “Ukrainian question” could be reached.

Met. Isaiah serving

with Abp. Chrysostomos. Photo: philenews.com     

—Your Eminence, what do you think—why did the Archbishop make such accusations
against you, which led you into direct conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

49
—All the unacceptable things that His Beatitude said about the Metropolitans of Kykkos and
Limassol and me, the Metropolitans of Kykkos and Limassol answered with reasoned and ethical
answers, and I subscribe to their remarks.

The same “divide and conquer” tactic was used by His Beatitude during the previous elections to
the Archbishopric too. After accusing Metropolitan Athanasius of Limassol and warning us of
the danger that would befall us if we chose him as Archbishop, he then proposed the candidacy
of the Metropolitan of Kykkos as an alternative. Once he had managed to inflame the situation,
he made a 180-degree turn and started accusing the Metropolitan of Kykkos. He called on the
Metropolitan of Limassol to “stop Kykkos on the path to the Archbishopric,” because he was
supposedly even more dangerous.

Then he dropped the Metropolitan of Limassol and, playing on the contradictions, returned the
Metropolitan of Kykkos, whom he had previously expelled (he confirmed this with his public
confession in an interview). As a result, the Archbishop asked the Metropolitan of Kykkos to
give him his votes, to make a compromise decision to elect himself for a short term (five years),
because, according to him, the Church was in danger.

You should know the rest from the media. The same thing happened again in this situation with
the Ukrainian issue. After regularly criticizing what he said were the authoritarian actions and
character of the Ecumenical Patriarch, with whom, according to the Archbishop, only he had the
courage to speak directly, he continued to polarize the atmosphere in the Synod.

He denounced both the Phanariot policy and Russian implacability.

As for the Ukrainian question, Archbishop Chrysostom initially stated that Russia is the Mother
Church for Ukraine, and he supported this position at the Synod until the situation became
sufficiently tense.

The Archbishop initially agreed with us about the Ukrainian question and proposed that the
Cypriot Church remain neutral—for the sake of Orthodox unity and for the sake of our national
question. Knowing that this position was close to us and that in no case would we deviate from
neutrality, he was sure he could make us collide with the Phanar if he suddenly switched sides.

Since the majority of the Synod members disagreed with this, he started poisoning our relations
with the Phanar and the West, shamelessly accusing us both in political and ecclesiastical circles,
and especially before Patriarch Bartholomew, of a supposed pro-Russian position for selfish
purposes—a position that he himself earlier supported, including by sending letters to the
Patriarch of Moscow, which have already been published.

Once the Archbishop was sure that the political situation was favorable for him and that the
majority of the votes would be for his side, he unilaterally recognized the schismatic Epiphany,
dealing a heavy blow to our own autocephaly and our synodal system.

And again, just as in the archepiscopal elections, he belittled his opponents and created an
environment that would help his chosen ones succeed to the archepiscopal throne.

50
—Your Eminence, how do you feel today after all of this, and what, in your opinion, must
be done to ensure that Orthodoxy not be divided and that all the Churches would return to
their former peaceful coexistence? People aren’t aware of the internal affairs of the Local
Churches and so they’re bewildered seeing you argue. In a few words, explain for us how
we got to this point, because the Church leaders know Church history and its laws. And
finally, how can we solve this problem?

—My dear, I have told you the whole truth as I perceive and understand what is happening, and
so I outline these events with a clear conscience.

My feelings were wonderfully expressed by Archbishop Anastasios of Albania. Let me remind

you of his position. In his interview with the Athens newspaper Kathimerini, the primate of the
Albanian Church said:

The initiatives in Ukraine, after two years already, obviously did not yield the desired
therapeutic effect. Neither peace nor unity was achieved for the millions of Ukrainian
Orthodox. Instead, controversy and division spread to other Local Orthodox Churches…
Time only worsens the trauma. The serious danger for Orthodoxy here is completely
obvious: an ethnophyletistic schism (into Greeks, Slavs, and those who desire
harmonious relations with everyone), which negates the multi-cultural character of
Orthodoxy and its universal character. This is the greatest danger, not only for
Orthodoxy, but for all of Christianity, and every possible effort must be made from all
sides to eliminate it as quickly as possible… I confess that I continue to suffer when I
cannot agree with my dear and respected brethren, but I am cannot ignore obvious facts
and basic Orthodox principles.

I suffer just as much.

My dear, those who are not close to the Moscow Patriarchate draw hasty conclusions because
they judge it just as one of the cogs in Russia’s foreign policy mechanism. But that’s not true.
The Russian Orthodox, as well as the Greek, are oppressed and persecuted by the godless of this
world.

They only recently escaped the persecution of communism. Therefore, they have every reason to
fear the authorities and act with great caution.

Of course, they make mistakes, but they are by no means enemies of our faith.

I lived side-by-side with them for ten whole years as a student and priest, and I’ve been in
contact with them for twenty-eight years overall, fulfilling the obedience of our Local Church.

They were arrested and shot; they [anti-Christian forces] tried to wipe them from the face of
God, but God, as with the Greeks, did not allow this.

Just like the Phanar, they had to survive in difficult conditions. Every Local Church supports its
homeland; but, of course, it shouldn’t go beyond the bounds of Orthodox theology and

51
ecclesiology. I think some today have crossed the “red line” and gone beyond the limits of what
is permissible.

I know hundreds of people whose ancestors were brutally tortured by the Soviet regime.

I have been and continue to be in close contact with pious clergy and laity who have fought and
are fighting for the purity of the faith, and continue to fight and confess Orthodoxy.

Of course, they should, like the Phanariots, be careful in their contact with the state authorities;
and our task is to find a way to cooperate and live together with them without harming each
other.

I know many hierarchs, clergy, and laity in Russia who really love Greece. And just like us on
Cyprus, they feel great pain when our primates try to persuade us to side with one or the other, as
though it were a political struggle and not the common future of Orthodoxy that concerns us all.

Neither the Ecumenical nor the Moscow Patriarchates should allow non-ecclesiastical centers of
interest to use us however they please and introduce “divisions” into our relations, splitting
Orthodoxy into two. Such behavior is disrespectful to the martyrs and saints. As Archbishop
Anastasios of Albania wisely noted, this is the greatest danger to Orthodox unity.

On the Ukrainian issue, we have indicated our position and disagreed with the views of some
others. This happens sometimes with all people and in all organizations.

We also believe the Moscow Patriarchate’s refusal to attend the Holy and Great Council on Crete
was a huge mistake. This could have confirmed the Ecumenical Patriarch’s fears that they want
to deprive him of his primacy of honor, which would mean the existence of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate would be under threat.

I repeat, and everyone should understand this: The Ecumenical Patriarchate, acting as the
coordinator between the Local Orthodox Churches in universal Orthodoxy, enjoys the support of
the West and survives in Turkey thanks to the recognition of and support for its authority on the
international level. We want this support to continue to be there in the future.

The Russian Church, however, refrained from participating in the Crete Council and threw a
double challenge to the Ecumenical Patriarchate (to which its reaction testifies, in our view).

As has been explained to us in the back rooms of the Patriarchate: first, the Ecumenical Patriarch
felt that his fervent desire to hold a pan-Orthodox council was not respected; he perceived it as a
betrayal and abuse of his trust, as they had promised to attend the council.

Second, the Russian Church’s refusal was interpreted as a rude act, calling into question the
privileges and significance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and a belittling of its role of
international coordinator in our time.

52
This step, as the Phanariot circles explained to me, was considered hostile, and the offended
Ecumenical Patriarch felt that if he didn’t react immediately, the Moscow Patriarchate would
deal a crushing blow to his authority, which would jeopardize the survival of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate in the long term.

The international clique of interested persons was ready for the events that took place and helped
the Ecumenical Patriarch, but, as it turned out later, this affected Orthodox unity.

There is, of course, another side to the coin. We’ve already discussed this when we laid out our
position on the Ukrainian issue.

For many years, the Ecumenical Patriarchate enjoyed pan-Orthodox authority and recognition,
not only because of its privileges, but also, to a much greater extent, because of its actions at the
international level and because of its friendly relations with its brothers in the Church. Everyone
recognized its privileges and took part in the dialogues it coordinated because they trusted it. The
reliability and impartiality of the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate created a sense
of trust and tranquility in the bosom of Orthodoxy.

I believe the way in which the Ukrainian issue was resolved in these international geopolitical
circumstances has seriously affected the question of trusting the Patriarchal institution, which
must now find a way to rectify the situation.

Additionally, if we all now allow our Churches to be used as instruments, based on our states’
interests, then we will become like the Vatican state, we will turn into secular religious groups,
and thereby cease being the Church of Christ.

The secular world seeks to devour us like a roaring lion (1 Pt. 5:8) and rob us of our sanctity.
This is the greatest danger, much greater than this accursed separation.

We must never allow this to happen. The time has come to take responsibility, to agree with one
another and save the ship of Orthodox unity, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who unites us
all. We are brothers in Christ. We are all one family.

We are largely united spiritually, and only slightly divided by secular things.

We must rebuild our relations on the foundation of our common service to God and our conciliar
system, our Orthodox theology and ecclesiology. We must all forgive one another and take
responsibility for what is happening.

It’s gotten to a point where building churches is considered a “sin,” because some people
interpret it from a political point of view.

It’s gotten to a point where supporting our brothers in Christ who live in our homeland is seen as
a political step rather than a spiritual obligation. Alas! Where are we headed, my dears?

53
We have become a laughing stock for our enemies who mock our moral decline. As an Orthodox
bishop, I don’t consider myself infallible, but I don’t agree with those who say I strive for
anything other than the preaching of the Orthodox faith of the Gospel, and I don’t tolerate
accusations of having other interests other than those I vowed to serve before the Holy Altar
during my episcopal consecration.

I know that it’s hard to prove your true intentions when there’s such a clash of interests. But I
will speak about them in words and prove them with my real actions, accompanied by prayer.

Orthodoxy is the greatest gift in our lives, and we insult it with our behavior.

Our task is to introduce all people to Christ, that He might be present in their everyday lives; to
feed the flock entrusted to us in the spirit of Gospel love and compassion, championing the
abolition of discrimination and various addictions; and to coordinate the humanitarian mission of
the Church, both on the local and global level. To do this, we must first forgive one another, and
then we will be able to work together in our pastoral and social ministry and tirelessly fight for
the truth.

The Ukrainian question and the conflict between these two Local Churches could be resolved
thanks to their love for our holy Orthodoxy.

If the two primates could keep their composure and discuss their differences in private, they
would certainly find a way to soften the confrontation that has arisen.1

They could very well agree on a common strategy for de-escalating the conflict and, together
with their working groups, develop scenarios for a settlement and peaceful coexistence within
the framework of a theological economy acceptable to all.

And after they come to an agreement with one another, they should call a pan-Orthodox council
that we might all agree together and become even stronger than before, and thrive in love and
joint service to God and man.

Every time Orthodoxy faces serious international problems, its distinctive qualities remain
loyalty to God and the spiritual life.

Even now, during this trial for our Orthodox faith and Sacred Tradition, we mustn’t fail if we
want to convince others of the truth and holiness of the Orthodox faith.

Perhaps this trial we are undergoing now will give us the opportunity for a spiritual rebirth for
the entire Church, and for every one of us. God will help us if we first take care of the
purification and salvation of our immortal souls.

Cicero once wrote: “It’s hard to be silent when you’re in pain.” Sick at heart and worried about
the future of Orthodoxy, I listen to the voice of my episcopal conscience and submit myself to
the judgment of God and our descendants.

54
Emil Poligenis spoke with Metropolitan Isaiah (Kykkotis) of Tamassos
Translation from the Russian version by Jesse Dominick

Romfea.gr

4/1/2021

When You Love Someone, You Tell Him the

Truth
An Interview with His Eminence Metropolitan Isaiah of
Tamassos and Orinis. Part 2
Metropolitan Isaiah (Kykkotis) of Tamassos

Part 1: Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos, on All Aspects of the Ukrainian Question

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. In the end, Metropolitan
Isaiah answered how, in his view, a resolution to the “Ukrainian question” could be reached.

   

55
—Why then do you not agree with the West supporting the schismatic OCU and therefore
you disagree with the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

—My only objection and disagreement with this policy of the West is that we have mixed the
history and theology of the Orthodox Church with the foreign policy of states, resulting in a
serious threat to the future of Orthodox unity.

As you know, there is no friendship in international diplomacy, where interests and advantages
prevail.

However, in the Church, we always follow the path of the Gospel truth, the sacred canons, and
the Sacred Tradition, despite the fact that this sometimes leads us into conflict with our
government, as often happens in the field of state legislation.

The selective and discriminatory attitude of the West, as well as the “deafening silence” and
disregard for the religious rights of thirteen million Ukrainian Orthodox who don’t want to break
their relationship with their Mother Church (which is what they consider the Russian Church to
be), the blatant indifference for the absurd behavior of the self-proclaimed “Patriarch of Kiev”
Philaret, who has created his own “church” again and today calls the Ecumenical Patriarch a
“traitor,” as well as the recent dangerous statements from the “Metropolitan of Kiev” Epiphany,
recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, are cause for extreme concern.

Epiphany claims that his schismatic structure is recognized by all the Churches that are in
countries belonging to the Western sphere of influence or claim good relations and an alliance
with the West.

How could this happen? The Synods of the Local Churches will be divided into two camps: the
“Russophobes” and the “supporters of the Ecumenical Patriarchate;” and thus, as a result of this
“divide and conquer” policy, carried out through political pressure, everyone will, in the end,
recognize the schismatic OCU.

All these statements, hints, and initiatives foretell tragic events for the unity of the Orthodox
Church in the coming years.

As for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in my heart I wouldn’t like to believe that its goal is division,
but I think in its attempts to oppose the Russians, it unites with people who have other interests.

On the other hand, I’m certain that Epiphany “of Kiev,” who now aims for the status of
Patriarch, is using this situation for his own selfish purposes.

In the face of this danger of division, every member of the Orthodox Church, regardless of the
political and geostrategic interests of his country, should remember that we are, first of all,
Orthodox Christians.

Ethnophyletism, which was declared a heresy in council, is strongly promoted for political
purposes by some non-ecclesiastical governing centers.

56
In the face of these intersecting international interests, it must be borne in mind that the decision
about the autocephaly of the Orthodox Churches of independent states should be made not by
one Local Church, but by a pan-Orthodox council.

The Orthodox Church that desires to obtain autocephalous status, according to the existing
procedure, submits a request for the granting of autocephaly to its Mother Church; and this
decision must be approved by all the other Local Churches. After that, the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, having received the authority from the Council of Orthodox Churches, on the basis
of the privileges it has as the first-ranked Church among the equal Local Churches, undertakes to
implement this decision.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate believes it is right in the Ukrainian issue despite the fact that its
decisions were in the hands of the Western world.

Photo: cyplive.com     

—That all sounds very logical, but what do you say about the historical rights of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate as the first in rank in Orthodoxy? Does not his leadership role
allow him to coordinate, with the appropriate responsibility, all the Orthodox Churches?

57
—The primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which we all honor and respect, is a primacy of
service, not power.

Consequently, it has no authority over other Churches, but serves them, by coordinating their
interaction, thanks to the great role it undoubtedly plays in the history and theology of the
Orthodox Church.

The things we hear about the “first without equals” worries us, and I hope it’s just a private
academic approach misinterpreted from a theological point of view, and not a belief in their
unlimited authority.

In this struggle for the resolution of geopolitical and ecclesial problems, we must remember what
spiritually and historically unites us with the Slavs.

We mustn’t forget our common spiritual history and our cultural ties with the Slavic Orthodox
countries.

We also mustn’t forget the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate was nearly destroyed by the Soviet
authorities, and today we have hundreds of thousands of Russian New Martyrs who are revered
by all of Orthodoxy.

In fact, the martyred Russian Church, which had no mechanisms for achieving the political and
military goals attributed to it, never posed a real threat to the rest of the Local Orthodox
Churches.

On the contrary, it contributed to their spiritual strengthening, thanks to the myriad of saints,
venerable monastics, ascetics, theologians, and martyrs.

Some might say that the history of the Church is one thing, and the policies pursued by its
governing bodies is quite another. On the one hand, I agree with this assertion, but on the other
hand, the ruling structures are representatives of their peoples, so we should look for ways to
cooperate with them, not separate from them.

The thirteen million Orthodox of the independent and autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church
headed by Metropolitan Onuphry, the 110 bishops, 250 monasteries, 5,000 monks, and the
dozens of ecclesiastical educational institutions of this Local Church are a testimony to the
significant Slavic religious and historical heritage that was grafted onto the Byzantine root, and
also fell victim to the brutality of the former Soviet regime. And if that weren’t enough, today
they suffer from the violent actions of “Orthodox nationalists,” who intend to subjugate them.

It should be noted that our reaction to the Ukrainian problem expresses our respect for Slavic
Orthodox history and traditions and our desire to continue the fraternal relations and cooperation
between our Local Churches. Of course, the Moscow Patriarchate should learn from the mistakes
of the past, as should we.

58
Speaking theologically, we believe that in the Ukrainian question, none of the conditions for
granting autocephaly were met, as described in detail in the recently published book of the
Metropolitan of Kykkos and abbot of my monastery, His Eminence Nikiforos, which explains
our reaction to the OCU.

Our objections are not directed against the Ecumenical Patriarch personally. We also don’t want
to come out against any policy, be it Western or of any other democratic country that desires
peace in the whole world, fairly and impartially observes the laws of morality, and respects the
religious traditions of the Local Churches.

The autocephaly and independence of the Local Orthodox Churches are based precisely on the
observance of the rules of the conciliar structure of universal Orthodoxy, and whoever violates
this balance for any reason automatically violates our freedom of religion and the unity of our
Churches. This is stated by the Orthodox Churches that still refuse to recognize the schismatic
OCU.

It was for the sake of this freedom of religion and unity that we, the Cypriot Church, made the
deliberate decision to remain neutral in this matter.

Through our neutrality, we wanted to give the body of the Orthodox Church the chance to gather
to make a final decision and thus save our freedom and the unity between our Churches from
political influence.

All this is stated in our Holy Synod’s decision (2/28/19), which clearly spoke about the
observance of a “creative neutrality” on this matter.

—There have been accusations against you saying that the neutral position you support
actually plays into the hands of the Moscow Patriarchate. How would you respond to this?

—Sometimes there are accusations that our neutrality in this matter is because of the influence of
the Russian Church over us. And some of our actions, which have no relation to this matter, are
maliciously used as arguments against us: that we built a church in the Slavic architectural
tradition for the Russian-speaking inhabitants of Cyprus, or that we were vested in a Russian-
style mantia and kukol at the consecration of a church one time (as if the Orthodox tradition of
any people is a crime), or that we take care of our Russian-speaking flock and allow them to
finance their religious and cultural activities.

Everyone well knows that the rich Russian immigrants who have acquired citizenship in Cyprus
sometimes financially support their religious culture on the island through various events. They,
of course, don’t give us money directly and support only these projects. The projects are not
supported by our funds.

The rich Americans, Europeans, and Greeks living abroad do the exact same thing, don’t they?
But no one has ever accused anyone of “maliciously” financing churches and other Church
institutions, or that American dollars and euros influence the Church in religious or other terms.

59
As for immigrants, everyone on the international level says that we must respect their
background, religion, and culture. But recently, when it comes to the Russian Orthodox, there’s a
“fashion” of prejudice towards them and of forgetting about their human rights. Cyprus, as a
crossroads of religions and cultures, has always had a tradition of respect for all its inhabitants,
regardless of race, skin color, or religion. We want this to continue.

The only one who actually received any money (a “good sum,” as he said about me) for his own
projects, churches, and other Church needs in Cyprus that have nothing to do with the Russian-
speaking community is His Beatitude Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus. He acknowledged
this in recent interviews, which you can easily find.

I believe that we cannot afford, either as a Local Church or a state, to risk our spiritual and
political freedom and independence by upsetting the international or religious balance.

If this happens, then one day we will wake up and realize that we are alone in this world, where
there are no friends, but only interested parties, who, using you, leave you in a snare of solitude,
in a painful and harsh reality.

But if we defend our moral principles and values without fanaticism, egotism, or bias, then we
will eventually earn the respect and gratitude of the people.

Interests often change, and the reputation, respect, and dignity of a Local Church, state, or person
who has made a wrong move can disappear in an instant.

This is why we must be careful, fair, and open to cooperation with everyone, thinking not just
about today, but also about tomorrow.

As those who treat addictions say, the best treatment for addiction is prevention. Once an
addiction develops, it’s too late.

60
    

—Your Eminence, listening to all of this, we can conclude that you have a problem with the
decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. How will you relate to such a policy in the
future? Will you start opposing the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Won’t this undermine the
Orthodox unity that you want to protect?

—For me, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the cradle of our Byzantine culture and the
embodiment of the fascinating soul of the Greek people—a people, who, despite all the
difficulties and unfavorable conditions, managed to survive and continue to value our
unshakeable Orthodox cultural tradition in all corners of the globe.

The Ecumenical Patriarch has always been the Patriarch of all the Romans and the spiritual
father of the Orthodox martyrs of my beloved Constantinople.

It is he who inherited the heavy burden of spiritual pastoral care for the Greek-Romans abroad.

61
For me, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is one of the most sacred Orthodox institutions, the sacred
ark of theology and Byzantine culture.

All these feelings were deeply implanted in my heart by my spiritual father, Metropolitan
Nikiforos of Kykkos, who told me about Romanity and regularly took me with him to
Constantinople and Asia Minor.

My views were solidified through my studies and pilgrimages to Constantinople and

Cappadocia, when I was already a bishop.

The love I have in my heart for the Ecumenical Patriarchate was strengthened every time I asked
a blessing from our Patriarch Bartholomew, who fights for the future of our martyred people, and
it grew more and more thanks to the fraternal and pastoral cooperation with the bishops of the
Ecumenical Throne.

We will never take any steps that will intentionally harm the Ecumenical Patriarch; but we won’t
be silent in those issues where, in our opinion, something is not right.

—Yes, but the Archbishop of Cyprus publicly accused you of receiving money from the
Russians (indirectly, but in a way that everyone understood) and declared that this was the
reason for your negative attitude to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. What do you say to this?

—Is it really fair to consider as enemies those who have such fervent love and respect for the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, as I mentioned above, because of some disagreements on the Ukrainian
issue, and attribute foreign interests to us because we expressed a different point of view?

How can some people dare, following their own interests, to poison our sacred relations with the
Phanar?

For me, this is criminal and blasphemous. To speak the truth does not mean to go against the
Ecumenical Patriarchate. If you love someone, you speak with him sincerely.

The same can also be said about my spiritual father, Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos: We love
and support the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and as far as our strength allows, we will always stand
guard over its historical and spiritual privileges of being the first among the equal Orthodox
Patriarchates.

If we don’t agree with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it doesn’t mean we’re against it. On the
contrary, it means we love and value it, and want to express constructive criticism in truth so it
might be able to withstand great temptations.

Unfortunately, in the name of his petty interests in Cyprus, our primate shamelessly accuses us,
saying that supposedly our reaction is because of Russian money (I say this with great pain). It’s
completely unacceptable!

I already answered you before about Russian money.

62
It’s doubtful that any money is even needed by Kykkos Monastery, which, as my geronda said,
didn’t even receive an icon from them [the Russians]. If the Kykkos Monastery hadn’t helped me
maintain the Russian church and its territory, we wouldn’t even have been able to hire a
sacristan. Since 1993, the monastery has spent tens of thousands of euros a year to support Greek
language courses in Russia. In difficult times, we, the Kykkos Monastery, have given material
and moral support to both the Ecumenical and the Moscow Patriarchates.

The most painful blows are always dealt by your own, native people, as it says in one of our
songs: “If a relative hits you in the eye, you’ll always be lopsided.” This is what happened with
us and the Archbishop, who made erroneous conclusions and raised the Ecumenical Patriarch up
against us—and also insulted Patriarch Kirill of Moscow.

Part 3. “Both Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians Are Persecuted by the Godless of
This World”

Emil Poligenis spoke with Metropolitan Isaiah (Kykkotis) of Tamassos

Translation from the Russian version by Jesse Dominick

Romfea.gr

3/30/2021

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Which is

Our True Mother Church, and Who is our
True Father?
Part 2 of an interview with Abbess Seraphima (Shevchik)
Deacon Sergei Geruk

See Part 1: “The Strength of Ukraine is its Orthodox Faith.” A Talk with Abbess Seraphima
(Shevchik) for the 30th Anniversary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

The independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been persecuted in Ukraine since the time of
Gorachev, who opened the doors to militant uniatism in Western Ukraine. From that time,
backroom discussions began between Ukrainian presidents and Patriarch Bartholomew to
establish autocephaly without Moscow. On the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Kievan
Rus’, President Yushchenko of Ukraine tried to bring the schismatic Philaret to the service with
the lawful Metropolitan of Kiev, Vladimir, Patriarch Alexiy II, and Patriarch Bartholomew. But
the Lord did not allow that blasphemy to happen...

63
 Moleben on Vladimir Hill, July 27, 2008     

—However, the authorities’ attempts to tailor autocephaly for their own uses did not
stop…

—Absolutely correct. Viktor Baloga, the head of the presidential administration, together with
the president’s brother Petro Yushchenko, was constantly going to Istanbul, holding backroom
negotiations. And now, the second Maidan, “the revolution of dignity,” the invasion of Ukraine
by American politicians, and Petro Poroshenko, finally implemented a project that is destructive
for all of world Orthodoxy. Bartholomew, as they say, “ripened” under the affectionate wing of
overseas patrons to commit a new schism in Ukraine, the likes of which hadn’t been seen for
centuries. This situation is unacceptable, catastrophic—comparable only with the schism of a
thousand years ago when Rome and Constantinople anathematized one another and parted
forever, creating two completely different confessions.

By the way, I think it would be appropriate to recall 1997, when Patriarch Bartholomew went to
Odessa to meet with Patriarchs Ilia II of Georgia and Alexiy II, and at the final conference
dedicated to the visit, clearly and unequivocally declared that he recognizes the UOC with His
Beatitude Vladimir as the sole canonical Church in Ukraine. Is this not clearly Jesuitism?!

64
—Thus, the modern policy of Istanbul contradicts itself.

—Moreover, it’s amoral. When Bartholomew says that “we are the Mother Church” and “we are
concerned for our daughter Church,” we want to recall that time, more than 300 years ago, when
the so-called “mother” sold its child for money,1 and this is an indisputable fact. It will always
remain a most shameful stain in the life of Constantinople.

Constantinople’s mistake, or more precisely, its villainy is obvious: Once again, they are
deciding our faith without the people of God, basking in their own geopolitical interests, but not
those of the faithful of Ukraine. All of these backdoor negotiations with the participation of
Poroshenko and secret visits to the Phanar by Ukrainian politicians look like a betrayal of the
multi-million Orthodox flock.

When the so-called “unification council” was held at St. Sophia’s in Kiev with the proclamation
of Bartholomew’s tomos, everything was veiled in the greatest of secrecy; everything all around
was cordoned off by the police and special services, and all the participants in this lawless deed
behaved like thieves in the night… A shameful action… It is clear to a simple babushka, and
even to the not-very-informed Church youth, not mention those of the older generations, where is
truth and where is a lie. And the people, Orthodox society, the people of God will defend the
truth and protect their faith and their holy sites from the invasion of impostors and schismatics.
And if necessary, they will lay down their lives.

Over these thirty years of existence, the UOC has proven that it is a great national force, in
absolute unity with its primate, hierarchs, and monastics. It is a powerful, mighty monolith. The
last cross procession in Kiev, which numbered 300,000 people, proves this.

—The holy fathers have said that if the Church as a whole and every believer in particular
does not experience any difficulties, shocks, and temptations, it doesn’t contribute to
spiritual growth. Can we can say that the Church becomes stronger due to such periods?

—Our Lord Jesus Christ preached for all the ages: Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 5:10). On the one hand, trials
associated with state policy, with the backdoor influence of foreign figures who try to run things
in the Ukrainian land, which is foreign to them, are always painful and cause great harm. Some
parishes, having a political orientation, have left us. His Beatitude Vladimir said that we always
pray for our brothers who are in schism. He never tired of appealing to them with great love and
fatherly exhortation to return to the bosom of the Mother Church.

And now, Metropolitan Onuphry appeals to the conscience of those who left the Church. These
are wounds that our enemies, ill-wishers, or simply erring people inflict upon the body of the
Church.

But, on the other hand, our Church can rightly be called a martyric Church. When I see footage
of people in camouflage with Right Sector armbands, swearing and shouting, with rebar and
weapons in hand, throwing bloodied elderly people out of churches, beating priests, cutting
locks, kicking down church doors—in a word, rioting—my heart bleeds.

65
—Mother, but in times of trials, the Orthodox people are mobilized, illustrating unity and
readiness to defend their holy sites. This is how it’s been for the whole thirty years of our
independence.

—It’s enough to recall the All-Ukrainian cross procession in 2016, when Ukraine was burning
with the fire of confrontations between east and west, and people were dying in the eastern part
of the country. The cross procession demonstrated the true united faith of the inhabitants of
eastern and western Ukraine, when the faithful from various regions of the country
simultaneously left the Syvatogorsk Lavra in Donetsk and the Pochaev Lavra in Ternopil, with
wonderworking icons, going out to meet each other.

Hundreds of miles on foot—the elderly, the young, and children all marched     

I remember the rabid verbal obstruction that crashed down on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,
its primate, and the participants in the procession. Our opponents had such hatred for our Church
that they were ready to spill blood.

When the column reached Borsypil, the Minister of the Interior Arsen Avakov said grenades
were found on the roadside—someone was planning a terrorist act. I saw footage of people from
radical organizations throwing rocks at icons and crosses, throwing eggs, water bottles, and
tearing icons from the hands of the processers. One of them seized a cross, and the people could
barely get it back as the man raved and raged.
66
Never in the history of Ukraine has there been such a shame. On the contrary, the Cossacks of
Ukraine defended the Church in battle, shedding their blood for it. The Zaporozhyians declared
that they were protecting Orthodox holy sites. And then people who call themselves patriots of
Ukraine, heirs of the glorious Cossacks, commit such atrocities—what reason and spirituality we
can talk about here?!

And at the time when people from the west and east were processing towards one another,
almost all the media, government representatives, representatives of the Cabinet of Ministers,
representatives of the Presidential Administration, from the highest offices, declared it to be a
“fifth column,” “enemies of Ukraine,” and so on.

I asked some of them: “Tell me, please, where these people are going? You say they’re the
enemies of Ukraine. But where are they going? They are going to Kiev, to the capital of Ukraine,
to unite east and west, to unite the parts of Ukraine that you have separated. So who are the
enemies of Ukraine? Those who call for a schism along ethnic and linguistic lines, or those who,
on the contrary, try to reunite Ukraine with the help of simple people?”

   

67
And these two cross processions, as well as many other processions from various dioceses of
Ukraine, united into one grand procession on July 27, 2016, the eve of the feast of Prince
Vladimir, the Baptizer of ancient Rus’.

I still have this picture before my eyes: a sea of people, with His Beatitude Metropolitan
Onuphry standing in the center with his brothers, the archpastors, monastics, and dozens of
wonderworking icons from all Ukrainian dioceses floating above the people along the central
Kievan streets.

I would call this procession the pinnacle of the thirty years of the UOC. It was a great national
prayer by believers from every province, every corner of Ukraine in its golden-domed capital,
Kiev.

—There are testimonies of miraculous healings for people who risked everything to walk in
the procession.

—We believe that the entire host of saints of ancient Rus’ and modern saints of our Church to
whom we pray were present. Our Church is strong in its inextricable connection with the
Heavenly Church. We see this by the miraculous events that have accompanied our flock over
the course of the last three decades. Recall the 1990s: poverty, devastation, a lack of everything,
and complete bewilderment for the majority of our citizens. And, in spite of this, how many
beautiful churches were built and rebuilt? About 7,000 parishes were created!

In 2001, the Holy Dormition Cathedral of the Kiev Caves Lavra, built by St. Theodosius of the
Caves—the greatest national holy site, blown up in 1941—was rebuilt. And again, it wasn’t
without provocations. When President Leonid Kuchma and His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir
went to the consecration of the cathedral, pseudo-patriot-nationalists staged mayhem, trying to
prevent the event. Nevertheless, the sacred site was consecrated. Or the Holy Transfiguration
Cathedral in Odessa—a masterpiece, recognized as a national treasure of Ukraine—was restored
thanks to the help of the simple people and all the enterprises of the Odessa region. Or St.
Vladimir’s Church in Chersonese, the site of the Baptism of Prince Vladimir; or the beautiful
cathedral in Ternopil, where every single church was taken from us; or the magnificent new Holy
Transfiguration Cathedral in the Pochaev Lavra—a miracle of light. Are these not testimonies of
our faith and God’s help?!

68
 And, of course, the Church’s greatest and most
important wealth is its people—every person, and those who have served and are serving for the
good of the Church by their firmness in defending Orthodoxy, their wisdom in Church building,
and their apostolic preaching. This includes hierarchs, clergy, monastics, and the numerous
representatives of the people of God.

Remembering the past, contemplating the present, you understand that the strength of Ukraine is
its Orthodox faith!

—Mother Seraphima, you have spoken with His Holiness Patriarch Kirill many times.
What are you most vivid impressions from these conversations?

—Having just taken up the difficult cross of the primatial ministry, His Holiness Patriarch
Kirill’s first visit abroad was to Ukraine, in 2009. As a member of the working group that was
created to quickly resolve the issues that arose, I had the good fortune to accompany him all
around Ukraine. We went to Kiev, Crimea, western Ukraine, Donetsk, Pochaev. Although there
were provocations in Volyn and other western Ukrainian places—pickets on the roads with
political placards; local authorities banning the technical provisions for His Holiness’ trip—the
trip still took place.

I was late to meet him in Lutsk because of some obstacles on the road. The Patriarch’s car passed
through earlier, but when they saw me, the dissatisfied demonstrators pounced on me with
profanity and abuse. I walked calmly and smiled, nodding to the enraged faces, and if not for the

69
corridor of police, I would have been torn to pieces—such hatred was boiling in this crowd. Then
I saw our faithful and Vladyka Niphont of Volyn, now reposed, who addressed the Orthodox
parishioners [in Ukrainian]: “Children, are you glad that His Holiness the Patriarch has come to
visit us? Welcome him!” And then the entire crowded square became excited, began to buzz, and
began to chant: “Our Patriarch Holiness Kirill!” That’s how the people expressed their love for
His Holiness.

   

I was struck by the fervent prayer with which His Holiness addressed God, asking for blessings
and prosperity, grace and the help for the people of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
He put his whole heart into this prayer, and I felt how concerned he was for our country. In the
cities of Crimea, especially in Chersonese, at the site of the Baptism of Prince Vladimir, there
was also a ton of people. People began walking at dawn to get to where His Holiness was
serving. These were unforgettable moments, when we felt the presence of the Baptizer of Kievan
Rus’ himself in this holy place.

Today, with the blessing of His Holiness, prayers are lifted up for Ukraine in every church of the
ROC, and that’s not just in Russia, but in Belarus, in Kazakhstan, in Moldova—in sixty countries
throughout the world. When we visited churches of Spain, Italy, Germany—everywhere, we
heard how the parishioners pray for Ukraine. And at every service, His Holiness kneels and
prays for the Ukrainian people, for peace in Ukraine. Who is our father? Who takes paternal care
of us—the Patriarch from Istanbul, who wants to teach us with false insinuations from history?
Or His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, whose love we actually feel? That’s a rhetorical question…

70
 Abbess Seraphima gives Patriarch Kirill a dove of
peace, Lutsk, 2009 In the late 1990s, I came across an article in the chronicle of Philaret’s “Kiev
Patriarchate” that was called “Why Should We Honor the Kazan Icon?” There were stupid ideas
there: What does it have to do with Ukraine? It’s not our icon; we have to forget all these
“Muscovite holy icons”! Venerated icons of the saints of Kievan Rus’, who labored and worked
wonders on the “cursed land of Muscovy,” simply disappeared from their menaion. When
politicians say: “Better satan than Moscow,” pray tell: Where is the end of this hatred? It is in the
realm of hell… When hatred leads to the oblivion of the names of the great righteous ones, I
want to ask: Do these people have any connection with Heaven? Alas, this is the tragedy of the
deluded.

And yet I want to believe that, as the Ecclesiast says, everything passes, and this will pass too.
But the Lord abides forever (cf. Ps. 9:7) Amen.

Deacon Sergei Geruk

spoke with Abbess Seraphima (Shevchik)
Translation by Jesse Dominick

Pravoslavie.ru

11/17/2020

“You Support Blasphemers Dressed Up in

Priestly Vestments”
Open Letter of Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye to
Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus
Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye and Melitopol

71
    

His Eminence Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye is one of the most outspoken and authoritative
hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church today. He has issued a number of open letters
concerning the Ukrainian schism and the anti-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople on the territory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

In 2018, he addressed Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, “loyal subject of the Turkish

Republic, Mr. Bartholomew!” as he calls him, concerning the invitations he was sending out to
the “unification council” where the schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” was created. In
that letter, he thanked the Patriarch for contributing to the discrimination and persecution
against the Ukrainian faithful, thereby aiding them in attaining the Kingdom of Heaven.

He also addressed an open letter to His Holiness Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II of Georgia, calling
on him to remain firm in Orthodoxy despite the pressure to recognize the schismatics, and in
August of last year, he addressed an open letter to Athonite monks, calling on them to also
remain firm in Orthodoxy during the then-upcoming visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to the Holy
Mountain. The Patriarch is “a man whom the devil struck with a terrible disease—pride,” His
Eminence wrote to the monks.

In this present letter, addressed to Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus, Met. Luke calls him to
repentance for the grave error of recognizing the schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine,”
while also thanking him for contributing to the spiritual trials that will be brought upon the
faithful of Ukraine, thereby strengthening the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
72
Met. Luke’s letter was published in Greek on Romfea, and in Russian translation by the
PravBlog channel on Telegram.   

***

My hierarchical conscience no longer allows me to address you as a bishop and minister of the
altar, because you have taken the path of betrayal of Christ—the Head of our Mother the Church!

I am sure that the clergy of the Church of Cyprus who are faithful to Orthodoxy can no longer
pronounce your name as primate in the Divine services.

First of all, I want to thank you for becoming an instrument of God’s providence, thanks to
which Christ grants our Ukrainian flock crowns of confession, and perhaps martyrdom.

With your recognition [of the Ukrainian schismatics—Trans.], you support blasphemers dressed-
up in priestly vestments and contribute to the fact that their followers will arm themselves with
saws and hammers and seize our churches, while they terrorize and beat the clergy and the
faithful.

You will bring yet more tears, sorrow and suffering to the families of the faithful children of our
Orthodox Church.

But I am sure that none of us will be shaken in these afflictions, because we know that we are
appointed thereunto (1 Thess. 3:3), and if we suffer with Him (Christ), then we will be glorified
with Him (Rom. 8:17).

I would like to ask you: “What was the real reason for your betrayal?” Some compromising
material concerning your life and piety?1 But there is only one God Who is without sin, and He
knows all our weaknesses and falls like none other. If you have sin, will not the loving God
forgive them if you repent?

I have a sincere desire in my heart to say to you, “Christ is in our midst,” but you have deprived
me of this opportunity.

The Gospel teaches us not to be afraid to admit that we are sinners, but it also tells us that there is
no more terrible fall than the betrayal of God.

I testify before the Lord that if you repent, I am ready to embrace you warmly and call you
brother, because Christ was crucified for you and me!

But if you, together with the enemies of the Church, crucify our beloved Savior, then my words
to you will be: Get thee behind me, Satan (Mt. 16:23), for you seek not what is pleasing to God,
but what is beneficial to the devil!

My dear brother in Christ, repent, for the judgment of God is not far off, and we will give an
account for everything!

73
Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye and Melitopol
Translation by Jesse Dominick

PravBlog

11/7/2020

“Ignoring and Despising His Own Holy

Synod”
Four Cypriot Metropolitans’ Call for Their Archbishop to
Cease Commemorating the Head of the Ukrainian
Schismatic Church
Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos and Tellyria,
Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos, Bishop Nicholas of Amathountos

   

On Saturday, October 24, 2020 Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus made the unilateral
decision to commemorate Epiphany Dumenko, the primate of the schismatic “Orthodox Church

74
of Ukraine,” thus becoming the third Orthodox primate besides Patriarch Bartholomew to
commemorate the schismatics.

His Eminence Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol was present at the Liturgy and immediately
left when he heard the name of Epiphany Dumenko.

Like Patriarch Theodoros before him, Archbishop Chrysostomos has claimed that his decision
will be for the good of Orthodoxy, though it remains unclear how any good came from Patriarch
Theodoros’ decision.

Later that same day, Metropolitan Athanasios, together with three other hierarchs of the Cypriot
Church, Metropolitans Nikiforos of Kykkos and Isaiah of Tamassos (who have already
outspokenly supported the canonical Ukrainian Church over and against the schismatics), and
Bishop Nicholas of Amathountos, appealed to Archbishop Chrysostomos to immediately revoke
his anti-canonical and invalid decision to include the name of Epiphany Dumenko in the
diptychs of the primates of the Local Orthodox Churches.

Their appeal was published by Romfea, and in Russian translation by the Union of Orthodox
Journalists.

In their appeal, they reaffirm the stance that Patriarch Bartholomew and the other primates who
have accepted the schismatics have acted arbitrarily and anti-canonically in Ukraine and only
threaten greater disunity and schism in the Church, given that Ukraine is the canonical territory
of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, and notably, they write that the
Moscow Patriarchate is justified in interrupting Eucharistic communion with those who enter
into communion with the schismatics.

***

With great concern, but also with the deepest sorrow, we were informed of the commemoration
of the “primate of the Ukrainian Church” Epiphany by His Beatitude Archbishop Chrysostomos
of Cyprus today, Saturday, October 24, 2020, during the Divine Liturgy at the Holy Monastery
of Panagia Chrysoroyiatissa, where the God-beloved Bishop Pankratios of Arsinoe was
consecrated.

1. The act of the Archbishop constitutes a blatant violation of the synodal, conciliar, and
democratic structure of our Orthodox Church and the functioning of the Orthodox Church of
Cyprus based on this system.

2. This question was raised by His Beatitude at a recent session of the Holy Synod (September 9,
2020), and it was decided then to consider it at another meeting, to hear the views and positions
of all members of the Holy Synod and make a synodal decision on this issue.[1]

3. The recent appointment of Epiphany as the “Primate of the Ukrainian Church” by His All-
Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew has caused turmoil in the
Orthodox Church, and to date, only the Greek Church and the Alexandrian Patriarchate,[2] for

75
reasons not related to this present consideration, have recognized him. All the other Local
Orthodox Churches have a negative stance towards the issue. (It should be noted here that during
the “ordination” of this Epiphany, not a single representative of the Local Orthodox Churches
was present, with all the ensuing consequences.)

4. The one proclaimed “primate” of the Ukrainian Church by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
has no canonical ordination, and this is because he comes from the schismatic groups of the
Ukrainian Church. If His All-Holiness the Patriarch truly desired to follow the canonical
procedure for granting autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine, then he should have granted
autocephaly to the canonical Metropolitan of Kiev, Onuphry, for which he should have obtained
the consent of the Moscow Patriarchate, to which he [Metropolitan Onuphry—Trans.] submits,
as well as the consent of the Local Orthodox primates.

5. The act of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of granting “autocephaly” to the schismatic

structures of the Ukrainian Church is an arbitrary, anti-canonical, and anti-ecclesiastical action in
the sense that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is within the jurisdiction of the Moscow
Patriarchate, and this autocephaly constitutes, as said above, interference within the jurisdiction
of the said Patriarchate. In this regard, the Russian Church, reacting, justifiably interrupted
Church communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and also with the Churches of Greece and
Alexandria.[3]

6. Granting autocephaly is conceivable and possible, according to the Sacred Canons and
practice of our Church, only with the prior approval of the primates of the Local Orthodox
Churches. In this case, the Ecumenical Patriarch, despite the content of the Sacred Canons and
Church Tradition, and contradicting his earlier statements on this issue, acted unilaterally and
arbitrarily. And, unfortunately, the primate of the Cypriot Church has followed this example,
ignoring and despising his own Holy Synod.

7. The Archbishop of Cyprus’ decision to commemorate Epiphany as the “primate of the

Ukrainian Church” further exacerbates the tense situation between the Orthodox Churches,
threatens to increase the schism in universal Orthodoxy, and recklessly integrates the Church of
Cyprus into this climate [of schism—Trans.].

8. We call upon His Beatitude to immediately revoke this anti-canonical and invalid act, and at
the same time, we ask all of our bishops of the Cypriot Church to jointly demand the convocation
of an extraordinary session of the Holy Synod to make an appropriate decision.

9. Finally, we must also emphasize the untimely nature of our primate’s actions, given the
critical times we are going through, as far as our national issue is concerned, but also the
threatening actions of the Turkish expansionist policy, which threatens to diminish our nation.

We testify to all the above in good faith, aware of our hierarchical conscience and our sacred
duty to preserve the canonical order and unity of the Church in order to avoid the deadly sin of
schism, for according to St. John Chrysostom, “no blood can wash away this sin.”

Nicosia, October 24, 2020

76
Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos and Tellyria,
Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos, Bishop Nicholas of Amathountos
Translation by Jesse Dominick

Union of Orthodox Journalists

10/25/2020

“We must overcome impermissible egoism,

stubbornness and lust for power”
Met Nikiforos of Kykkos’ Speech to the Conference
“Monasticism and the Contemporary World”
Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos and Tellyria

From November 28–29, 2019, a conference was held at the Mega Synodiko of the Metochion of
Kykkos in Cyprus, at which His Eminence Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos and Tellyria gave
his greeting. Met. Nikephoros made the important point that in the current canonical crisis the
Orthodox Church, monastics have the particular obligation not to keep silence, but apply all
their strength and work toward a resolution.

We provide below a translation from the Greek produced by the important website, Orthodox
Synaxis. The Greek version can be found here.

77
    

I express my joy and pleasure with the present international conference, which has as its theme
“Monasticism and the Contemporary World,” which is jointly organized by the Holy Metropoles
of Limassol and Amathos, Kykkos and Tellyria, Tamasos and Tamassos and Oreini, and the
Synodal Office of Monasticism of the Moscow Patriarchate.

I cordially welcome to Cyprus, “this island of the Saints and Martyrs,” the distinguished
representatives of the sister Orthodox Church of Russia and I pray, with God, for the success and
fruitfulness of the activities of this conference.

It has been stated—and this characterization is God-given and precise—that monasticism

constitutes “calling with a loud proclamation to the feast” (Proverbs 9:3 LXX).

This is because those who are guests at its table, though they are on earth, voluntarily choose to
practice the “angelic state” and to acquire “holy knowledge and experience”, things that “contain
countless good things”, in the words of Saint Neilos the Ascetic.

Nevertheless, a practitioner of holy and angelic conduct and an initiate of God’s love, with the
vertical and the horizontal dimension, it is only this one who lays the “foursquare foundation” of
the monastic edifice, according to our Saint Neophytos, obedience, abstinence, patience and
humility.

78
Thus, monasticism highlights, and as a comprehensive charisma also constitutes, a “sign” of God
in the world, that which is “near and that which is far,” over time. The history of our Church also
evinces and confirms this to us.

Yes. Is there not prosperity in the monastic state, which has also lifted up great fathers and
teachers as well as saints of our Church, who become “points of light in the world” and with
their prominent words and with their all-virtuous model are the God-proclaiming trumpets of our
Church in the Ecumene?

Is not the University of Monasticism, which has cultivated and brought forth the abundance of
literature of theology, the sacred treasuries of Hymnography, the riches of Iconography and
Philanthropy worthy of God, as well as stores of Letters, Arts and Education?

Or, even today, are not those who love it, the divine philosophy, who continue to hold on to and
demonstrate the historic course and offering of monasticism, confirming, with general askesis
and their state, the words of the Lord, that they belong to the “wise and faithful stewards” (Luke
12:42) who multiply the talents that God gives humankind? (Matthew 25:15, etc.)

The multifaceted work of monasticism finds its summation and statement in the timeless saying
of a great Monk of our Church, Saint John Climacus, who declares that “Angels are light for
monks and monks are the light of those in the world”!

Taking into consideration the program of this conference, and the reputation of its speakers, I am
confident that, with the presentations and the fertile questions and comments of its participants, it
will meet the expectations of the organizers, who aim to demonstrate the importance and
significance of monasticism in the contemporary world.

Nevertheless, beloved conference-goers, as a Bishop of the Orthodox Church of Christ, I

profoundly feel the necessity, before I leave this podium, to express my anxieties and fears
regarding the painful crisis that our Orthodoxy is going through, a perilous and unjustified crisis
that has broken out within our Orthodox Church on account of the non-canonical decision of His
All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, to recognize the
schismatic Church of Kiev and to grant so-called “autocephaly” to Ukraine, apart from
unanimous canonical tradition and timeless ecclesiastical practice.

This tragedy of division, beloved brothers in Christ, threatens to tear apart the Body of the One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

We are experiencing events that remind us of the eve of the schism of 1054, which split
ecumenical Christianity into Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, with all the subsequent
tragic consequences.

Already the immense schism that threatens Ecumenical Orthodoxy, after the Primates of
Alexandria and Athens rallied to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, has hatched and
stands, not before, but within the gates of the Orthodox Church.

79
Therefore, it is not permitted for anyone—and especially not us Orthodox monks, who constitute
the vanguard of our Church—to remain apathetic and idle in the face of the current dramatic
impasse that our Orthodoxy is experiencing.

We must all transform our passive anguish into active responsibility. We must—we monks of
our Holy Orthodox Church first and foremost—attract, with the strenuous eruption of our all-
night prayer, the mercy of God and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, so that the leaders of
Orthodoxy, the Primates of our local Orthodox Churches , with kenotic love and a sacrificial and
humble mindset, listen to the voice of the Lord, according to that strenuous prayer of His, “that
they all may be one” (John 17:21), overcome impermissible egoism, stubbornness and lust for
power, and begin a fraternal pan-Orthodox dialogue in order to overcome the current crisis that
threatens the unity of Orthodoxy.

The Primates of our Churches must, in a frank dialogue of love and humility, without the
influence of outside political powers and the involvement of geostrategic and geopolitical
interests, offer to our Church the fragrant witness of unity, because we should not forget that the
sin of schism is irremediable and unforgivable.

Only if the basic principle of synodality, upon which our our Orthodox Church has always
insisted, once again functions can there be an exit to the current impasse, which threatens the
unity of our Orthodoxy. I pray that the All-Merciful and All-Good Lord “with the temptation will
also make the way of escape” (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Beloved brothers in Christ,

With these thoughts I greet you and once more with special joy and satisfaction and I pray for the
success of our conference.

May the spirit of love and the joy of our brotherhood embrace you all for the entire duration of
your presence here.

I thank you.

Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos and Tellyria

Orthodox Synaxis

12/3/2019

Ukraine Schism: What is a Layman To Do?

Archpriest John Whiteford

80
 The Battle of Salamis     

I recently received an e-mail with some practical questions about how people should deal with
the implications of the mess created by Constantinople's incursion into the canonical territory of
the Russian Church, and their embrace of unrepentant and unordained schismatics in Ukraine:

"I've been watching the ecclesiastical crisis over Ukraine since it began. As the crisis
worsens, it's causing me growing concern about how it is affecting Orthodox life here in
North America. Could you kindly formulate some advice for Orthodox Christians who
wish to avoid involvement with the schismatics?

I believe the Ukrainian schismatics are indeed schismatics, and their "clergy" are
unordained individuals, and that anyone in the canonical Church who communes or serves
with the schismatics deserve to be subjected to the prescribed canonical penalties in due
course.

However, I am aware of clergy in canonical jurisdictions who openly support the

schismatics, including an OCA deacon who writes for the Fordham blog. How is an
Orthodox Christian like myself supposed to act around such clergy? How would I handle it
if I visited a canonical parish somewhere for a service, and a clergyman unexpectedly

81
 endorsed the schismatics during the service? (For example, Patriarch Theodoros
commemorating Dumenko while serving in Cyprus.)

Another difficult issue is that Mr. Dumenko, the self-styled "Metropolitan Epifany," was
in the United States in October, and concelebrated with GOA clergy for Liturgy at the
GOA cathedral in New York City. During the service, Mr. Dumenko performed a
ceremony to "ordain" a man named George Kazoulis as a deacon, and Kazoulis is now
serving as a deacon somewhere in the GOA. As far as I know, Dumenko has no holy
orders, and cannot transmit what he does not possess. What happens during services
concelebrated by canonical clergy with a man who is no bishop?

What happens during services where a man like Kazoulis is serving as a deacon? What
should Orthodox Christians do if we unexpectedly find ourselves in a service like this?
(For that matter, what happens if Kazoulis is ever subjected to a priestly ordination on the
pretext that he is already a deacon?)

I am sorry to have to send a ton of questions at once, but I really wasn't sure what or who
else to ask, and I figured that if you chose to respond, you could use it for a blog post that
would be helpful to a lot of people. There has been a disappointing lack of practical advice
from the canonical jurisdictions. Even ROCOR says very little these days, except to stay
away from the clergy and churches that have defected to the GOA.

For what it's worth, I fully expect this crisis to get much worse before it gets better, I
expect it to become a practical issue for all Orthodox Christians everywhere, and I think
ignoring it is an unconscionable way of downplaying a serious problem."

The schism that has been initiated by the uncanonical actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople,
has created a crisis in the Orthodox world, and I think we have only just begun to see how bad
things will likely get. However, we also need to rest assured that God is on His throne, and that if
not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from God's providence (Matthew 10:29), then
certainly He will work His will in this crisis, despite the fact that it seems we are surrounded by
treason against the Faith, cowardice, and deceit. On the one hand, we face problems we never
thought we would encounter from within the Church, but on the other hand, God is using this
crisis, I believe, to prune His vine.

The immediate issue that is stirring things up is the schism over Ukraine, but there are many
other issues at work here. We have long seen those who have been pushing an Ecumenist agenda
in the Church. There is also a renovationist agenda being pushed, that began with things like
allowing priests to enter into second marriages, but has gone way past that point. Now we have
an increasing number of voices, especially from within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but by no
means limited to that Church, who are pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality,
transgenderism, and a whole host of other perversions.

For example, five years ago we had the case of Gregory Pappas of the Pappas Post who publicly
complained that a Greek Orthodox priest refused to commune him, because he is an active
homosexual. In his complaint, there is no suggestion that he is struggling against this sin, only

82
justification for his sin -- and in fact, a clear denial that it really is a sin. But the saddest part of
this story is that, according to him, Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh told him that while the
priest was "technically within his canonical rights" to deny him communion, he would commune
him, and that other priests had likewise offered to commune him. This was all posted publicly,
and there have been no denials or clarifications from Metropolitan Savas, so far as I have heard.

I have previously been told by Greek Orthodox clergy that in the Metropolis of Chicago, they
have been told that they are not to refuse active homosexuals from receiving communion, and
just this past week, this was confirmed in a report on the most recent clergy meetings of that
Metropolis:

"On Monday, November 18, during a Clergy Syndesmos meeting for the Metropolis of
Chicago, His Eminence Metropolitan Nathanael forcefully instructed his priests that they
were no longer permitted to announce the parameters for receiving Holy Communion prior
to its distribution at any time, even on festal celebrations such as Pascha and Nativity,
when there are multitude of unknown persons in the Church.

Nathanael said he knew that his priests were doing this, that he himself had heard them
make such announcements and read them in their bulletins and on their websites — no
longer!

Nathanael, a noted deep theological thinker and pastoral wizard, explained that if St. John
Chrysostom, “the author of the Divine Liturgy” (uh…no…) had wanted such an
announcement to be made prior to the distribution of Holy Communion then it would have
been encoded in the service itself. As it is, the only “announcement” is that people should
approach with the “fear of God, faith and love.” Since the blessed Patriarch of
Constantinople included no other warnings, the priests of the Metropolis of Chicago will
here after be forbidden from saying anything more than that, hence, as of November 18,
2019, Holy Communion is OFFICIALLY OPEN in the Metropolis of Chicago. No public
announcements describing who ought not approach the Chalice will be permitted, Canons
be damned.

Nathanael explained that the clergy have no right to discourage anyone from approaching
the Chalice, and after all, he said, it makes us “look like bigots” if we forbid people.

He further explained that if a person is told not to approach the Chalice to receive Holy
Communion because he / she / it is engaged in sinful behavior that, according to CANON
LAW, forbids their participation, they might not come back to Church. He reminded the
priests that we don’t want to discourage people from attending Church" (See: "Nathanael
Announces Open Communion in the Metropolis of Chicago").

His Eminence would do well to read St. John Chrysostom's homily that is read a few days prior
to Pascha:

"O my beloved and greatly-desired brethren who have gathered in the Holy Church of
God, in order to serve the Living God in holiness and righteousness, and, with fear, to

83
 partake of the holy, most-pure, and immortal, awesome Mysteries of Christ: Hearken unto
me who am lowly and unworthy. For it is not I who am speaking to you and instructing
you; rather the grace of the Most-holy and Life-giving Spirit; for I speak not from myself,
but as I have been instructed by the divine canons, and the God-bearing Fathers, as the
Church received instruction from the divine Apostles who received their wisdom from
God, so do I myself speak, who am lowly and least of all. I know not your works; I
consider not that which you have begun; and so, as one who fears God, I give counsel to
everyone among you, whether man or woman, whether great or small, to anyone of you
that may be guilty of sin, convicted by your own counsels, that first you must repent and
confess your sins, that you may dare, considering yourself unworthy, to approach and
touch the Divine Fire Itself. For our God is a consuming Fire, and they, therefore, who
with faith and fear draw near to the God and King and Judge of us all, shall burn and
scorch their sins; and It shall enlighten and sanctify their souls. But It shall burn and
scorch with shame, the souls and bodies of them that draw near with unbelief. Therefore,
many among you are ill and sleep in sickness, that is, many are dying unconfessed and
unrepentant. And furthermore, my brethren, I beseech you, and I say: no one that swears
oaths, nor a perjurer, nor a liar, nor one that finds fault with others, nor a fornicator, nor an
adulterer, nor a homosexual, nor a thief, nor a drunkard, nor a blasphemer, nor one that
envies his brother, nor a murderer, nor a sorcerer, nor a magician, nor a charmer, nor an
enchanter, nor a robber, nor a Manichean, shall, unconfessed and unprepared, approach,
touch, or draw near the dread Mysteries of Christ, for it is terrible to fall into the hands of
the Living God. For the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even
to the joints and marrow and bones, and thoughts and hearts. See, therefore, my brethren,
that no one approach, unrepentant or unprepared or unworthily, to partake of His dread and
most-pure Mysteries. For He Himself saith: I am He, and there is no god besides me; I kill,
and I make alive; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand; for I, Myself, am
King forever: to Whom is due all glory, honor, and worship: to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages, Amen" (Homily for Holy
Thursday (See The Great Book of Needs, Volume II, St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998,
pp. 332-333)).

Given the support that the Greek Archdiocese gives to publications like "Public Orthodoxy,"
which incessantly promotes the acceptance of perversion within the Church, this should come as
no shock to anyone. This is the fruit of nearly a century of spiritual drifting on the part of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, which St. John of Shanghai spoke of in 1938, in a report to the
2nd All-Diaspora Sobor. It may be that repentance will turn Constantinople around, but it is not
likely to happen in the near term, if it happens at all.

So to get to the practical answers you are looking for here, we need to stick to the royal path
between the extremes, neither turning to the right nor to the left. In the history of the Church,
there have been heresies and schisms. Many times heresies have brewed for long periods of time,
and at times it has taken centuries for those heresies to either be finally put down, or for those
who have refuse to be corrected to finally be cut off from the Church entirely. During these
periods of controversy, the lines have often not been clear and things have been messy.

St. Basil the Great compared such times to a naval battle:

84
 "To what then shall I liken our present condition? It may be compared, I think, to some
naval battle which has arisen out of time old quarrels, and is fought by men who cherish a
deadly hate against one another, of long experience in naval warfare, and eager for the
fight. Look, I beg you, at the picture thus raised before your eyes. See the rival fleets
rushing in dread array to the attack. With a burst of uncontrollable fury they engage and
fight it out. Fancy, if you like, the ships driven to and fro by a raging tempest, while thick
darkness falls from the clouds and blackens all the scenes so that watchwords are
indistinguishable in the confusion, and all distinction between friend and foe is lost. To fill
up the details of the imaginary picture, suppose the sea swollen with billows and whirled
up from the deep, while a vehement torrent of rain pours down from the clouds and the
terrible waves rise high. From every quarter of heaven the winds beat upon one point,
where both the fleets are dashed one against the other. Of the combatants some are turning
traitors; some are deserting in the very thick of the fight; some have at one and the same
moment to urge on their boats, all beaten by the gale, and to advance against their
assailants. Jealousy of authority and the lust of individual mastery splits the sailors into
parties which deal mutual death to one another.

Think, besides all this, of the confused and unmeaning roar sounding over all the sea, from
howling winds, from crashing vessels, from boiling surf, from the yells of the combatants
as they express their varying emotions in every kind of noise, so that not a word from
admiral or pilot can be heard. The disorder and confusion is tremendous, for the extremity
of misfortune, when life is despaired of, gives men license for every kind of wickedness.
Suppose, too, that the men are all smitten with the incurable plague of mad love of glory,
so that they do not cease from their struggle each to get the better of the other, while their
ship is actually settling down into the deep" (On the Holy Spirit, Ch. XXX).

We should neither be indifferent to these issues, nor should we take the "landmine" view of the
canons, and assume that everyone in the Ecumenical Patriarchate is already outside of the
Church because of the actions of their leaders.

What should a layman do under today's circumstances? A lot would depend on what parish you
are in, and what options you may have. There are many priests within the jurisdiction of
Constantinople that I know to be devout, and firm in their stand for the Faith. Were I a layman in
such a parish, I would certainly not make any hasty decisions, particularly if there was not a
better option in the area that I lived in. However, it is hard to see how much longer faithful
clergy will be allowed to remain so, given the kind of instructions they are getting from their
bishops.

I would say that one should absolutely not participate in any service in which one of the
Ukrainian schismatics, or anyone ordained by them was serving. As time goes on, this is a line
that will become increasing difficult to draw within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because of
ordinations such as the one you mention, which was clearly done as a means of forcing those in
America to accept this schism, whether they like it or not.

One thing I think we all need to avoid, is allowing anyone to paint this crisis in terms of it being
just a matter of Russians vs. the Greeks. This is not about ethnicity, this is about Orthodoxy. This

85
is not Russian vs. Greeks -- it is Orthodoxy vs. heresy and schism. I know too many Greeks who
are standing for the Faith, and know enough Russians who are not, to see it in those terms.

Everyone should look to their conscience, and ask their guardian angel to speak them through the
voice of their conscience. One should also seek wise counsel with regard to their specific
circumstances, and pray that God would show them the way, and then they should take the wiser
path that is in accordance with their conscience. They should also pray that God would correct
them, if they should stray from the right path.

There is a Chinese proverb, which I think is a good and wise one: "A wise rabbit has three
holes." I think it would be wise for those within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or any other
jurisdiction that has bishops who show signs of wavering in terms of the Truth, to at least
contemplate their alternatives now, and keep their options open.

One thing that is clear, is that if Constantinople does not correct itself, everyone in the Church
will eventually have to make a choice to either take a stand against what they are doing, or to
accept the growing apostasy that we are seeing unfold.

If push comes to shove, obviously, one should go to a parish that is standing for the Truth. That
may mean another parish down the road, or it may mean a parish that is far away, and doing
reader services at home when you are unable to make it to that parish. See: What should
Orthodox Christians do, when there is no parish nearby?

Fr. John Whiteford's Commentary and Reflections

Archpriest John Whiteford

12/11/2019

The Ukrainian Experiment of the Vatican

and the Phanar as a Step Towards Uniting
Orthodoxy with Papism
Professor Kyriakos Kyriazopoulos

At the end of 2019 on the Greek “Cosmos” television channel an extremely important and
informative interview with Mr. Kyriakos Kyriazopoulos, professor of ecclesiastical law in the
law faculty of Aristotle University in Thessaloniki. This interview was dedicated to the huge
problem that Orthodoxy has encountered in Ukraine, as well as in connection with the Phanar’s
actions directed towards uniting with Roman Catholics.

We offer a fragment from a transcription of this program.

86
    

—The purpose of the creation of the OCU by the Constantinople Patriarchate is the furthering of
the ecumenical movement. As you know, in Western Ukraine, besides the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Uniate church headed by an archbishop has been active
along with two schismatic structures—the “Kiev Patriarchate” and the “Autocephalous church”.

—What is the goal of the Constantinople Patriarchate in founding the so-called

“Autocephalous Church of Ukraine” headed by Epiphany?

—The goal is to weaken the Moscow Patriarchate, in order to enable a union between the
Ukrainian Uniates and the so-called “autocephalous church of Ukraine” headed by Epiphany.
The goal consists in creating a union, a “Patriarchate”, which will contain Uniates along with
Epiphany’s supporters.

—And to whom will they be in subordination?

—Through Constantinople, they will be subordinate to the pope. The situation wherein papism
differs from Orthodoxy is apparent, because these events are developing along the lines of inter-
Christian ecumenism. (There also exists interfaith ecumenism). The unification of Christian
groups into one structure. This structure will work upon the basis of a unitary and single politic
—the papal one.

87
This union is being imposed by, besides the European Union, international political and
economic entities.

Professor Kyriakos Kyriazopoulos —Is something similar to

this planned on the European level for 2025?

—In preparation for that moment, meetings are being planned between papists and Orthodox
with the aim of uniting in 2025. Therefore, in June of 2019, in honor of the Roman pope’s
patronal feast—Sts. Peter and Paul—Bartholomew sent a letter to the pope of Rome with a call
to “complete by November, 2020 the dialogue concerning primacy of the pope of Rome in the
first millennia.

I will explain to you how this “union” will be created, because this also relates to Ukraine;
because an experiment is being conducted there on the unification of papists with Orthodox. An
experiment of unification of the “OCU” with Uniates is already being conducted. The Vatican,
through the “Papal Council for the Cooperation of Christian Unity”, has agreed upon a meeting
between the archbishop of the Ukrainian Uniates with Bartholomew.

That is precisely where it has been decided to further the ecumenical relations between Epiphany
and the Uniates in Ukraine.

Besides joint prayers and the commemoration of Ukrainian Nazis (the schismatics have always
sided with the Ukrainian Nazis, and Epiphany has been drawn into this commemoration), thanks
to this and other actions in Ukraine, the experimental ecumenical union of papism with the
Orthodox of the Autocephalous Churches is being furthered. They are preparing the ground for
union.

This is in fact precisely what the Vatican’s politics consists of. The Vatican has wanted this from
the moment that the Unia came into being, and it has always striven to turn the Orthodox into
Uniates—so that they would keep up their own traditions, but dogmatically recognize the pope
of Rome as the head of the Church with the right to establish dogmas. The pope has to be the
supreme lawgiver, the supreme leader, and supreme judge. That’s what papism is.

The Uniates dogmatically accept the pope as the head of the Church. That means that they accept
the changes that took place in the Western church during the second millennium, when the
Western church transformed itself into papism.

88
The goal of the Vatican is to transform the Autocephalous Churches into Uniate churches. This
is the purpose of ecumenical dialogue.

At the present time, a mixed theological commission of the Roman Catholic church and the
Orthodox Church is discussing the role of the pope’s primacy in the first millennium. By the end
of November, 2020, they will agree upon a single text and present it to a “council” of papists
and Orthodox, which will take place in 2025 with the aim of uniting, and they will say, “We have
agreed and will unite on the basis of the primacy of honor of the pope of Rome in the first
millennium, which we accepted then.” This agreement, of course, will only be in word.

As for the nomocanonical part, this will be an agreement with the Roman pope’s primacy of
power in the second millennium. But they will not say this.

Papism wants that the “Codex of canons of the Eastern Churches” published in 1990 by the
Polish pope John Paul II be applied to the Autocephalous Churches, which are so far still
Orthodox. This codex also includes dogmatic rules that impose the pope as a leader possessing
primacy of power.

The Constantinople Patriarch and in particular Bartholomew are making the following mistake.
He wants to gain something. He want to be recognized as the head, so that he can have power
over what are still the Autocephalous Churches when the union takes place. Because there will
be a papal primacy of power, he also wants to have the same primacy of power that he doesn’t
yet have among the Autocephalous Churches, which will then become uniate. He is trying to
guarantee this primacy of power by means of the canon law [that Orthodoxy has] in common
with papism.

But his mistake consists in the following: In Roman Catholic legislature, only the pope and the
bishops are unchangeable institutions. The “interim” structures—the patriarchs, archbishops,
and so on—are not unchangeable institutions. The pope can change them. That is, even if he
gives Bartholomew what he wants in order to have power over the so far Autocephalous
Orthodox Churches, in the future the pope of Rome will revoke that. Because this is an
“ecclesiastical” and not a “Divine law”.

Unchangeable institutions are called “Divine law”. Patriarchs and archbishops are “ecclesiastical
law”; that is, they can change. Consequently, what he [Bartholomew] is trying to achieve will be
like a house built upon sand, which will collapse. The Constantinople Patriarchate is conducting
incorrect politics and will lose what he does have. He will lose primacy of honor, and then also
primacy of power—which he is now trying to acquire through the pope.

—And what will the Russians do?

—The Russians have already figured this out. The Russians did not sign the Ravenna Council
text about papal primacy1. The Russians accepted neither the pope’s primacy of power, nor
Constantinople’s primacy of power. They also made mistakes. But now they are worried about
their mistakes after Bartholomew’s actions in Ukraine. Up till that time, they were walking in
step with Bartholomew.

89
From the moment they did not go to the Crete pseudo-council and when the Ukrainian crisis
arose, the Moscow Patriarchate has also become worried about its haveing politically followed
the Ecumenical Patriarch in matters of ecumenism. Of course, it made mistakes: It also allowed
the signing of an agreement with the pope in Cuba.

It [the Moscow Patriarchate] has its apprehensions, and it seems that it has reassessed the
position it held up till now. There are questions of church diplomacy mixed in. But when
diplomacy is mixed with ecumenism, you’re sunk.

There exist also other types of ecumenism: between the Orthodox and various branches of
Protestantism—Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, and so on. Or ecumenism with
Monophysitism. This is all happening, but it depends upon the more large-scale experiment with
the unification of Orthodox Autocephalous Churches with papism. All the rest will take care of
itself.

This experiment with reuniatiziation, that is, with turning the Orthodox Churches into Uniate
ones based on papal ecclesiology—that is, their catholicization. At the present moment, an
experiment is being conducted with the catholicization of the Ukraine through the
“autocephalous church” of Epiphany.

They are trying to unite intoi one “patriarchate” under the aegis of the Vatican and the
Constantinople Patriarchate, as the archbishop of the Ukrainian Uniates has himself stated. This
union presupposes an ecclesiology upon the basis of which it will exist. Is it Orthodox, or papist?
The Orthodox [ecclesiology] is powerless institutionally and politically. The Vatican wants and
is working hard to apply its own ecclesiology, because if it unites with Orthodoxy on Orthodox
conditions, it will collapse as a papacy.

Professor Kyriakos Kyriazopoulos

Ουκρανικό

2/20/2020

Was St. John (Maximovitch) a Schismatic?

(Concerning the Statements of Metropolitan Emmanuel of
Gaul)
Bernard Le Caro

The following article was written, as the title indicates, in response to recent remarks from
Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gaul of the Patriarchate of Constantinople about St. John
(Maximovitch), great among the saints. While the Metropolitan refers to the Holy Hierarch as a
schismatic, he at least acknowledges his sanctity. On the other hand, in the past few weeks, a

90
very public member of the Archons (the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle)—a group of laymen
who act as defenders of the Patriarchate of Constantinople—who uses memes rather than
reasoned dialogue to attack anyone who does not wholly follow the Constantinople party line on
Ukraine or any other issue, has taken to blaspheming Christ through His saints, attacking the
person of St. John and denying his sainthood with language and a spirit inappropriate for any
Orthodox Christian. Thus, the present article is doubly relevant.

St. John
(Maximovitch)     

Much has already been said about the unfortunate events in the Church life of the much-suffering
Orthodox people in Ukraine, and it seemed that the Patriarchate of Constantinople had already
exhausted all its arguments to justify the unjustifiable. However, the representatives of

91
Constantinople are now trying to prove that the “Russians” did the same thing in the past, they
say, as they, Constantinople, are doing now.

What are we referring to? On the occasion of the patronal feast of the Greek cathedral in Paris,
the representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the French capital, Metropolitan
Emmanuel of Gaul, stated:

The blessed union of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate led to the restoration of this
Church and its many souls in the bosom of the canonical Church. For almost a century,
this Church was in schism. Schismatic bishops consecrated other bishops over the course
of three or four generations. But the time came when the Moscow Patriarchate entered into
full communion with them without hesitation in 2007, not questioning the Apostolic
Succession of these hierarchs. Indeed, such a holy person as John (Maximovitch), who was
born a schismatic, was consecrated to the episcopacy by schismatics, and died a
schismatic, was recognized as a saint by the Moscow Patriarchate and is venerated by all
of us today.

Having compiled, with God’s help, the biography of St. John, and moreover, having participated
in the IV All-Diaspora Council in 2006, which laid the foundation for Eucharistic communion
between ROCOR and the MP, I consider it my duty to tell the truth about the saint and about the
restoration of Eucharistic communion between the Russian Church Abroad and the Russian
Orthodox Church in 2007.

92
 Signing of the Act of Reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad with the Russian
Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, May 17, 2007. Photo: S. Vlasov, V. Khodakov /
patriarchia.ru     

1. Above all, the statement that a schismatic can be numbered among the saints is at least
strange, because, according to the Holy Fathers, the sin of schism is not washed away even by
martyr’s blood.

2. As for St. John (Maximovitch), the future hierarch was born in Adamovka, in the Kharkov
Governorate of the Russian Empire, on the territory of modern Ukraine. At that time, there
existed only one all-Russian Church: There was no ROCOR, nor even the Patriarchate of
Moscow, which was restored, as we know, in 1917. To claim that St. John “was born in schism”
is simply absurd.

3. But if St. John was not “born in schism,” then was he “consecrated to the episcopacy by
schismatics?” As we know, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), formerly of Kiev and Galicia,
the First Hierarch of ROCOR, led the consecration of St. John in Belgrade. Therefore, we need
to clarify whether ROCOR was an organization like the “Kiev Patriarchate” or the “Ukrainian
Autocephalous Orthodox Church,” now united, or rather—half-united in the “OCU.”

93
 ROCOR was founded in 1920 on the basis of Decree No. 362 of His Holiness Patriarch
Tikhon, the Holy Synod, and the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox
Church—that is, the highest authority of the Russian Orthodox Church. This is the first
difference between ROCOR and the Ukrainian schism: All of the ROCOR hierarchs had
canonical consecrations and created their ecclesiastical body with the blessing of the
Church authorities, while Philaret Denisenko and Makary Maletich did not obey the
Church hierarchy and created a schism. Moreover, Makary and those with him have their
“succession” from the impostor Vincent Chekalin, so they, and not the bishops of
ROCOR, do not have Apostolic Succession. This is the first and most important
difference.
 However, later, in 1934, the Locum Tenens of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne Sergius
(Stragorodsky), under enormous pressure from the godless authorities, suspended
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and seven hierarchs abroad, although, as the
famous canonist S. V. Troitsky wrote at the time, “not a single Orthodox Church paid
attention to his (Metropolitan Sergius’) prohibition and did not interrupt communion with
the Russian hierarchs abroad,” based on the view that this prohibition was not an
expression of the free will of Metropolitan Sergius.

It is also interesting how the Moscow Patriarchate itself and the Constantinople
Patriarchate treated this suspension. Regarding the MP, it is enough to recall that
Patriarch Alexei I himself served a panikhida at the grave of Metropolitan Anthony
(Khrapovitsky) in Belgrade in 1957. Would the Patriarch have served a panikhida for a
“schismatic?”

And what was Constantinople’s attitude to the foreign “schismatics” until recently? Here
are just two examples, although there are many more:

In 1964, Bishop Dionysius (Psiahas) of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Australia

took part in the nomination of Archimandrite Philaret (Voznesensky), the future First
Hierarch of ROCOR, as Bishop of Brisbane. And in the 1960s, the future Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew, then a young deacon and student of the Pontifical Oriental
Institute, concelebrated with a ROCOR hierarch in the ROCOR parish in Rome.

And most importantly: From the beginning of the Synod Abroad’s stay in Yugoslavia in
1921 until the canonical act, ROCOR was in Eucharistic communion with the Serbian
Orthodox Church, as evidenced by the fact that Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro,
with the blessing of Patriarch Alexei II, participated in the IV All-Diaspora Council and
concelebrated with the ever-memorable Metropolitan Laurus in San Francisco, a year
before the canonical act of 2007. This means ROCOR was always in communion with
the Universal Church. Was there anything similar with the Ukrainian schismatics? This is
the second difference.
 And the third difference: Even if the suspension was canonical, the hierarch remains a
hierarch; with a defrocking—as in the case of the former Metropolitan Philaret
Denisenko—the hierarch is deprived of Divine grace, as are all his “ordinations.”
 There is a fourth difference, no less significant. Metropolitan Emmanuel, as well as the
Ecumenical Patriarch, endlessly repeat that their intention was to return the Ukrainian

94
 schismatics to communion with the Universal Church, and this would have been
laudable. But the question is this: According to the Holy Fathers, even something good
done in a not good way is not good. To this St. Justin (Popovic) added: “Not like the
Jesuits, for whom the ends justify the means.” In this respect, it is interesting to consider
how, on the one hand, the reunion of the MP and ROCOR in 2007 happened, and how,
on the other, the so-called “unification council” in Kiev in 2018 happened.

The first important step towards the reunification of the MP and ROCOR was the
convocation of the IV All-Diaspora Council in San Francisco in 2006. At the insistence
of the ever-memorable First Hierarch of ROCOR Metropolitan Laurus, all “parties” were
to be represented at it, including those opposed to reunion, of which there were not a few.
Therefore, after a long discussion at the Council, the sides could not come to an agreed-
upon decision. Then suddenly the priests who were members of the editorial board of the
Council’s appeal, recalled the miracle of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia, when the
Orthodox holy hierarchs and their opponents wrote their confessions of faith on separate
scrolls and placed them in the tomb of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia. Three days later,
the Patriarch opened the reliquary: St. Euphemia was holding the scroll with the
Orthodox confession in her right hand, and the heretical scroll lay at her feet… It was the
same at the All-Diaspora Council: The priests laid the draft of the Council’s appeal with a
request to the hierarchy of ROCOR to enter into Eucharistic communion with the MP on
the holy relics of St. John and served a moleben before his relics with the
commemoration by name of every participant in the Council. The next day, to everyone’s
surprise, the appeal was unanimously adopted by all.

It is not by human efforts and ideas, but by the grace of God, that the unity of the Church
is achieved when it is destroyed by the primordial enemy of the salvation of mankind.
The Holy Spirit Himself accomplishes unity, not us. The fruit of the canonical act of
2007 was not just the reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church, but the joy of the
entire Orthodox world and the unanimity of holy Churches of God on this occasion.

In contrast to the All-Diaspora Council, the “unification council” in Kiev gathered only
two canonical hierarchs and all the schismatics, and its final result was simply a fiasco:
The situation continues until today in Ukraine. Moreover, the “honorary Patriarch”
Philaret restored his “Kiev Patriarchate” with several “hierarchs.” It is clear that the Holy
Spirit is absent in all this history, for He “welds together,” not dispersing “the whole
institution of the Church.” Unlike the canonical act of 2007, the “tomos” sowed
confusion, discord, and schism in the entire Orthodox world, including within the Greek
and Alexandrian Churches, which—non-synodally—recognized the “OCU.” Ye shall
know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (Mt. 7:16).
 One more difference: ROCOR didn’t pursue “with fire and sword” those few
communities that didn’t accept the canonical act, although it could have filed civil suits to
have the churches taken from it returned. But in Ukraine, everyone knows the nearly
daily seizures of churches of the canonical Church (with the complete silence of
Constantinople and the Western “democracies”). Thus, their methods are different.

95
4. Let us return now to St. John, “venerated by all of us,” in the words of Metropolitan
Emmanuel. What was his view on the policy of the Ecumenical Throne? In his report at the II
All-Diaspora Council in 1938, St. John decisively protested against the neo-papist actions of
Constantinople, including in Russia, and said the following as if prophetic words:

The vicar of Metropolitan Evlogy in Paris, who was consecrated with the permission of the
Ecumenical Patriarch, has assumed the title of Chersonese, as if Chersonese, which is now in the
territory of Russia, is subject to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The next logical step for the
Ecumenical Patriarchate would be to declare the whole of Russia as being under the jurisdiction
of Constantinople.

To the deep chagrin of all who love the Church, these words came true.

5. From the above, it is clear that the Moscow Patriarchate entered into communion with the
hierarchs of ROCOR in 2007 with the consciousness that the latter were canonically consecrated
and were not schismatics, and not “with a simple signature,” as, unfortunately, Constantinople
acted in regard to the self-consecrated—that is, without Apostolic Succession—and canonically
defrocked “hierarchs” in Ukraine.

Instead of all kinds of justifications, “the foremost of the Orthodox Churches,” in the words of
St. John (Maximovitch), headed by its Patriarch, “whose belittling can in no way be allowed,” as
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) said about it, could have heard the voice of the numerous
archpastors, pastors, and laity of nearly every Local Church and called a true Ecumenical
Council with all the canonical hierarchs of the Church of Christ. This Council, as the hierarch of
the Church of Constantinople Archbishop George (Wagner) of Evdokias expressed it at one time,
could have become a second Council of Trullo, which standardized and supplemented Church
norms. In this case, such a Council could not only have resolved the Ukrainian issue in the Holy
Spirit, but also synodally clarified the disputed meaning of the 28th canon of the Fourth
Ecumenical Council and thus determined what rights the See of Constantinople holds and what it
does not. Then, as St. John said, “Such an outward abasement [by the Turks] of the hierarch of
the city of St. Constantine, which was once the capital of the ecumene, [would] not [have] caused
reverence toward him to be shaken among Orthodox Christians, who revere the See of Sts.
Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian.” Otherwise, if the present situation continues, we will
fall under the condemnation of the words of the holy apostle Paul: The name of God is
blasphemed among the Gentiles through you (Rom. 2:24).

Bernard Le Caro
Translated by Jesse Dominick

Pravoslavie.ru

2/4/2020

96
Shine Forth O Kiev the New Jerusalem—The
Mother of Churches Watches Over You
More on Historical Pan-Orthodox Councils Called by the
Jerusalem Patriarch
Sergei Shumilo

How close are the ecclesiastical-historical ties between Ukraine and the Patriarchate of
Jerusalem? Does the Jerusalem Patriarch have the right to call a Synaxis on the issues of
Ukrainian Orthodoxy? Concerning these issues, the editors of the [Ukrainian] portal
Pravlife.org asked church historian, Director of the International Institute of the Athonite
Legacy in Ukraine, and the director of the Center for the Study of the Heritage of the New
Martyrs and Confessors of the Twentieth Century, Sergei Viktorovich Shumilo.

   

97
—Recently, in some media outlets, one can find derogatory accusations against the
Patriarchate of Jerusalem, as if calling for the council in Amman exceeds its authority, etc.
How reliable and justified are these arguments from a historical point of view?

—This is not true. It is possible to have a different opinion about the Conference in Amman, but
denying the right of the Patriarch of Jerusalem to initiate such an event is wrong. Among the
Catholics, for example, the right to convene and bless councils and meetings is held exclusively
by the Pope. But in Orthodoxy there is no Papism. Therefore, in principle, any Local Church can
initiate such conferences and meetings, especially when it comes to the most ancient Church of
Jerusalem, which from ancient times throughout the Orthodox world, has been revered as the
“Mother of all Churches.” After all, it was there, in Jerusalem, that Christ preached, was
crucified, showed the world the miracle of the Resurrection, and ascended. And here, at
Pentecost, the Church of Christ was founded. The first Apostolic Councils were also held here,
laying the foundation for the organization of the Church…

The most famous of these Jerusalem Apostolic Councils, which is described in detail in the New
Testament, took place around 49 A.D. At that time, the Apostles made a historic decision to
reject the circumcision of non-Jewish converts, as well as to refuse animal sacrifices, Levirate
marriage, and various other Old Testament rites and rituals. All of this is recorded in the message
of the Council, addressed to the first Christians of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia.

— And in later times, were there any Councils of general Orthodox significance in
Jerusalem?

— Yes, there are many such examples. The most striking historical precedent for the convening
by the Patriarch of Jerusalem of such a Pan-Orthodox Synaxis, was the Council of Primates of
the Eastern Churches in Jerusalem, in April 1443. An Orthodox Council was held then in
Jerusalem, at which the Ferrara-Florentine Union of the Patriarchate of Constantinople with
Rome was condemned. This Council was convened on April 6, 1443 and was chaired by
Patriarch Joachim of Jerusalem (1431–1450), and with the participation of the Patriarch of
Antioch Dorotheus (1435–1451), and the Patriarch of Alexandria Philotheus (1435–1459). Also,
the Metropolitan of Caesarea of Cappadocia and Exarch of all the East Arsenius from the Church
of Constantinople took part, among others.

The reason for the convening of the Council was the appeal of the hierarch of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, Metropolitan Arsenius, to the Eastern Patriarchs, due to the appointment in
various dioceses of Uniate Bishops by Patriarch Mitrophan of Constantinople. Unable to appeal
to his Patriarch, Arsenius turned to the Council of Eastern Patriarchs.

At the Council, several definitions were compiled and approved, which condemned the Ferrara-
Florentine Union of the Patriarchate of Constantinople with Rome, and also condemned the
Uniate Patriarch Mitrophan II (1440-1443) and all hierarchs who accepted the union.

By the decision of this Council, the “Council of Florence” held in Italy by the Constantinople
and Latin hierarchs was declared “odious, foul” (μιαρά), and the hierarchs and other clergy who
received the ordination from the [Uniate] Patriarch of Constantinople who had ceased from

98
Orthodoxy were declared “idle and unholy… from henceforth their piety is investigated in a
general and ecumenical way [and found lacking].” Also, Metropolitan Arsenius, as a “preacher
of piety and Orthodoxy,” was authorized by the Jerusalem Pan-Orthodox Council to notify the
entire ecclesiastical completeness of Orthodoxy of this decision, ordering him to “henceforth
preach piety everywhere, not fearing the Emperor, nor the Patriarch, or anyone else who doesn’t
glorify that right.”

—Is this the only example of such a council in Jerusalem in the post-apostolic period?

— No, in fact, there are many examples from church history. Within the Church of Jerusalem
there were many such Councils; to tell about all of them, one would have to write an entire
dissertation. For example, in the first centuries of Christianity, in 190, the Jerusalem Council was
held, which tried to resolve disputes about Pascha and determine a common date for all
Christians to celebrate Pascha. In 393, the Church of Jerusalem held a Council in Caesarea of
Palestine, which examined the dispute over the canonical election of the Patriarch Flavian of
Antioch (381–404), whose legality was disputed by the Roman throne. The dispute was of a
general Christian character, and the Church of Jerusalem firmly objected to the Church of Rome,
deciding to recognize and commemorate Bishop Flavian as the only Primate of the Church of
Antioch.

In 415, Patriarch John II of Jerusalem convened a Council, which considered the accusations
from the Spanish (Galician) presbyter Paulus Orosius, regarding the teachings of the monks
Pelagius and Celestius, who in the Roman Church were in dispute with St. Augustine of Hippo.
And in 453, the Jerusalem Council was convened by Patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem, condemning
the robber’s resolutions of the Robber’s Council of 449 in Ephesus, which was held under the
chairmanship of the Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus, who fell into monophysitism.

Another famous Jerusalem Council was in 513, at which the Monophysite heresy which
prevailed at that time in Constantinople and Byzantium was condemned. The Byzantine emperor
Anastasius (491–518) was then a supporter of monophysitism. Under his influence,
monophysitism began to prevail in the Church of Constantinople, and in the Church of Antioch,
the monophysites, with the support of the authorities, staged a coup, and overthrew the legitimate
Patriarch Flavian II, who refused to accept this teaching. Therefore, the Council held in
Jerusalem condemned the new doctrine and disorder that took place in the Local Churches,
sending a message of protest to the Byzantine emperor Anastasius.

Here is another example: a Council in Jerusalem was held in 764, at which the Patriarch of
Jerusalem Theodore (735–770), together with the Patriarch of Alexandria Cosmos (727–765) and
Patriarch of Antioch Theodore, condemned the iconoclastic heresy, and confirmed the acts of the
six Ecumenical Councils. Another “Pan-Orthodox” Council in Jerusalem took place in 836,
which, in addition to the Jerusalem Patriarch Vasily (820–838) who convened it, was attended by
Patriarchs of Alexandria Christopher (817–841) and Antioch Job (813–843), as well as many
monks from different monasteries. The council condemned the iconoclastic heresy and sent a
message to the Byzantine emperor Theophilos of Constantinople, in defense of the veneration of
icons, which was included in the codex of official Orthodox conciliar definitions.

99
One can recall the “Pan-Orthodox” Jerusalem Council of 1522, convened by the Patriarch of
Jerusalem Dorotheus II (1506-1537). The Patriarchs of Constantinople Jeremiah I (1522–1545),
Alexandria Joachim (1487–1567) and Antioch Michael IV (1523–1529) took part in its work. At
this Council, the seizure of the Patriarchal throne of Constantinople by Metropolitan Joannicius I
of Sozopolis in Thrace was condemned.

In 1672, the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus II (1669-1707) convened a Cathedral in Jerusalem, in

which representatives of other Local Churches took part. The Council approved the Orthodox
Confession of Faith in 18 chapters, which later became an important doctrine document of the
entire Orthodox Church. At the Council, the Protestant [and Calvinist] distortions in the
Confession of Faith, published under the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril
(Lukaris), were refuted, and the Orthodox Confession of Metropolitan St. Peter (Mohyla) of Kiev
and Galicia was redacted and supplemented. The Jerusalem Council also found erroneous the
decision of the Council of Constantinople in 1638 on the anathematization of Patriarch Cyril
(Lukaris).

As we see, the Patriarch of Jerusalem in exceptional cases has the right to convene Councils and
conferences, which often were considered to be "Pan-Orthodox" in nature.

— In some media, you can find accusations against the Jerusalem Patriarchate, as if by
raising the Ukrainian issue at a meeting in Amman, he intervenes in the affairs of a foreign
Local Church. How historically sound are these allegations?

— Again, it all depends on how you look at these issues. In fact, the fate of Ukraine and
Ukrainian Orthodoxy has historically never been foreign to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. It is
enough to recall that the Apostle Andrew the First-Called preached in our lands1, and came
precisely from Jerusalem. Inheriting this tradition, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem for a long-time
exercised jurisdiction over the Crimean, Black Sea, and Scythian lands. The first missionary
bishops known to us, Vasily and Ephraim, who founded the Local Churches of Chersoneses and
Scythia, arrived here from Jerusalem in 310 in Tauroscythia2. A little later, the Patriarch of
Jerusalem Ermon (Hermon), sent three more missionary bishops there—Evgenios, Elpidius and
Agathodoros, who found the Local Churches of Phoulloi, Bosporus, and Phanagoria
(Tmutarakan). Even during the time of Emperor Constantine, the Jerusalem Patriarchs took care
of our lands and sent their bishops here. The Tauroscythian dioceses were deprived of their
autocephaly and the patronage of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem only in 451, at the Council of
Chalcedon.

— Are there any similar examples of the close ties of the Ukrainian Church with the
Jerusalem Patriarchate in later times?

— Yes, of course. The year 2020 marks exactly 400 years since the restoration of Orthodox
hierarchy in Ukraine by the Patriarch Theophanes III of Jerusalem.

As is known, after the Union of Brest in 1596, the Metropolitan of Kiev Michael Rohoza and
almost the entire Orthodox episcopate within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth adopted the
union with Rome. By the early 1620s, The Orthodox Kiev Metropolia remained widowed for 24

100
years, and only one (Orthodox) Bishop in all Ukraine and Belarus remained—Bishop Jeremiah
(Tyssarovsky) of Lviv.

After the episcopate transferred to the union, the Catholic authorities of the Commonwealth
believed that the Orthodox Church in the country had ceased to exist jurisdictionally. However,
the movement for the revival of Orthodoxy was led by simple priests, monks and the Cossacks.
At the request of the Hetman Petro Sahaidachny and the Zaporozhian Cossacks, the Patriarch of
Jerusalem Theophanes III traveled to Ukraine in 1620, and in secret from the Polish authorities,
conducted episcopal ordinations, thereby restoring the Orthodox hierarchy in Ukraine and
Belarus.

The first episcopal consecration by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophanes of Jerusalem was
carried out on October 6, 1620 on the abbot of Mezhyhirya Monastery, Fr. Isaiah (Kopynsky),
who was consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem as bishop of Przemyśl and Sambir. In
addition to Patriarch Theophanes, the Bulgarian Metropolitan of Sofia Neophyt and the Greek
Bishop Abraham of Stagoi participated in this ordination. The ordination of Father Isaiah was
carried out at night, in an atmosphere of strict secrecy, in the Epiphany Church of the Kiev
Brotherhood Monastery in Podol. The liturgy was served almost in a whisper, and instead of the
choir, there was the only singing of the patriarchal clergy; the windows of the church were
shuttered and curtained so that none of the passersby noticed anything. Three days later, on
October 9, in the same Epiphany Brotherhood Church, and in the same way, Father Job
(Boretsky), the abbot of St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery, was secretly consecrated as a
Bishop, who became the first Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia, and all Rus’, after the Unia. Father
Meletius (Smotrytsky) was also ordained as Bishop of Polotsk.

Later, in Podolia, guarded by Hetman Petro Sahaidachny and the Zaporozhian Cossacks, the
Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophanes III secretly ordained three more Orthodox bishops: the
former Athonite monk and abbot of the Cossack Trakhtemyrov Monastery Fr. Joseph
(Kurtsevich-Koryatovich) was ordained as bishop of Vladimir and Brest; the former Athonite
monk and abbot of the Chernchitsky Monastery Fr. Isaac (Boriskovich) as Bishop of Lutsk and
Ostroh; and the abbot of the Myltsi Mykolayivsky Monastery Paisios (Ippolitovich-Cherkovsky)
as the Bishop of Chełm and Belz.

The Catholic hierarchs and authorities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth then accused the
Patriarch of Jerusalem of interfering within the boundaries of another Local Church, and the
Polish authorities declared him a "foreign spy." Whatever the case, it was the Jerusalem
Patriarchate that restored the episcopate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church 400 years ago.

—Does the medieval concept of “Kiev—the New Jerusalem” somehow relate to these
events?

— It arose much earlier, even in the days of the Grand Prince of Kiev Yaroslav the Wise, among
the Kiev Caves scribes who tried to justify the independence of the Kievan Church from
Constantinople. For the first time, we see the comparison of Kiev with Jerusalem by the Kievan
Metropolitan St. Hilarion (Rusyn) in his famous “Sermon on Law and Grace”. Following him,
this idea was developed by Jacob Chornoryzets in his work “Memory and Praise to Prince

101
Vladimir”. He displays in it the perfect formula: “Oh what wonder! For the Second Jerusalem on
earth has become Kiev!”

With the decline of the statehood of Kievan Rus, for some time the ecclesiastical concept “Kiev
—the Second Jerusalem” became forgotten. However, it was precisely the involvement of the
Jerusalem Patriarch Theophanes in restoring the hierarchy of the Kievan Metropolia in 1620, that
triggered a new revival of this ancient pious ideology of the Kiev Caves spiritual athletes.

The first post-Unia Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, Job (Boretsky,† 1631), states concerning the
Kievan Church that she, unlike the Rome-centered union, “is [established] on the good oak, the
foundation of the Zion’s blessing”, and calls its cathedra “the new Jerusalem of Rus’”. In his
encyclical of December 15, 1621, Metropolitan Job urged all the faithful to again acknowledge
“the God-saved city of Kiev, the Second Jerusalem of Rus’." In his other letters, the Saint calls
Kiev “the shrine of the true Jerusalem,” “the modern restored shrine from Jerusalem,” and speaks
of his cathedra as “the holy throne of the Metropolia of Kievan Jerusalem.” Athanasius
Kalnofoyski also wrote concerning Kiev as the “Second Jerusalem” in his work, the
“Teratourgema”, published in the typography of Kiev Caves Lavra in 1638.

It is symbolic that the successor of Metropolitan Job (Boretsky), the Metropolitan Hesachyst
Isaiah (Kopinsky,† 1640), focusing on the need for independent spiritual and national
development, addressed those who went together in union with Rome with these words: “The
Church of God is crying bitterly that you have forsaken her. Is Rome greater than Jerusalem? Is
it not [in Jerusalem] where our Lord accomplished our salvation with His Holy Blood? Is it not
from there that the Faith of Christ spread throughout the whole world and reached Rome? Here
the vicar of Jesus Christ is the Patriarch, and in Rome, the Vicar of the Apostle Peter is the Pope,
here is the Tomb of Christ, and there is the tomb of Peter… Why is Jerusalem, the Mother of all
the Churches neglected while you turn to Rome, why is Jerusalem lowered and Rome exalted?”

— After 1620, did Ukraine still have similar ties with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem?

—When Hetman Bohdan Khmelnitsky liberated Kiev in 1648, he was solemnly welcomed in the
city by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Paisios, who arrived in Kiev specially to bless the Hetman and
the whole Zaporozhian army for the struggle for national and religious liberation. It was the
Jerusalem Patriarch who granted the Great Uprising spiritual and religious legitimization, which
other hierarchs shied away from. The Patriarch of Jerusalem then declared Bohdan Khmelnitsky
as “sovereign and hetman”, declaring him “Prince of Russia” and “the new Moses”, “the
liberator of the Rus’ people, the new Constantine the Founder”.

Under the influence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Hetman, along with the Cossacks, then
came up with the idea of creating a holy league of Orthodox powers, under the influence of
which the liberation movement from Ukraine would spread to Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, after
which the Orthodox peoples and countries, including with Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, would
be freed from the Islamic yoke. Later Metropolitan Joasaph of Corinth arrived in Kiev from the
Patriarch of Jerusalem—he also blessed Khmelnitsky for the struggle, and symbolically handed
him a sword, consecrated on the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.

102
This Holy Hierarch, sent by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, was appointed by Khmelnitsky as his
spiritual adviser, and took an active part in national liberation events, martyrically giving his life
for the freedom of Ukraine. On June 22, 1651, Metropolitan Joasaph during the battle of
Berestechko blessed the Cossacks in the middle of the battlefield, inspiring them to stand for
their native Orthodox faith, for which the Poles cut him down with sabers. In addition to
Metropolitan Joasaph, Metropolitan Gabriel of Nazareth came to Hetman Khmelnitsky from the
Patriarch of Jerusalem, and other clergymen tried to provide spiritual support to the Ukrainian
people in their liberation struggle.

Later, the Metochion of Saint Catherine’s Monastery of Sinai was a kind of bridge that continued
the spiritual and historical ties of Kiev with the Holy Land, which existed in Kiev, in Podol from
1748 to 1926 and was canonically associated with the Jerusalem Patriarchate. Under the
communist regime, the Sinai Metochion was liquidated, and the church was blown up. Now on
the premises of the former Sinai Metochion in Podol, a headquarters of the National Bank of
Ukraine for Kiev and the Kiev region is located.

So, as we see, for many centuries Ukraine has had rather close spiritual and historical ties with
the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, to which Ukrainian Orthodoxy has never been alien.

Pravlife
spoke with Sergei Shumilo
Translation by Matfey Shaheen

Pravlife.org

2/27/2020

Unity of the Church, an Image of the Holy

Trinity: Orthodox Triadology as a Principle
of Ecclesiology
By St. Sophrony (Sakharov)
St. Sophrony (Sakharov)

103
 Elder Sophrony (Sakharov) After an unofficial
announcement during his trip to Mt. Athos in October, Patriarch Bartholomew and the Holy
Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople officially canonized Elder Sophrony (Sakharov) of
Essex as a saint on November 27, 2019.

Though within the Patriarchate of Constantinople for most of his life, St. Sophrony was able to
see developing problems in the Patriarchate and to penetratingly analyze and critique them.

In this essay first published in Russian and French in 1950, the Elder Sophrony (Sakharov), then
a relatively young hieromonk, argues forcefully that Orthodox ecclesiology must conform to
Orthodox Trinitarian theology. In striking contrast with ideas later put forward by Metropolitan
John (Zizioulas), Elder Sophrony understands the Orthodox dogma of the Trinity to reject any
form of subordinationism whatsoever, as subordinationism corresponds to papism. In
Orthodoxy, the Father begets the Son, but the Son is no less equal to the Father for this.
Therefore, there can be no primacy that places a certain bishop or Church over the other
Churches. Likewise, the institution of autocephaly is fundamental to Orthodox ecclesiology as it
expresses the consubstantiality and equality of all the local Churches and teaches us that no
place and no race enjoys a greater fullness of divine grace than any other. For Sophrony, the
best canonical expression of Orthodox ecclesiology is Apostolic Canon 34.

104
 Photo:
gallerix.ru     

Nineteen centuries have passed since Saint Paul, as he walked through the city of Athens
examining objects of worship, found an altar bearing this inscription: “to the unknown God
(Agnosto Theo)” (Acts 17:23).

It is clear that this altar was erected by the best representatives of human thought, by sages who
had reached the limits of knowledge, limits that remain unsurpassable even to our own day for
man’s natural understanding—for God is unknowable for logical thought. True knowledge of the
true God comes from Revelation.

In the divine economy of our salvation, the Church marks certain events as being essential by
commemorating them with Feasts. They follow each other chronologically: Annunciation,
Nativity, Epiphany (in the Byzantine rite, this feast is called the Baptism of Christ),
Transfiguration, the Passion, the Resurrection, Ascension and the Descent of the Holy Spirit. In
God’s revelatory designs, each of these events is tied to the others in an organic and indissoluble
manner, but the day of Pentecost, the day when the descent of the Holy Spirit is celebrated, has a
particular place because it marks the fulfillment of the Revelation of the Great God Almighty,
the Creator of all things.

105
God knows no envy, pride or ambition. The Spirit of God follows man humbly and patiently on
all the paths of life in order to make Himself known to him and by this to even join him to His
divine eternity (cf. Acts 10:35). This is why in every age man could, to a certain degree, attain
knowledge of the true God. Apart from the Incarnation of the Word and the coming of the Holy
Spirit at Pentecost, however, perfect knowledge of God was impossible. Apart from Christ, who
has come in the flesh, no spiritual, philosophical or mystical experience allows man to know the
Divine Being as absolute Objectivity, an unknowable, in Three Subjects equally absolute and
unknowable; in other words: the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity.

The nature of man, who is created in the image and likeness of God the Creator, possesses the
faculty of a certain conjecture about the Divine Being. But this conjecture does not lead to true
knowledge of the divine mystery, as all historical experience shows us, and this is why it is
necessary for God Himself to reveal to man, to the degree accessible to his understanding, the
image of His existence.

We must not forget that the Revelation of the New Testament was preceded by that of the Old.
When Christians immerse themselves in the contemplation of biblical Revelation, they already
hear in the first chapters of Genesis familiar words about the One God who is, at the same time,
multiple: “God says: let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” And again,
“God says: behold, man has become like one of Us” (Genesis 1:26, 3:22). The Psalms and the
Prophets show us that the Old Testament knew of God’s Word (Λόγος) and Spirit (Πνεῦμα).
“The heavens were created by the word (Λόγος) of God and all their host by the breath (Πνεῦμα)
of His mouth” (Psalm 33:6, and others). But we do not find there knowledge of the Word and
Spirit as Hypostases, as Person-Subjects. They are seen there as energies. The humankind of the
Holy Testament desperately debated the notion of the One God, understood not within the
framework of Christian monotheism, but within that of non-Christian henotheism (that is to say,
God with one sole hypostasis). One cold even wonder if it was not an account of the narrowness
of the framework imposed by henotheism that the Jews of the Old Testament felt so attracted to
to polytheism. But that path being forbidden to them by the Law and the Prophets, they
languished awaiting the promised Messiah-Emmanuel, Who would reveal to them the entire
truth about God (John 4:25).

If we examine the other part of humankind before Christ, those who lived apart from the
Revelation of the Old Testament, we will see, alongside countless mistakes, remarkable
approximations of knowledge of the truth. This experience of a certain natural knowledge of God
is very precious for us. It shows us the limits of what is naturally accessible. Each time that man
wants to place reason at the head of his spiritual life, in other words, each time that he tries to
know eternal Truth through the effort of his intellect, he inevitably falls into a pantheistic
conception of Being. This, it seems to us, is due to the fact that the intellect is impersonal in the
functions proper to it. Left to itself and taken as the superior form of the human faculties, it
necessarily tends toward conflict with the personal principle in Being in general. But when man
notices that the personal principle is the basis of every rational essence, he recognizes the
inadequacy of personality, of the Ego, taken in isolation and naturally turns toward polytheistic
pluralism.

106
It is strange to note that the impersonal monism of pantheists and even pagan pluralism belong,
to a certain degree, to human thought even into our own day.

The pantheistic understanding of Being is superior to pagan polytheism inasmuch as it takes

account of the primordial unity of Being. The advantage of pagan pluralism, at its best, consists
of true knowledge of the person as a profound and ontological principle all rational being and of
understanding it as one of the Energies, one of the manifestations of this principle.

Thus the experience of the pre-Christian world, whether or not it participated in the Revelation of
the Old Testament, clearly teaches us that man gets lost in his misunderstandings, unable to find
a way out and to arrive at true knowledge of God. This way out and this knowledge are given to
humankind by the divine Revelation in Jesus Christ and by the descent of the Holy Spirit on the
day of Pentecost.

But what is the knowledge of the mystery of the Divine Being that were were given by this
Revelation? Can one express it in words and if that is possible, where are these words? It is the
Church of Christ Who keeps them, She Who teaches us that the true God is the one God in three
Persons. She speaks to us of the divine existence as an inseparable Tri-Unity without confusion;
as the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity. Here we would like to cite an exposition of that
teaching known under the name “the Creed-Confession of our Father among the Saints
Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria.”1

“Whosoever seeks salvation must first of all confess the catholic faith. There is no doubt that if
one does not hold this faith in its fullness and purity, one cannot avoid perishing for eternity.
Here is this Catholic faith: We worship the one God in Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without
confusing the Hypostases and without dividing the Substance. For one is the Hypostasis of the
Father, another That of the Son, and another That of the Holy Spirit. But the Divinity of the
Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is One, Their Glory is equal and their Majesty coeternal.
Such is the Father, such also is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit. Uncreated is the father,
uncreated the Son and uncreated the Holy Spirit. Incomprehensible is the Father,
Incomprehensible is the Son and incomprehensible the Holy Sprit. Eternal is the Father, eternal
the Son, eternal the Holy Spirit: however, there are not three eternal things, but One eternal.
Likewise, there are not three uncreated and incomprehensible things, but One alone is uncreated
and incomprehensible. Likewise: almighty (Pantocrator) is the Father, almighty the Son and
almighty the Holy Spirit: however, there are not three almighty things, but One Almighty. Thus,
God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless there are not three gods,
but One sole God. Likewise: the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the Holy Spirit is Lord;
however, there are not three lords, but One Lord; Since we have been brought by Christian truth
to confess each of the Hypostases as God and Lord; and at the same time catholic piety forbids
us from naming three gods and three lords. The Father was not created, made or begotten by
anybody. The Son is from the Father, still not created or made, but begotten. The Holy Spirit was
not created or made by the Father, but proceeds from Him. One alone is Father and not three
fathers. One alone is Son and not three sons. One alone is Holy Spirit and not three holy spirits.
And in this Holy Trinity none is first or last. None is greater or less great. But the three
Hypostases are whole, coeternal to Each Other and equal. Thus it follows from all that has been

107
said that the Trinity is worshipped in Unity and Unity in Trinity. He who seeks his salvation, let
him think in this way about the Holy Trinity.”

This creed of Saint Athanasius is usually found in the Psalter. It is followed by the “exposition of
the faith of Saint Maximus, questions and brief responses.” Here is how he confesses the Holy
Trinity:

“If you want to know what God is and how it is fitting to worship Him, understand and
comprehend and truly know the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. One is holy, one desire, one
will, one wisdom and one power. One is not before all ages while Another is within the ages; but
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are together. The Son is in the Father the the Spirit is in
the Son, together one Nature and one Godhead. This Godhead is divided in Three in the
Hypostases, but It is one in substance. This is why, when invoking the Father, in glorifying the
Son and in confessing the Holy Spirit, we call upon God, since the divine nature is common to
the Father, to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. But the Names of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit are not names common to all the Persons, but particular to each of the Hypostases. For the
Father is not called Son, the Son is not called Father, and the Holy Spirit is not called Father or
Son, but God is always called Trinity. I say three Hypostases, which is to say three Persons, but
one image. We do not say: three substances in three Persons; nor three natures, nor three gods as
the disciples of the accursed Arius say. But we confess one God, one substance, one nature in
Three Hypostases. We do not confess one sole hypostasis like the accursed Sabellians: but we
confess, pray to, and worship Three Hypostases, Three Persons in one image and in one sole
Godhead.”

This Revelation of the Triune God is an inexhaustible source of wisdom, joy and light for every
believer. It flows out onto all manifestations of human life. It resolves all the problems and
misunderstandings of the mind and the heart. It leads us into the infinite spaces of eternal life.
However, when our intellect is detached from our heart, which is filled by the grace of faith, and
remains alone before Revelation with the laws proper to reasoning, this Revelation presents itself
to it as a series of insoluble problems.

It is impossible for us to imagine a personal Being Who is perfect Life and eternally realized,
Life which excludes any shadow of a process. In other words, a Being in Whose life self-
awareness does not precede the act of perfect self-determination and in Which this self-
determination is not anterior to the absolute fullness of self-awareness.

It is impossible for us to conceive of a personal Being Who, being absolutely free in its self-
determination and, consequently, not limited by any predestination whatsoever, does not exclude
an absolute objectivity of its nature and its essence. Our intellect does not comprehend how
nature or existence, which is absolute and objective reality, does not in any way precede and
determine the absolute perfection of the self-determination of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Such a personal Being appears unthinkable for us, one Who, being absolutely unique and simple,
is at the same time triune, such that each of the Three is an absolute Subject Who bears in
Himself all the fullness of Divine Being; that is to say, Who is perfect and unique God,
dynamically equal to the whole Tri-Unity.

108
Our thought cannot access the existence of a Triune Being in Whom the Begetter does not
precede the Begotten, nor Him Who proceeds; where begetting and procession in no way limit
the absolute freedom of the personal self-determination of the Begotten and of the One Who
proceeds.

The Being in Which the Three Persons are distinguished from the one Essence, this Essence
which is distinguished from the energies, and Who at the same time absolutely simple and
excludes all complexity, This Being is beyond our understanding.

How can this Being, Who encloses within Himself a series of acts, such that the begetting of the
Son, the procession of the Holy Spirit, acts of self-determination and self-knowledge, be at the
same time an absolutely simple act, outside of any process and any duration? This is also beyond
our understanding.

We cannot imagine a Being whose ontological principle, the Father, precedes neither the
begotten Son nor the proceeding Spirit and is not ontologically superior to either, to the point
that it is possible to speak of Their coeternity and Their absolute equality in honor, power and
Divinity or, to put it better, of Their unity in power, in honor and in Divinity; of their one glory,
Their one energy, Their one will—and all this to such a point that dogma “forbids” any thought
of hierarchical structure or subordination within the Holy Trinity. “And in this Holy Trinity none
is first or last, none is greater or less great, but the Three Hypostases are whole, coeternal and
equal to Each Other.”

The Church teaches us that God is a Being who has His cause in Himself and Who, apart from
Himself, has no being that is independent and parallel to Him. She speaks to us of the perfect,
living God Who is, consequently, pure act. But when our understanding stops before this Being,
He appears as a pure fact on account of His primordial and absolute perfection.

Confronted with this doctrine of the Church, our intellect is filled with astonishment and silence.
She does not adapt herself to the narrow frameworks of our reasoning. And when we examine
what the Church teaches about the Incarnation of One of the Three—the Son, the Logos—
several even more complex problems arise before us. We cannot conceive how the Infinite takes
a beginning, how the Uncreated takes the form of a created existence. How can the only Son be
perfect God and perfect Man? How does the one Hypostasis of the One Who became incarnate
indissolubly and distinctly unite two natures, two wills, two actions, divine and human? We
cannot conceive of dogma of the Church which speaks to us of the one nature, the one will, the
one action of the Holy Trinity and at the same time of the two natures, two actions two wills
united in One of the Three.

***

These are not the only problems presented to our intellect when it encounters the doctrine of the
Church. Some will always present themselves and they will always appear unsolvable. And if,
despite Revelation, the divine Being remains for us inconceivable, unfathomable, invisible,
undefinable, unspeakable, then what is the new life and the new knowledge that the dogma of the
Church brings to us regarding the Holy Trinity? We will pose another question here: When it

109
happens that we fall on a doctrine of a reality not corresponding to the concepts of our intellect,
which always reasons according to its own laws, is this contradiction a sufficient reason to
consider this doctrine false? The answer to this question is formal: this reason is not sufficient.
The history of human culture gives us multiple examples. Countless facts that today belong to
the domain of empirical science until very recently still appeared impossible to all scientific
minds. Let us imagine that during the last century someone would have delved by intuition into
the structure of matter. This intuition would have revealed to him the life of the atom and he
would have developed modern theories without always being able to demonstrate them
experimentally. Of course, he would have been considered a madman or at least a fantasist or
dreamer.

On the other hand, as soon as science has empirical proof of a phenomenon, it becomes foolish
to want to prove, through logical conclusions, the non-existence or impossibility of that
phenomenon. And now in the domain of science we find ourselves before the fact of its
empirically-established existence and our reason can no longer resist it and so necessarily comes
to terms with this fact. It is the same with the Revelation given to the Church which speaks to us
of a determined fact—the Divine Being. When our reason follows this fact, it arrives to a certain
degree at knowledge of what was previously unknown and inconceivable.

***

The “Creed” cited above expounds extremely concisely on the fulness of the knowledge of the
Divine Being accessible to man. This confession, which is the dogma of the Church, has no need
of logical proofs. To the contrary, she makes us see the supreme fact of the Being Who acts as
the foundation of all, of our life and of our knowledge, which is to say of our whole being, which
is simple and unique in its wholeness. In order to arrive at this knowledge, there is no other path
but the one shown by the Church. The sciences taught in schools demand of the students learning
them submission to the methods and instructions of their teachers. The Church has Her own
science, which is knowledge of God. She has her path, her method, which leads to this
knowledge. Those desiring to reach it must follow this path traced by the Church, which is that
of faith and obedience to Christ’s commandments.

God is Love and cannot be known and contemplated except through love and in love. This is
why Christ’s commandments, which lead to knowledge and contemplation of God, are also
commandments of love. The mystery of the Trinity is only imperfectly conceivable, as it
surpasses the limits of our understanding and the powers of our created being. But although it is
inconceivable and hidden, it reveals itself to us ceaselessly in an existential manner, through faith
and through life in faith, thus becoming an inexhaustible source of eternal life. Faith delves into
depths inaccessible to the intellect; it calls us to knowledge and possession of divine mysteries
not through logical reasoning, but through a life in Christ’s divine commandments. “If you abide
in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make
you free” (John 8:31-32). Along this path of Christ’s words, God comes in front of man and
makes His abode with him (Jean 14:23), by giving him true knowledge of Himself. It is at that
point that what appeared inconceivable becomes light that enlightens our ignorance and our
errors and reveals them to us as consequences of our sin and our fall. At that point there appears
to us fulness without limits, wisdom, beauty, light and the truth of Divine Life, which is Love.

110
Let us nevertheless refrain from going too far in the quest for a verbal definition of the
mysterious principle of this attribute of Divine Life, which is at the basis of the unity that makes
the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity only one Being. Our mind should stop at a certain limit so
that our confession of faith will not be falsified by rationalizing dogma. However, since
Revelation teaches us that God is Love and our Savior has given us the commandment to love
our neighbor as ourselves, for these reasons we can conceive of the essence of the Divine Being
as Love. This does not mean that love, as an essence, preceded the Three Persons, that the
essence is anterior to the Persons, who in that case would only be the manifestations of that
Essence. No, Love is the Essence, the very Nature of the Godhead, but in the sense of an
absolute liberty of self-determination of the Three Persons. This self-determination is not,
however, a “psychological” and subjective state of the Hypostases, but a reality, an objectively
existing nature. This is why the dogma of the Church distinguishes between the Persons and the
Essence in the Divine Being.

Man is preceded in his existence by another existence. For him, this is an established an
incontestable fact that appears to limit his self-determination from the outside. Man manifests his
qualities over the course of his development, going through a certain process, an evolution. This
process and this evolution are totally absent in the Divine Being. We must always remember this
when we think of God, so as not to fall into the error of anthropomorphism. Even though man is
created in God’s image, he nevertheless inverses the hierarchy of life when he seeks to attribute
to God notions inspired by his knowledge of himself. At that point he starts to create God in his
own image and likeness. The contrary path is that of the Church. We do not create God in our
own image, but rather, by following Christ’s commandments, we discover within ourselves the
attributes of our nature which is created in God’s image.

Two commandments of Christ lead man to deification: “’You shall love the Lord your God with
all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first
commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’”
(Mark 12:30-31). Of these two commandments, it is the second that reveals to us more of the
mystery of the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity. Here’s why.

The first commandment tells us, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all
your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” It did not say, “You shall love your
God as yourself.” That would be pantheism. This commandment speaks to us of a degree of love.
We must know God as love, but at the same time it shows us the limit between man and God. It
causes us to participate in the divine life, but it does not cause the difference of nature
(ἑτερούσιον) to disappear.

The second commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” not only teaches us the
measure or the degree of love, but by the expression “as yourself” it rather shows us a profound
ontological community of all our pan-human existence, of our consubstantiality (to
homoousion). Realized in life, this commandment leads us to the fact that all humanity is nothing
but one man.2

Love has the result of transposing the existence of the person who loves into that of the beloved.
He who loves starts to live in the beloved. The person, the Ego, can thus be penetrated by Love.

111
The absolute perfection of love in the Trinity reveals the perfect interpenetration of the Three
Persons, to such a point that they are only one will, only one action, only one glory, only one
power, only one Divinity, only one Essence. This is why each Person-Hypostasis is the bearer of
the whole fullness of the Godhead and is dynamically equal to the unity of the Three.

It is in the image of this love that the keeping of the second commandment, “You shall love your
neighbor as yourself,” reestablishes the consubstantiality of the human race, which was broken
by sin, and leads to the fullness of the human being becoming the possession of each person.
Realized in its final perfection, this commandment reveals that man is one, one in his essence
and multiple in his hypostases. Thus man, in the image of the Holy Trinity, is a consubstantial
and catholic being. When love is realized in all its fullness, each hypostasis, by virtue of its
abiding in the fullness of catholic unity, represents the fulfillment of the human being and is
dynamically equal to all humanity, to the One Universal Man, in the image of the Perfect Man,
Christ who contains within Himself all Man.

Thus, along the path of keeping Christ’s commandments, which is the path of the Church, the
mystery of the Holy Trinity is revealed. This mystery is revealed in an existential, vital manner
that is neither abstract nor rational. There is no other way to knowledge of the divine mysteries.

Before this Revelation of the Church, words of profound astonishment have always rung out and
shall ring out until the end of the ages: “Strange words, strange doctrines, strange dogmas of the
Holy Trinity” (the Matins of Pentecost).

***

The fullness of dogmatic life in the Church is never interrupted, never diminished. Nevertheless,
various historical periods bring out certain aspects of Her teaching which always remain one
overall, emphasizing these aspects in order to avoid the danger of diminishing the wholeness of
the truth by an error of detail. In our own day, a great danger threatens the dogma concerning the
Church within the Orthodox Church herself. The idea of the Church, of this “Kingdom which is
not of this world”, the Kingdom of the Heavenly King, of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, of this
new life, established on earth by the incarnate Word, is in danger of being once more distorted,
which may cause immense harm to the work of our salvation. It is thus natural that our attention
be concentrated on this issue.

Periods similar to our own place great responsibilities upon each of us, for according to the
teaching of the Church, perfectly expressed in the Encyclical of the Patriarchs of the East in
1848, it does not belong only to the hierarchy to protect the truth, but rather this task is entrusted
to the Church in Her fullness.3

Judging it impossible to remove from us the responsibility that has been laid upon us, as a son of
the Church, although we are unworthy, we make a fervent appeal to all Orthodox Christians to
examine the danger that threatens them in all its profundity so that, aided by the grace of God,
we may remove this danger and preserve the truth inherited from our Holy Fathers in all its
purity. We call upon our brothers to consider with full consciousness these dogmatic questions
that are of cardinal importance in the work of our salvation.

112
It is always painful to enter into debates where people accuse each other of having abandoned the
truth, but that was the environment in which the Fathers lived in the period that we call the
Church’s golden age, that of the holy Ecumenical Councils. Let us recall the history of the
Fathers who fought for Orthodoxy, ready not only to endure all suffering, but also to suffer
death. Who does not remember Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, who spend the greater part
of his life in incessant struggles, in exile and misery, all for just one iota—“homoousios” against
the “homoiousios” of the Arians. We know the example of Saint Bail, who was ready to die for
this same iota. Let us remember Gregory of Nazianzus, Maximus the Confessor, John of
Damascus, Patriarch Photius, Simeon the New Theologian, Mark of Ephesus, Gregory Palamas,
as well as other Fathers whose names are great before God, albeit little known to men. They all
suffered without end and accepted martyrdom of death for the true faith. In the writings of
several eminent Russian theologians such as Khomiakov, Bolotov, Nesmelov and others, the
exceptional importance of the dogmatic element for our salvation has been forcefully
demonstrated. May we all have the fire with which Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov burned when
he wrote, “The world in no way enticed me. I remained cold and indifferent to it as though it
were devoid of any charms, as though it didn’t exist at all! My spirit was absorbed with learning
and at the same time it burned with the desire to learn where the true faith was hidden, where the
true teaching was to be found, free from all dogmatic and moral error.” (The edition of 1885, pp.
633-35. See also The Works of Bishop I. Brianchaninov, vol. I, 1886, Biography, p. 13).

So great was the fervor of our fathers for dogmatic questions because they were conscient of
their importance not only for their own salvation, but also for the salvation of the whole world,
for the very existence of the true Church on earth.

***

We have the task of showing in a short exposition that the catholic principle of the Orthodox
Church is a reality in the image of the Holy consubstantial and indivisible Trintiy.

The Church has the goal of introducing her members into the domain of Divine Life and,
consequently, it is inevitable that her historical reality reflections the image of that Life. The
dogma of the Church speaks to us of an inconceivable perfection of Divine, Triune, Catholic
Life. This dogma affirms the equality in divinity, in kingship, in sovereignty or, more
synthetically, the equality in the absolute of the Three Hypostases of the Holy Trinity. “Nothing
(in It) is first or last. Nothing is greater or less great.” In the interior of trinitarian life, there is no
hint of submission, of subordination. The begetting of the Son, the procession of the Holy Spirit,
all while demonstrating one sole principle in the Holy Trinity, nevertheless do not cause the Son
or the Holy Spirit to be diminished before the Father. “But the Three Hypostases are coeternal
and equal among Themselves.”

The Church is called to reveal to us the image of this Triune Being. If someone asks us, “What
are the forms or the historical principles that reveal this image to us?” We could answer: the
principle of catholicity and that of autocephaly.4 Translating these terms onto another plane, we
can say: the principle of love and of equality, that of freedom and of consubstantiality. And
again, by connecting these concepts we will have: in the freedom of catholic charity and in the
equality of consubstantiality.

113
Is it necessary to insist on the gap that exists between the ideal to which we are called and the
historical reality of the Church? Our distance from this ideal is so great that we can neither feel
nor comprehend it. There is no love in us and for this reason we disregard the profundity of our
consubstantial equality and unity. We have lost our love and out of this result our divisions and
our tendencies to domination.

We have lost love and with it the guidance of the Divine Light and we walk in the shadows of
“dusky pride” and in the death of hatred. It is to us that Christ said, “you are the light of the
world” and we have become a scandal to all.

We said above that a great danger is making itself felt within Orthodoxy itself, threatening to
disfigure the teaching about the nature of the Church and, consequently, Her entire life, since
dogmatic consciousness is organically tied to the entirety of spiritual life. It is impossible to
change the least thing in our dogmatic understanding without changing to the same degree the
image of our spiritual existence.

And, conversely, a deformation in the inner life will lead to a deformation of dogmatic
consciousness. The loss of dogmatic truth will have as an inevitable consequence the
impossibility of attaining true knowledge of God, the fullness of which the Church possesses.
The Church’s dogmatic confession forms an indivisible organic whole and it is not permitted to
treat the different parts of this confession separately. One deformed detail will influence the
whole. If the teaching on the nature of the Church is disfigured, and as a consequence, as we
have already said, also the image of Her existence, how can She serve Her children on the path
towards the truth?

One may ask us, “In what is this deformation currently manifesting itself?” We answer: in the
neo-papism of Constantinople which is tending to progress rapidly from theoretical form to
practical realization.

Papist tendencies in general are only natural to our sinful world. They manifest themselves in the
East as in the West, in Byzantium as in Rome. But until now God has protected the Eastern
Church and these tendencies died out without disturbing the profound peace of the Church. We
do not want to pause here over the the reasons that have caused a new growth in these
tendencies, limiting ourselves to examine only the dogmatic basis of this question in order to
show that papism, whether of First, Second or Third Rome or of any important or unimportant
city is foreign to the very nature of Christ’s Church.

The dogma about the Church is tightly bound to that of the Trinity and the Incarnation. That is to
say, to Triadology and Christology. The articles of the Rev Fr Kovalevsky, of Mr Lossky and
also of Hieromonk Silvanus, which appeared in Issue I of our Messenger deal with the
Christological aspect of the dogma about the Church. This is why here we shall only touch upon
the tradological aspect of this teaching.

This dogma teaches us that the perfect Unity of the Divine Love of the Three Persons excludes
any domination by One of Them. Each time that Christian thought slid towards rationalism, it
became unable to contemplate this aspect of the divine nature. Rationalism, which always tends

114
toward logical monism, cannot avoid imagining either a hierarchical structure within the Holy
Trinity by affirming the superiority of the First Person as an ontological principle or the
confusion of the Three Persons, thining of them as “modes” of manifestation of the One Essence
of the Godhead. Theology calls the first deformation “subordinationism” and the second
“modalism”. The principle of the papacy introduces subordinationism into the inside of the
Church. As only this principle interests us here, we will set aside modalism and limit our analysis
to the first triadological deformation.

The forms of subordinationism vary. Sometimes people saw within the Trinity an ontological
subordination, independent of the relationship between God and His creation. This “ontological”
subordinationism was held by Origen. Sometimes people attributed to the First and Second
Persons a diminished importance and power with regard to the creation of the world and the
economy of our salvation. Tertullian and Arius are examples of this “cosmological” or
“economic” subordinationism. Over the course of its development, ontological subordinationism
naturally acquired an economic aspect and vice-versa—economic and cosmological
subordinationism took on an ontological aspect, unless the Hypostases were treated as modes of
manifestation of God in the world.

The Church categorically rejects every form of subordinationism. She professes her faith in the
Holy Trinity in these terms: “None is greater, none is less great (in the Trinity), but rather the
Three Hypostases are whole, coeternal with Each Other and equal.”

Triadological subordinationism, transposed onto the structure of the Church, takes the form of
papism, which reflects one or another form of this false doctrine. Thus in ecclesiology Roman
Papism corresponds to the ontological aspect of Arius’ subordinationism, since it give the Bishop
of Rome a place that separates him from the rest of the body of the Church, raising him to a
height that makes him not simply great but of another nature (τὸ ἑτερούσιον). We must make
clear that we are not applying this parallel to the origin of Roman Papism, but to its current form
established by the Vatican Council in 1870. Its origin is nothing but a survival from the pagan
Roman Empire. Its dogmatic conception was later influenced by the theology of the “filioque”,
which leads to a specific form of christocentrism. There then appeared a rupture between God
and the world: Christ became transcendent to the world and the Bishop of Rome took His place
in the earthly Church; the Holy Spirit, in practice, lost His absolute hypostatic equality to the
Father and the Son, becoming nothing but a power of Christ, entrusted to the authority and
judgment of the Bishop of Rome.

All these historical processes are of an extreme complexity. They are the result of the reciprocal
action of countless influences, conditions and wills. In speaking here schematically about Roman
papism, we limit ourselves to only a dogmatic summary.

The modern papacy of Constantinople is only in its embryonic phase. For the last 20 or 30 years,
it has appeared to seek ground. Its current development is very rapid, in contrast to the slow
development over centuries of Roman papism, which only attained its final phase in 1870. In
fact, the ideology of Constantinople’s papism has varied several times in only a little time and it
is still difficult to define.

115
The Russian adepts of this papism are almost all found in France. Until 1948, we had not seen
among them any canonically or theologically-founded idea. As they themselves admitted, they
“were looking” above all “for a canonical basis” so as not to be outside the Body of the
Universal Orthodox Church after their separation from the Mother-Church of Russia. With this
goal, they began by recognizing a privilege of jurisdictional right of the Patriarch of
Constantinople inasmuch as he is “Ecumenical”. Later, they attributed to the See of
Constantinople primacy and the right of Supreme Appeal in the Universal Church, forgetting the
struggle that the latter had waged for centuries against Rome’s pretentions to this right;
forgetting that these pretentions were precisely the cause of the definitive Great Schism in the
Church in 1054 and that at the Council of Florence Rome sought above all from the East
recognition of this supreme arbitration in the Universal Church. They also forgot the multiple
Canons of the Ecumenical and Local Councils which refused to attribute these rights to any
given local Church, canons that even the Church of Constantinople understood very well when
she was firmly insisting on the Orthodox position in order to combat Rome’s pretentions.

Until 1946, this group, loyal to Metropolitan Evlogy, considered its dependence on
Constantinople as provisional. Starting from that date, they believed “to have found canonical
truth” by submitting to her definitively. At the same time, they sought not only a canonical basis,
but also a theological foundation for their position. Adopting the principle of “development”,5
particular to the theology of Roman Catholics, they attributed to Constantinople exclusive
authority over the Orthodox “diaspora” in the entire world, denying other Autocephalous
Churches this same right with regard to their dispersed children. Unable to find for this assertion
any canonical basis or any example in the age-old practice of the Church, they sought, following
Rome’s example, to refer to the orders of “God Himself”. Here is what they say:

“In order to maintain and consolidate the Church’s unity, God (?) imposes upon us the obligation
to keep not only the unity of the faith and the sacraments, not only the unity of love, but also the
indissoluble unity of the holy hierarchy and of the administration of the Church as much in
the whole world as in every place where the Church exists. This is why since apostolic times (?)
the Holy Church (?) our, to put it better, God Himself (?) has established a superior Bishop first
in the entirety of the Catholic Church and in each place or each city one sole bishop,
terrestrial vicar of His Son, with a single clergy depending on him and in unanimous accord
with the entire Orthodox people, even if this people is represented by members of a different
origin and languages. The Holy Church does not know any other structure” (Messenger of
the Russian Church in Western Europe no. 21, 1949, p. 2, “Declaration of the Diocesan
Assembly”).6

Before continuing the exposition of the “development” of the canonical and ecclesiological idea
that we are examining, we propose to compare the text cited above to another text that seems to
us to be characteristic of Roman Catholic doctrine. Here, for example, is what the Catholic
theologican the Rev Fr S. Tyshkevich says on this topic in his “Treatise on the Church” (Paris,
1931, in Russian, pp. 232 and 233):7

“The Bishop of Rome possess a jurisdiction that is 1) universal: it includes all questions of the
faith and the administration of all the parts of the Church and other things; 2) supreme: the
Bishops of all the Churches, even those far away, appeal to the pope. He even judges the

116
Patriarchs. Without the pope’s approval, an Orthodox Council is not possible; 3) ordinary: it
includes all matters requiring an intervention from the Supreme Authority, and not only in rare
and exceptional cases; 4) direct: that is to ay that it extends not only to every Episcopacy, but, in
case of need, directly to all the servants of the Church and to all laypeople; 5) established by
God and conferred by Christ the Head and by the Holy Spirit and not by the Episcopacy or
by “the people of the faithful” (emphasis by the author, the Rev Fr Tyshkevich).

The first text cited, that of the “Declaration of the Diocesan Assembly”, ends with these words:
“Those who teach otherwise do not do so in the Spirit of God, but rather they sow discord and
enmity.” These words prove the degree to which the authors of this Declaration are convinced
“of having found the truth.” The Rev Fr Alexander Schmemann writes in his precis “The Church
and Her Structure” in response to the Rev Fr Michel Polsky:

“The partisans of the ideas of the Rev Fr Posky probably do not miss an occasion, not without
irony, of the ‘tortuous path’ and the ‘jurisdictional variations’ of our Diocese. And indeed, we
have no pretense of possessing infallibility (?) like the Rev Fr Polsky. In fact, our Diocese has
more than once suffered commotions and acute crises. But we believe that in seeking each time
the right path prudently in communion with the whole ecclesiastical organism, we have
demonstrated a true spirit of the Church, more than “the Synod of the Russian Church
Abroad”8 with tis prideful attitude of infallibility. Errors and failures are always possible in the
life of the Church. History abounds in examples to prove it… In the tragic conditions of the life
of the Russian emigration, the search for the right path sometimes presented great difficulties.
Whatever the motives were that caused Metropolitan Evlogy to turn to Constantinople, whatever
his own understanding of this step that he took, it is not this subjective and psychological aspect
that counts. What is truly important is the objective significance of this measure in the eyes of
the Church. As time passes, we we appreciate more and more to what degree this measure was
in line with the truth of the Church. It has definitively broken the vicious cycle of subjective and
fortuitous attitudes toward the problem of the Church’s structure: a firm canonical basis was
found” (p. 22. Emphasis by the author, the Rev Fr Schmemann).

Other representatives of that group share this perspective. We read in issue 21 of the Messenger
“Tserkovny Vestnik” among the publications of the materials of the Diocesan Assembly:

“The unity of the Church will not be reestablished so long as we have not heard from atop the
Ecumenical See the voice of the first hierarch and supreme leader9 of the whole Orthodox
Church, whose authority is formal for us, as for the Synod of Munich” (p. 7).10

“The Universal Church is not presided over solely by the authority of the Ecumenical Councils;
those only meet in extreme cases. She is presided over permanently by the person of the
supreme hierarch of the Orthodox Church. This place belonged to Rome inasmuch as it had
not fallen into the Catholic heresy.11 From that moment on, the Patriarch of Constantinople took
his place” (p. 16).

All these citations, as well as all the expositions of the Rev Fr Schmemann, indicated above, and
of other representatives of this tendency show us clearly how they arrived at such conclusions.
Having correctly understood the canonical principle of local unity by the primacy of the

117
authority of a head-bishop, they did not notice that this personal primacy does not extend beyond
the episcopal eparchy (see Apostolic Canon 34) and, faithful to their principle of “development”,
they took it “to the end”12 in giving it universal significance.13 This is yet another similarity to
Roman Catholicism.

“In the Work of Christ and in His Holy Church, Which is the fruit of this Work, there is nothing
unfinished, nothing incomplete, nothing unilateral. Everything in her is developed “to the end.”
Christ’s work knows no gaps, no ruptures, no stops. Thus, the logical ascension of the
degrees of the ecclesiastical hierarchy do not stop at the rank of Bishop or of Patriarch, but rather
goes toward the papism that is its natural conclusion, required by the Church’s theandric nature.
The Church’s hierarchy of Priests and Bishops is unified “to the end.” It cannot be deprived of
this essential rank, without which it could not be one hierarchy, but would rather only be a
collection of several hierarchies” (Tyshkevich, op. cit. pp. 280-281).

Let us once more pause over what has been said above. We have already demonstrated that each
time that Christian thought tended toward theological rationalism, it came to be incapable of
contemplating the Divine Life. It then bends under the influence of logical monism, which is
proper to rationalism, either toward subordinationism in the sense of the superiority of the First
Person of the Holy Trinity as ontological principle to toward the Sabellian understanding of that
considers the Three Persons as modes of manifestation of one sole Divine Essence. This
inevitable tendency of rationalism toward logical monism has produced many heresies. In
endeavoring to push “the logical ascension” “to the end”, theological rationalism falls into
absurdity. Its difficulty consists of the fact that it very rightly sees one or the other aspect of the
truth.

The earthly Church is not made up of members who have all attained perfection. Her members
are not all filled with the fullness of Her teaching and Her life, but they are born, grow and
develop though teaching. It is thus inevitable that there are teachers and students, spiritual fathers
and children. Consequently, the existence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy is necessary. Taking this
necessity into account, the Roman Church pressed the hierarchical principle “to the end”, having
invested one sole Bishop, separating him from the whole of the Church, and attributing to him
alone the charism of infallibility. This has disfigured the face of the Roman Catholic Church,
causing it to lose the resemblance to the Holy Trinity, one in Its essence and equal in Its
Hypostases.

Protestantism is the opposite. Seeing in the spiritual reality proper to man one of the aspects of
the truth, that of the vocation of each to the fullness of direct communion with God, it likewise
pushed to the extreme and through this falls into another excess—the predomination of the
subjective and the individual, which is inevitably unilateral. This is why it wound up in disunion
and the loss of a an organically unified life in the image of the consubstantial life of the Holy
Trinity.

The exclusivity that results from the logical development of only one aspect of the truth, which
pushed “to the end”, letting it absorb all the other aspects of this same truth, such is the
characteristic of numerous heresies caused by rationalism.

118
Let us now examine the papism of Constantinople, which has found its most important
expression in the Encyclical of Patriarch Athenagoras addressed to the Orthodox world on the
first Sunday of Lent (called the Sunday of Orthodoxy), 1950. Here we find an increasing
resemblance to Rome. Constantinople’s essential idea consists of saying that given that First
Rome has apostatized, it is “Second Rome” that takes its place with the same rights and the same
arguments. In this encyclical, Patriarch Athenagoras, like the popes of Rome, calls his see “the
pillar of luminous cloud”, “the invincible Acropolis of Orthodoxy and the high rock established
by God”, “the ark of grace”, “the Ecumenical See and Center to which the eyes of all the
Churches of God are turned. This center which brings together and maintains all the
Autocephalous, independent Orthodox Churches in an administrative manner and by a canonical
dispensation… these Churches which are only united to the Body of the One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Church through the Mother-Church and through union and contact with Her…” “The
Mother-Church, whose entire existence was nothing but a struggle to preserve the faith and the
virtues of the ancestors, for the stability of the holy Churches of God, for the salvation of the
entire “pleroma” of Christians; this Church can in all justice count on the obedience and devotion
of her children and on the accomplishment of their duty towards Her in a complete manner…”

This new phase of Constantinople’s papism, transposed into a dogmatic formula, can be
compared to Tertullian’s subordinationism. The latter does not deny the consubstantiality of the
Father and the Son, but, in its stoic understanding of substance, confesses its divisibility, and in
unequal degrees “the Father being all, the Son, a part.” Likewise, Constantinople does not claim
to have a different essence from the other autocephalous Churches, but rather imagines them to
be diminished in relation to herself. Constantinople is everything, it is the Universal Church.14
The others are only parts which only belong to the Ecumenical Church insomuch as they are
attached to Constantinople.

Is it necessary to demonstrate that this form of papism is also an ecclesiological heresy, like the
papism of Rome? Is it necessary to say that, if applied to the life of the Church, it would
inevitably lead to a deformation of our entire spiritual existence? After the example of First
Rome, it attaches the right of authority and instruction in the Church to one place (and in the case
of Constantinople, we must add here, to the Greek race) and brings us back to the time of which
the Gospel speaks: “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you say that in Jerusalem is the
place where one ought to worship” (John 4:20).

Patriarch Athenagoras makes belonging to the Ecumenical Church depend on the tie to
Constantinople. This is not the belief and confession that have been transmitted to us from the
Early Church.

“The One Church is, before all else, the Holy Church. But in the proper sense of the word “Only
the Lord” is holy. The Church is holy because she is sanctified by Him, because She participates
in the Divine Life and because the Divine Unity and the Church’s communion with the Lord is
the source of Unity in the Church. The Church is One since She possesses one sole source of
holiness and can only be One by the power of this holiness. The Church is Holy in every place
and not only in a certain place our by virtue of a certain place. Thus the Council of Carthage
wrote to Pope Celestine, “The fullness of the grace of the Holy Spirit is not diminished in any
place.” The Church is One as the branches are united to their vine, for She abides in union with

119
Christ, the Source of Her life (John 15:1-5). The Lord prays that His disciples may be “perfect in
unity” by virtue of their ascension through Him to the fullness of Divine Life (John 17:22-23).
When Saint Paul speaks to us of the Unity of the Church, he does not make this unity depend on
one sole administrative center, but on the communion of one sole bread and one sole cup, on the
Body and Blood of Christ the Lord, Who is the Only Head of the Church (1 Corinthians 10:14-
17; Ephesians 4:15-16). (Journal of the Patriarchate of Moscow 1948, issue 8, p. 68).15

“Drawing her sanctification directly from the Spirit of God, each local Church is sufficient in
Herself.16 But as this source of sanctification is one, She always remains One Church. There can
be no common earthly center to which all the local Churches should submit, for the existence of
such a center alongside the heavenly center would introduce a dualism into the Church and break
Her unity. (Troitsky, “On Autocephaly in the Church” Journal of the Patriarchate of Moscow,
1948, issue 7, p. 34).

If the theses of Patriarch Athenagoras were applied in life, the Church would lose the truth unity
proper to Her, of which the great theologian Khomiakov speaks in these terms:

“The interior unity is true, the product and manifestation of freedom; the unity based neither on a
rationalist science nor on an arbitrary convention, but on the moral law of mutual love and
prayer; the unity where, notwithstanding the hierarchical gradation of priestly functions, none is
subservient, but where all are equally called to be participants and cooperators in the common
work, so in the end unity by the grace of God and not by a human institution, such is the unity of
the Church.”

Then he says: “In Romanism, properly understood, unity for Christians is uniquely the unity of
obedience to a central power. It is their subservience to a doctrine in which they do not cooperate
and which remains permanently exterior to them (for it resides uniquely in the one hierarchical
head)… It is evidently unity in the conventional sense and not in the Christian sense” (The Latin
Church and Protestantism, pp. 301-302).

“The Chuch requires perfect unity, just as She can only give in return perfect equality, for
She knows brotherhood but does not know subjugation” (p. 61).

“The Mother-Church… can in all justice realy on the devotion and filial obedience of her
children and on the fulfillment of their duty to Her in an exact and eager manner.” Having the
pretention that Constantinople is the Mother of the Churches, Patriarch Athenagoras, in this
appeal, following the example of the Popes of Rome, addresses himself directly to the Orthodox
of the Universe, inviting them to submit to him. Let us pass in silence with regard to which
Churches and to what degree Constantinople has been Mother. Let us allow that it can really call
itself the Mother of all the Churches. Nevertheless, to derive from this the expectation for
submission would be contrary to Orthodox triadology, according to which the relation between
the Father and the Son does not remove the absolute equality of the hypostases. “He Who is
begotten of the Substance is equal to Him Who begets.” Thus think the Holy Fathers (Gregory of
Nazianzus). Even the Jews understand it. “… He said that God is is own Father, making Himself
equal to God” (John 5:18).

120
In the life of the Church, the relation of Mother-Church and Daughter-Churches has never been
recognized as a basis for superiority of authority or even of honor. This becomes clear through
the example of the Church of Jerusalem, which is incontestably the Mother of all the Churches,
including that of First Rome. Rome is proud of possessing the tomb of Peter. In Jerusalem, there
is the luminous Sepulcher of the Lord, the Savior of the world. Rome is proud of the “red blood”
of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. It was in Jerusalem that the Redeemer of the world shed His
Divine Blood. Rome is proud of the glory of the “eternal city”. In Jerusalem, the Lord, the King
of Glory, preached, suffered and rose again. In Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives, He blessed
the disciples and ascended to heaven in glory. In Jerusalem, in the Upper Room of Sion, the Holy
Spirit came down upon the Apostles and those who were with them. That is, upon the entire
Church. It was in Jerusalem that the Most Holy Mother of God spent her life. It was in Jerusalem
that the first Council of the Apostles, presided over by James, the Brother of the Lord, took
place. And, despite all this, in the period preceding the First Ecumenical Concil, Jerusalem even
lost its independence and was placed under the Metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine.

A tendency to discredit the principle of the equality of the local Churches seems to us to be the
most essential element of Patriarch Athenagoras’ encyclical. In other words, we notice in it the
start of a struggle against the principle of “autocephaly”. This idea appears, for the first time in
the Voice of the Church (Ekklesiastike Phone, a journal in Athens) at the moment when the
Bulgarian Schism was coming to an end (1945). Mr Sepranzas, the ex-General Procurator of the
Synod of the Church of Greece of Athens, indignant at the resolution of this schism by the
Patriarch of Constantinople under Moscow’s influence and without prior notice on the part of
Athens, published a series of articles full of insults toward the Bulgarian Church as well as the
Russian Church and all the other Slavic Orthodox Churches. At the same time, the fraternal
invitation of the Patriarch of Moscow to the Patriarch of Constantinople to attend his
enthronement being described by Mr Speranzas as an attempt to seek Constantinople’s authority,
he raises the question of the universal importance of Byzantium’s authority and declares the
principle of autocephaly to be erroneous. (Not having the issues of this journal, we cite them
from memory).

Among the Russian theologians, it is especially the Rev Archpriest Basil Zenkovsky and the Rev
Fr Alexander Schmemann who have expressed themselves on this subject. Confusing the idea of
“autocephaly” with that of “nationalism” in order to reject both in the name of a “universalism”,
they destroy the very principle of the structure of the Universal Church. The Rev Fr Zenkovsky
writes, “Christianity went wrong in allowing the formation of Churches called17 national.” And
again, “Christianity being confined18 in too narrow national frameworks did not appear to the
eyes of men in all Her fullness.” (Messenger of the Christian Movement of Russian Students,
Munich, 1949 issues 11-12, p. 10).

It is more difficult to limit ourselves to a short citation from the precis of the Rev Fr Schmemann
to summarize his ideas. He reaches the same conclusions as the Rev Fr Zenkovsky by
exaggerating the role of the national moment, which is only an accidental detail in the life of the
Church. But, more objective than his elders, he manages to touch upon the true reason that lies at
the origin of the inflammation of national feeling in the life of certain local Churches. To wit, the
narrow imperialism of the Greeks on the ecclesiastical and political levels. He writes:

121
“In Byzantium’s understanding, the baptism of new peoples necessarily implied their
introduction into the political and religious organism of the Empire and their submission to
ecumenical, Orthodox authority. But in reality, this Empire had long lost its universal and supra-
national character and for these newly-converted peoples, this Byzantine ideology too often
became a Greek imperialism in the ecclesiastical and political domains” (p. 11).

Further on, speaking about the “decomposition (?) of the universal consciousness within
Orthodoxy”, he identifies the concept of autocephaly with that of nationalism and independence.

“The principle aim of each people-state became obtaining autocephaly, understood as the
independence of a given national Church from the ancient centers of the East, and above all from
Constantinople… It is hard to deny that the principle cause of this unfortunate process lies, above
all, in the transformation of Byzantine universalism into Greek nationalism. It is important to
understand that the identification of the meaning of autocephaly with independence is a
characteristic symptom of this new spirit which appeared at that time in the Church and which
shows that the Christian consciousness allows itself to be inspired by a statist nationalism,
instead of transforming and enlightening it” (op. cit. p. 13).

Without letting ourselves be carried along into a detailed analysis of this quote, we will limit
ourselves for the moment to saying that we do not agree with the author’s conclusions, forming
our opinion in terms that are almost his own, but reversing the sense of his affirmations. We
think that despite the national and political elements brought along by the Orthodox peoples in
their quest for the constitution of their Church, it is the very essence of the Church, a theandric
organism, which imposed the forms of this constitution. We justify our conclusion opposed to
that of the Rev Fr Schmemann by the incontestable fact of the existence of these forms since the
beginning of the Church. These forms were not a new invention of a national and statist
consciousness; they were simply transmitted to new Christian peoples.

Let us continue our examination of the principle of autocephaly. It is no surprise that

Constantinople has now started a struggle against this principle: it is in the nature of every
papism. Rome does not accept this principle either. Here is what the priest Tyshkevich says in
his “Treatise on the Church”, cited above:

“In the universal Church, local churches are acceptable as parts of one sole organism, like
branches depending on the one, central trunk, but not as completely independent, whole and
autocephalous ecclesiastical formations, united only by an exterior resemblance, by a common
spirit and a common faith. The “centralization” of the Church can strengthen or weaken under
the influence of temporary and local conditions, but the complete autocephaly of the local
churches is not admissible under and pretext. The Church would then be polycephalic, with
many heads, which is impossible for her theandric nature” (p. 34).

“… the confessions that allow the carving up of the Church into sects or even into
“autocephalies” completely free and independent from the center can be neither the true Church
nor even a “branch”, a part of the Church. One sole hierarchy is proper to the Church; the
federation of several completely independent hierarchies is in contradiction with her nature. The
complete autonomy of the parts is impossible. The Church is not a union of organisms, united

122
only by an identical principle of spirit and belief, but a theandric organism, animated ‘by the
same Spirit’, sanctified and governed by one sole uninterrupted and tightly bound hierarchy
having at its head one sole supreme hierarch” (p. 152).

An extraordinary resemblance between the teaching of our neo-papists and Roman teaching, not
only in spirit but also in argumentation has been picked up by the Romans with visible
satisfaction. The Bulletin of the Russian Catholic parish of Paris (Rue François Gérard), Our
Parish, issue 7, 1950, pp. 17-19 has published long extracts from the speech given by Mr S.
Verkhovsky at the “Diocesan Assembly” of the Russian Exarchate of Constantinople (Messenger
“Tserkovny Vestnik”, issue 21, 1949) with the following comments:

“… We publish… some interesting excerpts from the Tserkovny Vestnik, the official organ of the
Russian Exarchate in Western Europe, which clearly show that we are not fantasists in affirming
that primacy that belonged to the Sovereign Pontif of Rome within the Early Church was not
only a primacy of honor, but also a superiority of authority” (following an extract from p. 15 of
the Tserkovny Vestnik). Further on we read:

“In the same bulletin we find ideas that we can endorse and consider as our own. There follows a
long citation from the Declaration of the Diocesan Assembly (p. 2) where we find the following
words particularly highlighted: “This is why since the age of the apostles, the Holy Church or, to
put it better, God Himself established a superior first bishop in the whole of the Catholic
Church, the earthly Vicar of His Son… Those who proclaim another teaching do not do so in the
spirit of the Lord, but rather sow trouble and discorde…”19

In another Roman Catholic newsletter, Toward Christian Unity (November 1949, issue 17), we
find an article by the Rev Fr C. Dumont “Russian Orthodoxy and the Primacy of the Ecumenical
See” in which the author, analyzing the decisions of the Diocesan Assembly, writes, “These
declarations, the importance of which one will have no difficulty realizing, have provoked
vehement condemnation on the part of two other jurisdictions. The accusation of ‘papism’ was to
come very naturally under the pen of contradictors, even if to our mind this reproach is not
entirely well-founded, since the message still remains far from the Roman understanding of a
Primacy instituted by Christ Himself; One will have, in fact, noticed the formula: ‘since apostolic
times, the Holy Church, or, to put it better, God Himself.’ It remains nonetheless that this
affirmation aims to revive within Orthodoxy a principle and a practice that were progressively
banished from it and whose restoration could well mark a new stage along the path of a greater
understanding of the position of Roman Catholicism.”

***

What then is the reason why the principle of the autocephaly of the local Churches is so dear to
Orthodoxy? Why does it seem to us to be not only the natural form of the Church’s life, which
belongs to Her essentially, but also the indispensable condition for faithfully keeping the
tradition of the truth and the ways that lead toward knowledge of that truth?

As has already been said, the term “autocephaly” is, philologically speaking, quite imperfect. It
does not express the idea that it contains, which allows rationalist spirits to deform and oppose it.

123
The true meaning of this term being the affirmation of the fact that the fullness of ecclesiastical
life belongs to every place where there exists a Christian community that possesses an integral
priesthood (a Council of Bishops) and which keeps dogmatic teaching incorruptible, as well as
the Tradition of the Universal Orthodox Church. The canonical code of the Orthodox Church
contains the famous letter of the Council of Carthage (the second addressed to Pope Celestine),
which proclaims clearly and forcefully, “The fullness of the grace of the Holy Spirit is not
diminished in any place.” The Fathers of Carthage base themselves on the authority of the first
Council of Nicaea. Thus we see that the principle of autocephaly is the historic expression of a
consciousness that is profoundly proper to the Church. To wit, that grace is not lesser in any
place. The true meaning contained in the term “autocephaly” is the Orthodox understanding of
the consubstantiality of the Church corresponding to the consubstantiality of the Persons of the
Holy Trinity, which excludes Tertullian’s stoic idea of the divisibility of the Substance, and that
into equal parts.

The principle of autocephaly expresses the conviction that the Catholic Church in every place
appears in the fullness of the grace that is confided to Her and, through the power of this fullness
of gifts, She is everywhere the One Catholic Church. The principle of autocephaly teaches us
that no place, no title, no race possesses within the Church superiority of authority or teaching
over other places or other peoples. It also tells us that “the Spirit blows where He wills” and His
breath in the Church does not depend on the will of a hierarch.

The principle of the autocephaly of the local Churches teaches us their equality in honor in the
image of the Divine Persons and in its final realization, it expresses our common hope to see not
only each local Church, but also each of Her members, each human person-hypostasis as the
bearer of all the catholic fullness of the life of the Church in the image of the Holy Trinity, each
Hypostasis of Which bears in Itself all the absolute fullness of Divine Being; and this is not by
excluding or absorbing the other Persons-Hypostases, but by abiding in the fullness of the unity
of the Substance.

The autocephaly of the local Church is neither historically nor spiritually the result of elements
foreign to to the Catholic Church, such as phyletism, nationalism, statism or politics. In the early
Church, each Christian community was, in fact, autocephalous. History shows us that on the
territory of a single state there can coexist several autocephalous Churches. This was the case in
the Roman Empire before its division, in the Byzantine Empire of the East and later in the
Turkish Empire. In contemporary Russia, there exist two autocephalous Churches.

The life of the Universal Church does not require a single administrative center. But the principle
of autocephaly does not exclude the possibility of founding a common center, coordinating the
life of the Churches which, however, should never under any pretext take the form on an
“infallible” Vatican which would transform the inner life of the Church into a State with its
external authority. This would be equivalent to the loss of religion as such.

We believe that we have clearly demonstrated that outside the principle of autocephaly, which is
to say, without confessing the consubstantiality and equality in dignity of the local Churches
and of the Episcopacy in general, the true catholicity of the Church, which is in the image of the
Catholicity of Divine Being would disappear on account of this. In discarding the freedom of

124
catholicity which is consubstantial and equal in dignity, we will inevitably lose the path
toward knowledge of the Trinity Who is only revealed in union in love and not in any hierarchy
taken separately that places itself on the margins of this law. The great Khomiakov spoke of this
in his works, but it is, unfortunately, almost forgotten at this time.

If we fight against the neo-papism that has appeared within our Holy Church, we are only
fighting for the Truth as the Church confesses it, the eternal Truth. We reject any idea of
“Rome”—First, Second or Third—as soon as this idea tends to introduce the principle of
subordination into the life of the Church. We reject all papism, whether it is in Rome,
Constantinople, Moscow, London, Paris, New York or in any other place. We denounce papism
as an ecclesiological heresy that deforms Christianity.

***

The eternal substance of the Church is reflected in all aspects of human life on earth. The
canonical structure of the Church is one of the projections of Her pure, holy spiritual nature. In
being reflected in this world, the elements of the purely ecclesiastical reality are confused with
conventional and relative elements of the natural order. But God’s idea and purpose—which,
consequently, are those of the Church—remain inalterable even in this confusion. This purpose
is the salvation of the world—so that “this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:53) through communion with divine grace.

In the conditions of our fallen terrestrial life, the “projection” of the Church’s holy and
incorruptible nature inevitably takes a certain nuance of convention. This is why the canonical
constitution of the Church is not an absolute juridical norm; it bears in itself traces of
imperfection of our historical existence. There are temporary elements responding to such and
such a condition of the age. Certain details have undergone change more than once and such
changes are not impossible in the future. Nevertheless, the canonical constitution always
preserves its deep roots, its inalterable essence, which cannot be in contradiction with our
dogmatic consciousness. Thus, since we confess that “it is neither on this mountain nor in
Jerusalem” that the Father is worshiped, but rather “the true worshippers worship the Father in
spirit and in truth”, how is it possible that the canons of the Church impose upon us a local
principle as the indispensable condition of belonging to the true Church?

Here is a classic example of the papist mentality: “Let us never forget that between God and us
there is a link and this link is Rome…” (The sermon of the Rev Fr Valette in the newspaper La
Croix, October 7, 1949, issue 20.261).

If His Holiness Athenagoras, Patriarch of “Second Rome” addresses to us today an encyclical to

preach submission to the See of Constantinople as a formal condition of belonging to the
Universal Church, what true Christian, “worshipping in spirit and in truth” will accept these
words?

Let us imagine that some catastrophe causes First and Second Rome to disappear. Would this
disappearance leave the world deprived of true communion with God, since the “links” that

125
connect us to Him have disappeared? Of course, that is a “voice of strangers” (John 10:5). This
has never been our Christian faith.

We have attempted to demonstrate with the present overview that ecclesiological teaching cannot
be in contradiction with triadological teaching: that even in its historical aspect, the Church must
reflect the image of Triune Life. The canon that establishes unity between the Bishops of the
local Churches in the image of the Holy Trinity and which is at the same time the closest
reflection of this unity is Apostolic Canon 34.20

It is toward a similar unity that His Holiness Patriarch Alexei of Moscow and all the Russias
calls us:

“… Christ told His disciples, ‘whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your
servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave’ (Matthew 20:26-
27). May the Lord open the spiritual eyes of the Roman Pontiffs, that they may acquire, with
God’s help, the power of the Spirit, so that they may renounce the vain pretention of establishing
on earth their domination over all the heirs of the Apostles! Oh, if the Lord deigned to allow us
to see the happy day of the union of the Bishops of the Church as brothers equal in rights! This
would serve as a beginning for peace in the entire world…” (Acts of the Moscow Conference,
vol. 1, p. 90; Journal of the Patriarchate of Moscow, special issue in French, 1948, p. 16).

Thus, “the Church calls to Her bosom all nations and hopefully awaits the coming of Her Savior.
She sees with a tranquil eye the flow of the ages, historical storms and agitations and the currents
of human passions and thoughts rolling and churning around the rock upon which She relies and
which She knows to be unshaken. This rock is Christ.” (Khomiakov, The Latin Church and
Protestantism, pp. 303-304).

St. Sophrony (Sakharov)

Orthodoxsynaxis.org

12/1/2019

Christ and the Church: Responding to

Contemporary Currents in ‘Trinitarian
Ecclesiology”
Bishop Irenei (Steenberg)

The following is the complete text of a Lecture delivered by Bishop Irenei at the University of
Fribourg, 31st October 2019, addressing the serious problems with modern-day attempts to
develop a so-called “Trinitarian” vision of Church life that attempts to correlate the relations
between ecclesial authorities to the relations of the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity—

126
especially as manifest in the false claims of any one patriarchate as having authority precedent
to all others on such theological grounds.

    

For some years now, there have been currents within Orthodox theological discussion that have
increasingly blended together Trinitarian theological principles with those of structural
ecclesiology: that is to say, the nature of God as Trinity-in-unity with the Church as multiplicity-
in-unity. This has been manifest in various studies and texts, perhaps none more visible to the
public gaze than the controversial ‘Ravenna Statement’ issued in 2007 by the Joint International

127
Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
The main point of contention over that document’s release (which concerned incomplete
Orthodox participation in its drafting due to ecclesial circumstances at play at the time) do not
greatly relate to what is, in my mind, the far more questionable issue of its Trinitarian
ecclesiological focus. The Ravenna Statement opens its primary content by noting that the
Church’s “Conciliarity reflects the Trinitarian mystery and finds therein its ultimate
foundation,”[1] going on to explain that:

The Eucharist manifests the Trinitarian koinonia actualized in the faithful as an organic
unity of several members each of whom has a charism, a service or a proper ministry,
necessary in their variety and diversity for the edification of all in the one ecclesial Body
of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12.4-30). All are called, engaged and held accountable—each in a
different though no less real manner—in the common accomplishment of the actions
which, through the Holy Spirit, make present in the Church the ministry of Christ, the
way, the truth and the life (Jn 14, 6). In this way, the mystery of salvific koinonia with the
Blessed Trinity is realized in humankind.[2]

This had put even more emphatically in an earlier document produced in Munich, which
provided a foundation for the discussion in Ravenna:

Since Christ is one for the many, as in the church which is his body, the one and the
many, the universal and local are necessarily simultaneous. Still more radically, because
the one and only God is the communion of three persons, the one and only church is a
communion of many communities and the local church a communion of persons. The one
and unique church finds her identity in the koinonia of the churches. Unity and
multiplicity appear so linked that one could not exist without the other. It is this
relationship constitutive of the church that institutions make visible and, so to speak,
“historicize”.[3]

128
 Metropolitan John (Zizioulas). Photo: wikipedia
This paradigm—of seeing the structural-administrative elements of the Church in terms of the
koinonia of the Trinity, manifest in a specific taxis or order—runs through much of the
Commission’s textual output, and certainly throughout the Ravenna statement, giving shape to its
entire ecclesiological vision,[4] much as indeed it represents the voice of its chief Orthodox
theological author, Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamum.[5] The relations of the Trinity
are the starting point, and continual reference point, for considering the structural elements of the
Church. As I shall make clear in what follows, there are serious problems—both theological and
administrative—with this structural approach.

It is natural, perhaps, and seemingly fitting that in a Church that firmly understands herself to be
Christ’s Body (therefore explicitly tying her identity to a theological Person), this theological-
ecclesiological relationship should arise. This is eminently clear at the Christological level. You
are the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12.27) has always been understood in Orthodoxy as more
than a metaphorical phrase: The community of faithful is a grafting of human individuals into the
singular life of the Son, uniting them into one body of which He is the head (Ephesians 4.15). By
consequence, this means that the nature, the personal identity, of the One into Whom all are
grafted is intimately related to the “structure”, if we might employ such terminology, of the Body
into which the members of the Church find themselves drawn. Simultaneously, rightly
comprehending the nature of this divine-human Person is a necessary aspect of understanding
ecclesiastical structures in all their attributes and functions. Theology and ecclesiology are,
indeed, intimately intertwined.

There is an important level at which this is true, too, in the realm of Trinitarian discussion. The
Church is the Body of Christ, Who is “one of the Holy Trinity”:[6] it is therefore impossible to

129
comprehend the nature of the Church (and her structure, organization or function) without a
comprehension of the manner in which Christ, Whose Body she is, relates in His personal
identity to the Father and the Spirit in theirs. Trinitarianism, then, which occupies itself with
seeking to gaze into the mystery of the Trinity in an ever more articulate manner, bringing into
the realm of human understanding the eternal relations of Father, Son and Spirit, has a perfectly
reasonable and indeed essential relationship to ecclesiology, which seeks to understand the way
in which the second Person of this Trinity makes manifest in creation the body of His redemptive
work.

‘The history of theology is nothing if not replete with the traps and pitfalls of pursuing the
logical analysis of what is ‘obvious’ to the peril of what is true.”

And yet, and yet. The history of theology is nothing if not replete with the traps and pitfalls of
pursuing the logical analysis of what is ‘obvious’ to the peril of what is true. The great historical
arch-heresy of Arius was, in inception, only an attempt at logical analysis of the Son’s
“begottenness” in light of the rational implications of this term for temporality and creation. The
faults of much-lamented Nestorian dualism were, in origin, attempts at rationally maintaining
seemingly contradictory, yet admittedly necessary, confessions about the full deity and humanity
of Christ; while the foibles of Apollinarianism (and by extension of the excesses we have
customarily labelled “monophysite,” “miaphysite” and even the later “monothelite”) began as
logical attempts to confess the incarnate Christ’s singular, subjective identity and take seriously
the implications of such famous statements as St Gregory the Theologian’s “that which is
unassumed is unhealed”.[7] There are, as the history of developing doctrinal articulation has
amply demonstrated, profound dangers in applying rational exegesis to theological revelation in
abstraction.

Such is precisely the peril into which a great deal of modern Trinitarian ecclesiology has fallen.
One may rightly take as facts of divine revelation that the Church is Christ’s Body, that Christ is
a Person of the Trinity, and that He together with the Father and the Holy Spirit exist eternally in
specific relation one to another; but the manner in which these realities are linked can be
articulated in a multitude of ways—some of which, as we see in our day, lead far from an
ecclesiology that resonates with the history of the Orthodox Church.

From Primacy to Trinity

I wish to confine myself here to one specific manner in which a wrong application of Trinitarian
articulations to ecclesiological matters has deeply distorted the latter (and, indeed, retroactively
revealed problems with contemporary expressions of the former); namely, the application of
Trinitarian relations to the hierarchy of ecclesial primacy amongst the churches. This is, perhaps,
the area in which the consequences of logical, but ultimately incorrect, analysis of theological-
ecclesiological matters have generated “real world” problems in contemporary inter-Orthodox
discussion.

While not a theme that historically occupies a central place in the ecclesiological writings of the
Church Fathers, the question of “primacy and synodality” has been at the center of
ecclesiological discussions of the twentieth and now twenty-first centuries, largely occasioned by

130
the rise, in the mid-twentieth century, of renewed conversation between Orthodoxy and Roman
Catholicism, for which the issue is both historically and contemporarily central.[8] Internally,
questions of “primacy”, while incontrovertibly present in the writings of the patristic sources,
tend not to hold an overly-central place apart from contexts of explicit jurisdictional troubles (it
is fairly obvious that questions of primacy should figure, for example, into debates over the
relative authority of sees in the ninth- through eleventh-century disputes between Rome and
Constantinople). Even in places where there might seem to be rather obvious opportunities to
dwell on the issue of inter-episcopal primacy—such as, for example, St Irenaeus of Lyons’
famous excursus on the seniority of the See of Rome in Refutation 3[9]—the Fathers tend not to
do so. St Irenaeus, for his part, unequivocally sees Rome as an authority to which others might
turn in the task of seeking the doctrinal authenticity of Scriptural interpretation in the face of
variant readings, but this is so precisely because of the antiquity of the Roman witness to what is
universal amongst all the churches, and not because of any “primacy” possessed by that See as
such (and Irenaeus does not use “primacy” here, in what would otherwise be a seemingly ideal
place to do so). Having asserted that in Rome the churches have, in terms of the historical flow
of time, a most ancient witness to the truth possessed and “traditioned” (handed along) by each
of the local churches (and to which those churches can therefore take recourse if ever a question
arises[10]), he then swiftly moves on to the ecclesial matters that are of more substantive interest
to him: the Church as Body of the incarnate Son; the Church as inheritor of and participant in the
Cross and resurrection of Christ; the Church as the nursery of spiritual maturation for Adam as
he grows from infancy into adulthood in Christ, etc.[11]

St Irenaeus of Lyon In this, St Irenaeus is typical

of the majority of Fathers. The relative authority of different elements of the hierarchy of the
churches can be raised when necessary (either to make a positive point, as in St Irenaeus, about

131
useful recourse in times of confusion; or to counter misappropriations of such authority when it
arises, such as in the case of the east-west disputations of later centuries), but the theme simply
does not hold a central place in the broad ecclesiological vision of the patristic sources. While in
certain, restricted circles questions of personal, and later ecclesial primatial authority, would gain
more traction as extrapolations of a “Petrine authority” amongst the Apostles, scholars and
church authorities of both east and west have acknowledged that this was a later, and
geographically restricted, phenomenon,[12] to which we can securely add that it has never
represented the majority view of the patristic witness.

It should, therefore, strike us as strange that “primacy and synodality” have become almost the
central bywords of ecclesiological discussion in our contemporary milieu. It is always, or at least
should always be, something of a red flag when a theme the Fathers themselves find secondary
or even tertiary in importance becomes primary in discussions that, inevitably, seek to use
patristic tradition to bolster the authority of claims they make. More so, when that re-orientation
of priorities is then followed by a re-orientation of theological exegesis to accompany it. Yet this
is precisely what we have witnessed in previous decades, and above all in the past thirty years:
the centralization of “primacy” as an ecclesial concept has generated a re-orientation of
Trinitarian relational discussion into the ecclesiological realm, as a means of giving substance to
the erroneous and insupportable assertions of an ecclesiology that otherwise has no theological
(and certainly no historical) merit.

Trinitarian Relations and Ecclesial Hierarchy

This is most explicitly the case when assertions of ‘primacy’ are substantiated by a parallelism of
Church structures (namely, the episcopal hierarchy and the relations of authority within it) to the
Persons of the Trinity and their relations one to another. To be clear at the outset, there is no
patristic testimony whatsoever to the widespread modern concept, foundational to much
“Trinitarian ecclesiology”, that the relations of the Church’s hierarchical structures are paralleled
(whether ontologically, conceptually or iconically) to the eternal relations of Father, Son and
Spirit. One strives in vain to find any patristic source who speaks in these terms, as inviting as
they might sound to the modern ear. Yet the temptation of finding, in the Trinity-in-unity
confession of the nature of God, a convenient parallel for describing the multiplicity-in-unity of
human, ecclesial relations, has often proven too strong to resist. We saw this already explicitly
stated in the Joint Commission’s Munich statement (1982), as well as shaping its continuation in
Ravenna and other texts; we might point out that one of the most significant features of its 2016
plenary in Chieti was a re-examination of the concepts of “primacy and synodality” in terms that
abolish this shaky “Trinitarian” foundation on which its earlier statements had been laid.

“A Trinitarian ecclesiology in extremis has been articulated: one in which the mis-application of
the relations of the Trinity to the authority structures of the Church has reached the “logical”
conclusion to which this rationalistic analysis leads—and has thereby produced theological-
ecclesiological assertions never before heard in the history of Orthodox thought.”

Nevertheless, the temptation persists in internal Orthodox ecclesiological discussions. The

present-day conflict between the ecclesiological assertions of scholars and hierarchs within the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, which have evoked strong reactions amongst those of the other

132
patriarchates and Local Churches, is the most poignant case in point. Let us set aside entirely, for
the present discussion, the questions of territoriality and jurisdiction in certain parts of the world
that are involved in much of our present-day inter-Orthodox disputation. While questions of
territory, canonical jurisdiction and the sovereignty of patriarchates within the communion of all
the Local Churches are, I hasten to clarify, entirely legitimate and important points of
ecclesiological discussion, for our present analysis they are not relevant. What is relevant is how,
in the midst of those discussions, a “Trinitarian ecclesiology” in extremis has been articulated:
one in which the mis-application of the relations of the Trinity to the authority structures of the
Church has reached the “logical” conclusion to which this rationalistic analysis leads—and has
thereby produced theological-ecclesiological assertions never before heard in the history of
Orthodox thought. Here I am not speaking of the now-infamous “first without equals” (primus
sine paribus) claim for the See of Constantinople and its primatial occupant that has of late been
asserted as a counter to the old axiom of “first among equals” (primus inter pares),[13] but rather
the ecclesiological principles that have been asserted to ground and defend it: namely, that the
Trinitarian “primacy” of the Father, in relation to the Son and Spirit, is embodied in one
patriarchate (and more explicitly, personally in one patriarch) such that there is a unique
authority that resides ontologically in one individual.[14]

Monarchy in the Holy Trinity

To comprehend the attractiveness of this logic to some, it is necessary to understand the

Trinitarian principles it incorrectly takes up to substantiate it. As with so much that goes wrong
in theological discussions over the course of history, it is not the starting points that are incorrect,
but what is done once launching off from them. In the present matter, the Trinitarian confessions
used in the maintenance of this ecclesiological vision are not incorrect; they are, rather, the basic,
elemental confessions of an Orthodox Trinitarianism. What goes disastrously wrong is the mis-
application of these to realms in which they simply do not apply.

133
 Photo:
wikipedia     

It is fundamental to the self-revelation of the One God that He is Father, Son and Spirit—a
mystery we refer to as Trinity and which centuries of ever-refining theological articulation would
come to describe specifically as a Trinity of three Persons, consubstantial, co-divine and co-
eternal, existing in perfect and unalterable unity whilst maintaining, eternally, their personal
distinctions perceived through their relations. The Son is eternally distinct from the Father

134
through the precise, relational reality of His sonship—His “eternal begottenness” which makes
Him eternally distinct from the Begettor. Likewise the Spirit is eternally distinct from the Father
by His procession forth from the latter: the One Who is sent ever distinct from the One Who
sends and, moreover, distinct from the Son in that the relation of procession is distinct from that
of begetting. Each Person is thus distinct and unconfusable with the others, not by any distinction
of divinity or ontology or even economy (all of which are explicitly rejected), but wholly by their
distinguishable and non-interminglable relations.

Within these Trinitarian relations, the Father’s unique trait (setting Him eternally in distinction
from the Son’s begottenness and the Spirit’s procession) is that He is the source (Gr. arche) of
those relations. The Son’s “sonship” is defined by His being Son of the Father; the Spirit’s
unique relational identity is defined by His being processed from the Father. The Father’s unique
relational identity, in turn, is precisely that He is the source of the relations, and indeed the sole
source—not in terms of temporal priority (the very phrase “eternally begotten”, which so
befuddled Arius, is used precisely to eradicate the possibility of conceiving of a “before” or
“after” in terms of these relations), but rather in the sole context of relational definition.[15] The
Son is always the Son because He is always begotten of the Father; the Spirit is always the Spirit
because He always proceeds from the Father; and the Father is always the Father because He
always substantiates the sonship and procession of the other two Persons as Father, as sole
“source”.[16] Thus the Trinitarian monarchicalism of the Father (mone + arche: “sole source”)
becomes the standard means of articulating the relations of the co-eternal, co-equal Persons of
God as Trinity from at least the time of the great Cappadocians.

There are a number of points in this traditional, patristic language of Trinity that should be noted
in our present discussion. Firstly, the monarchy of the Father is necessarily as communal as it is
relational. He cannot be Father without the Son, nor the One Who sends the Spirit if there is no
Spirit being sent.[17] The relational, rather than ontological, nature of these identities requires
the co-existence and co-eternity of all three. Similarly, the co-eternity of the Father’s identity as
the sole arche of their relations, precisely because it is co-eternal in its relationality but not
ontology (for there is only one ontological reality to the Trinity: there is one God), means there
can be conceived no divine superiority of the Father. If the Father cannot be Father without the
Son, then even though it is the Father who is the arche of that relation, the necessary co-eternity
of both Persons, in order for either of them to be defined by their relations, means that in terms
of their relational identities neither is precedent or greater than the other, even if we may be
forced by the limitations of language to speak of ‘precedence’ at times, at the logical level.[18]
The Son is not divine because He has received divinity from the Father (such would be an
ontological, rather than relational, tri-unism); but similarly, the Father does not possess anything
unto himself qua Father, by virtue of being the sole arche of their relations, except the
characteristic of being source of the relation itself. The Father possesses no precedent divinity
over the Son or Spirit, no precedent ‘authority’, no independent anything except His unique
relational attribute of being, hypostatically, the Begettor of the Son and the One Who sends forth
the Spirit.

The Problems of Tying the Relations of the Trinity to Ecclesial Structures

135
This basic description of classical patristic Trinitarian language now laid out, we are better
situated to analyse the problems that arise when discussion of Trinitarian relations is applied to
the structures of Church hierarchy and autonomy. As I mentioned before, the temptation to see in
the Trinity, as unity-in-multiplicity of three Persons as one God, a convenient parallel for the
relations of men to each other and of Church structures to other Church structures, is frequent.
Surely, if man is a creation of God as Trinity, then it is in the Trinity that he will find some
means of articulating who he himself is? And if the Church is the Body of God Who is Trinity,
then surely it is in the Trinity that she will find definition for her internal life and function?

I have, however, also already pointed out that the most significant problem with this line of
reasoning is that, despite its apparent attractiveness, it has no basis within the tradition of the
Church herself. By one category of analysis, this ought to be enough, in itself, to dismiss this line
of ecclesiological reasoning from the mindset of a Church which self-confessedly maintains “that
faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all”.[19] Yet expression and articulation of
theological, as well as ecclesial, reality do indeed change over time, most certainly; so the deeper
investigation must be into whether such novel claims are compatible with the theological vision
of the Church, not solely with her historical articulations of that vision.

“When Christ famously prays to the Father, that ‘they may be one, even as we are one,’ we
must not fail to hear these words in concert with that for which He prays next…”

The first place in which we discover an immediate incompatibility is in the very mis-application
of Trinitarian expression to the Church, as if she were the Body of the Trinity and not the Body
of Christ. There is simply no precedent in Orthodox thought for the modern-day assertion
(oftentimes implicit in verbiage but explicit in the contours of the ecclesiology expressed[20])
that the Church is somehow a structural manifestation of Trinitarian relations.[21] Both St Paul
and the innumerable patristic sources to follow him expressly assert that the Church is the Body,
not of the Trinity, but of the second Person of the same; it is in Christ that humankind has access
to the Trinity and is drawn into the unity of the Trinity—participating in that unity in, with and
through its adoption into Christ and never as itself manifesting the divine relations of Father, Son
and Spirit. When Christ famously prays to the Father, that they may be one, even as we are one
(John 17.11/22, a text regularly used to support an improper “Trinitarian” ecclesiology), we must
not fail to hear these words in concert with that for which He prays next: that man’s life be
grafted wholly into His suffering and death and mission, that they may all be one, as Thou,
Father, art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us … I in them and Thou in Me,
that they also may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that Thou hast sent
Me, and hast loved them as Thou hast loved Me (John 17.21, 23, emphasis added). Christ
explicitly prays that the unity His disciples obtain should be an image, not of the eternal
relational unity between Father, Son and Spirit, but precisely and emphatically the image of the
unity of the incarnate Christ with His Father. Man shall never relate to the Father as the Son
eternally relates to the Father (the property of eternal generation from the Father is never a
property of the creature[22]); rather, Christ prays that they obtain unity in Him, and in this
participate in His incarnate Sonship, drawn to the Father through the Father’s Spirit Whom
Christ, their image and priest, sends. It is in this crucial distinction that we discover the
foundation of so much that goes wrong in swaths of contemporary discussion.

136
 Sermon on
the Mount by Carl Bloch (1877). Photo: wikipedia     

The Church as the Body of Christ (which, even more than meaning the Body of the second
Person of the Divine Trinity in His eternal reality, means explicitly the Body of His incarnate
reality as the Christ crucified and risen), demands that the various aspects of the Church’s
worldly structure likewise find their definition not in the Trinitarian relations writ large, but
more specifically in the personal identity of the Son, and how He—incarnate, died and risen—
relates to His Father and the Father’s Spirit. Men and women are grafted into the Church, united
into the Body, after the image of the Son Who grafted all of humanity to Himself by taking flesh
and becoming man. The Church is obedient unto the will of the Father, even as Christ was
perfectly obedient to His Father’s will (cf. John 12.49, 14.31). The Church receives the Holy
Spirit as the Son asks of His Father to send that Spirit (cf. John 15.26); and she receives the

137
Father’s goodwill, that she inherit the Kingdom, by being united to the Son’s death, resurrection
and ascension in glory.

It is entirely in the person of the incarnate Son that the Church finds her identity, articulating this
ever more distinctively the more that she articulates clearly the Son’s relation to the Father and
Spirit; but at no time does she find her subjective identity articulated either in the Trinity ‘as a
whole’ (i.e. in the sum articulation of all the Trinitarian relations) or in either of the other
Persons taken as the substance of her identity (as such she is never the :Body of the Father” or
the “Body of the Spirit”, any more than she is the “Body of the Trinity”).

Yet it is precisely into such terrain that modern “Trinitarian” ecclesiology wanders. The
centralization of “primacy” as an ecclesiological theme, mentioned earlier, has required a
consonant emphasis on relationality (which takes as its starting point the Greek term koinonia,
generally used to describe the relations between the Persons of the Trinity and usually translated
into English as “communion”), in order to give substance to definitions of different structures in
cooperation and organization. Focusing purely on the Church as the Body of Christ (as is found
in the Scriptures and the Fathers) provides little in the way of theological fodder for extended
consideration of this idea, since it is hardly possible to speak of the Son relating to Himself in
varying ways (unless one is daring enough to wander into a kind of ecclesiological
Nestorianism). It appears to be for this reason that the discussion therefore shifted, in twentieth-
century discussions, precisely to the Church as relationally manifesting, in her various structures,
the koinonia of relations of the Trinity—for there, at least, one is able to draw parallels between
concretely distinct Persons in relation to another.[23]

“The Church as a structural embodiment of Trinitarian relations is an invention of the

twentieth century: it has little relation to the Church as she has perceived her identity
throughout history.”

And yet, to do so is to invent an ecclesiology that simply has no precedent in Orthodoxy. The
Church as a structural embodiment of Trinitarian relations is an invention of the twentieth
century: It has little relation (if that intentional pun may be pardoned) to the Church as she has
perceived her identity throughout history. And the disaster of this is not only that it divorces such
modern-day ecclesiological discussion from the whole of Christian tradition, but that it generates
substantial problems not simply in Church life, but also, in an almost “retrospective” manner, in
how she confesses the nature of God as Trinity. This modern ecclesiastical mis-appropriation of
concepts retrospectively perverts Christianity’s most ancient and most fundamental theological
confessions about God.

In claiming, for example, that one patriarch may be “first without equals” because the Church, in
imaging the Trinity, images the relations of the Father, Son and Spirit, and the Father is “sole
source” of the relations (and therefore the one patriarch who vicarially manifests the Father in
this ecclesial hodgepodge must also have a unique role as ‘sole source’ of the authority of the
other patriarchs and patriarchates[24]) not only introduces the quite extraordinary novelty of
conceiving of any hierarch as ecclesial representation of the Father in relation to his brother-
hierarchs,[25] but demonstrates that, in so doing, the authentic patristic monarchicalism of
Trinitarian expression has also been modified. The whole emphasis of relational Trinitarian

138
language, as expressed so clearly by St Gregory of Nyssa and the other Cappadocians amongst a
host of others, is that the Father is not the source of authority in the Son or Spirit (nor of divinity,
or power, or might, or eternity), and that while He is sole arche of their relations, the very fact of
the co-eternity of those relations means there is nothing precedent in the Father, nothing sine
paribus that He possesses except His personal identity as arche of the relational sonship of the
Son and procession of the Spirit. He is not ‘responsible’ for their unity as a self-possessed,
independent attribute (because without them bearing out their eternal relatedness there is no
unity);[26] He is not ontologically “first” in a hierarchy (relational monarchy being utterly
distinct from ontological hierarchy in theological discussions).[27]

To assert that one patriarch has an authority, within the communion of the hierarchy of all the
Local Churches, because the Church manifests the relations of the Trinity which are personal and
therefore must be tied to concrete Persons, and that in these personal relations that of the Father
is the sole arche, is radically to misunderstand what this concept means to the Church Fathers.
Not only is the entire parallelism between the Church and the Trinity incorrect, the conception of
the Father as somehow the substantive foundation for a personal concept of primus sine paribus
is also incorrect. If, in terms of the relations of the Persons of the Trinity, the Father is “without
equals”, He is no more so than the Son and Holy Spirit are also “without equals”: each is a
Person that cannot be conflated with the others. And just as the Father is not “first” but “sole”
(mone),[28] inasmuch as He is the sole source of the relational identity of both Son and Spirit,
similarly the Son is “sole,” not in being relational source, but in being sole Son; and the Spirit is
“sole” in being sole Spirit. The Father’s identity as mone arche is not a primacy, nor a definition
of hierarchy; for it to be applied to the Church’s hierarchy as paradigm is conceptually to damage
both.

The Corrective: Christological Ecclesiology

There must be a correction made to this trend in ecclesiological thought, for we see in
contemporary “Trinitarian ecclesiology” not only how badly wrong ecclesiological discussions
can go when Trinitarian thought is misapplied to the Church’s structural identity (perverting her
theological vision), but we see also the damage that this can cause in concrete terms of inter-
Orthodox relations. The modern-day phenomenon of this novel ecclesiology, while being
regularized in formal documents only by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (silently ignored by
some other Local Churches, though thankfully in several cases explicitly rejected by others), has
nevertheless found its way into the dogmatic conversations of scholars and pastors across the
Orthodox world. It should be no real surprise that this coincides with the advent of schism and
widening division between parts of that same world.

“The necessary corrective to this problem is to return ecclesiological discussions to what is

their necessarily fundamental base: the nature of the Church as the Body of the incarnate,
crucified, risen and glorified Jesus Christ.”

To be clear, an ecclesiology that seeks to define primacy and synodality in inter-ecclesial matters
after the relational communion of the Persons of the Trinity will always fail the test of
Orthodoxy. It is ahistorical, being a relatively recent innovation; it is a-catholic, being a tradition
that does not represent the oikoumene of the Church in her universal manifestation; and above all

139
it is a-theological, being a mis-application of Trinitarian concepts to realms in which they do not
apply, disfiguring thereby both those realms and the Trinitarian vision of those who make this
misapplication.

   

The necessary corrective to this problem is to return ecclesiological discussions to what is their
necessarily fundamental base: the nature of the Church as the Body of the incarnate, crucified,
risen and glorified Jesus Christ. It is this that Christ Himself taught, the Apostles preached, and
the Fathers have maintained, and it is this that can reclaim the vacillations of modern discussion
for the witness of Orthodoxy.

As Body of the Son, and the Son incarnate, the Church’s hierarchical structures are not defined
by the relations of the Father, Son and Spirit, but by the relation of the Apostles to Christ, by
Whom they were called out of the world and united to His life. Being grafted into Christ, the
Apostles did not thereby become icons of the Father and Spirit, together with the Son, in terms of
how they related one to the other; rather, they became personally engrafted into the Son’s
obedience to the Father, through which they were called out of the disparate divisions of their
human backgrounds (neither Jew nor Greek... Galatians 3.28) into unity in Christ. This

140
Christological identity of the Church therefore meant that her life was bound up in the life of the
Trinity, just as the Son is “One of the holy Trinity”, and therefore she is drawn into precisely the
relations that the Son has with His Father and with the Holy Spirit; yet never into a confusion of
persons and personal relations, any more than the Son’s relations with the other Persons of the
Trinity are confused or inter-appropriated. Just as the Son’s identity is never confused by
equating it with the identity of the Father, so His Body, the Church, never has her identity
confused by misidentifying it with the Father or the Spirit.

The Church, and all her members, are drawn into the life of the incarnate Son; and this
experience of becoming, of entering into the fulness of Life through being grafted into the Son’s
incarnate and glorified human existence, is the quintessential characteristic of her identity. Those
who “were many” are “made one body” (cf. 1 Corinthians 12.12), and in the centrality of the
Eucharistic experience of the Church, the transformation of bread and wine, which undergo a
“becoming” in their sanctification into the true Body and Blood of Christ, engender in man the
becoming “one in Christ” (cf. Romans 12.5) that creates of the old man a new man and
transforms death into life. In this, it should be obvious to us that the relational paradigm of the
Church cannot be the manner in which the Son relates to the Father or the Spirit, for there is no
“becoming” in those eternal relations, as there always is in ecclesial realities. Christ does not
“become” one with the Father, but sanctified creation does become one in Christ—and it is
precisely here, in the incarnate reality of the Son, that ecclesiology finds its relational substance
and identity.[29]

Bishop Irenei (Steenberg)

Orthodox Europe

11/17/2019

Where is the Authoritative Voice of the Judge

of the Universe?
A Heartfelt Letter to Patriarch Theodoros of Alexandria
Metropolitan Agafangel of Odessa

Following the sorrowful news of Patriarch Theodoros of Alexandria’s decision to recognize the
schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine,” His Eminence Metropolitan Agafangel of Odessa of
the canonical Ukrainian Church penned a moving and heartfelt letter to the Patriarch, with
whom he has long been personally acquainted.

As he notes in his letter, Patriarch Theodoros lived and served in Odessa or ten years, at the
time that the Ukrainian schisms were first beginning, and has returned to visit twice since
becoming Patriarch of Alexandria. In fact, he visited Odessa just last year for the explicit
purpose of strengthening and comforting the faithful of the canonical Ukrainian Church,

141
encouraging them to remain loyal to Christ in the canonical Church under His Beatitude
Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine.

Thus, the pain of the Patriarch’s recent decision is more personal for Orthodox Odessans.

   

***

No. 446, November 19, 2019

His Beatitude,
The Most Blessed Patriarch of Alexandria
and All Africa Theodoros II

Your Beatitude,
Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa Theodoros!

A year has passed since Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew granted a “tomos” of autocephaly to
the so-called “OCU.” However, the declared good intentions of the Ecumenical Throne—to save
the disastrous state of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, to heal the wounds of schism, to restore to

142
communion with the Orthodox Church those children who are beyond its boundaries—were not
crowned with success, but, on the contrary, deepened the crisis and are quickly leading towards a
schism of the entire Orthodox world.

The “OCU” is a group of schismatics and self-consecrated people, having no sacred orders, and
in general, nothing in common with Orthodoxy, which you well know. Their blasphemous,
abusive, and slanderous declarations aimed at the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the
Ukrainian people bear witness to this. The representatives of this denomination have turned out
to be a weapon in the hands of the enemies of the Church and Christ, who hate all that is holy
and quite often—God Himself. They fell for the devil’s trick, forgetting that the Church is
governed by Christ, and not the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Today it is absolutely clear that Orthodoxy is being destroyed with the help of the rulers of this
world, that there is no longer unity amongst the Local Orthodox Churches, and that chaos reigns;
and what’s worse, that all this is being openly done by Patriarch Bartholomew, who has fallen
into the heresy of ethnophyletism, of eastern papism, and the ecclesiological heresy of
ecumenism. Having committed a blasphemous act—the recognition of the self-consecrated
schismatics with the stroke of a pen, he insists that all the Local Churches recognize the pseudo-
structure created by him.

With great sadness and anxiety we received the news that you, Your Beatitude, commemorated
“metropolitan Epiphany” as the “primate” of the Ukrainian Church during the Divine Liturgy in
the Church of the Archangel Michael in Cairo on November 8 and announced your recognition
of this pseudo-structure; and that, despite the fact that during your visit to Odessa in September
2018 you, as before, recognized only one canonical orthodox Church, headed by His Beatitude
Metropolitan Onuphry. How your words are at odds with your deeds!

And how striking that the Patriarch of Alexandria, having the title of Judge of the Universe, for
fear of the Jews surrendered the position of canonical Orthodoxy. Instead of speaking in defense
of Church unity, instead of calling all primates, as the Judge of the Universe, to seek a
canonically and dogmatically correct resolution to the Ukrainian problem, you embarked on the
path of destroying the Church. After all, you, like all Greeks, well know that Patriarch
Bartholomew trampled upon the sacred canons and dogmas of the Holy Orthodox Church.
Today, justifying his actions, he refers not to the canons and dogmas of the Orthodox Church,
but to the opinions of secular people, who are far from solving such questions—lawyers and
publicists.

Where is the strong and authoritative voice of the Patriarch of Alexandria during troubles and
sorrows for all of Orthodoxy? Why has the successor to the ancient Church of the apostle Mark,
fearing the mighty of this world, betrayed the many millions of Ukrainian Orthodox people? Are
you really so afraid of angering Patriarch Bartholomew but not afraid to so daringly go against
Christ and His Holy Church?

143
 Patriarch Theodoros (left) and Metropolitan Agafangel (right). Photo: eparhiya.od.ua     

The years of your ministry in Odessa brought you honor and respect among the clergy and
faithful, and you were personally assured of this when you twice visited Odessa as Patriarch. We
all prayed together with you and communed of the Body and Blood of Christ our Savior from
one chalice. You had the opportunity to look the people straight in the eye and preach Christ.
And today you have so easily betrayed those who respected you, who sincerely loved you, and
who heard your wonderful homilies with purity of heart. The Odessans who know you are very
surprised, upset, and scandalized by your actions.

You have offended St. Seraphim of Sarov, by whose prayers you became Patriarch, which you,
Your Beatitude, have spoken about many times. Hieromartyr Gregory V, Patriarch of
Constantinople weeps, at whose shrine with a particle of his relics you and the Orthodox
Odessans prayed during your ten years as the Exarch of the Patriarch of Alexandria and All
Africa to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. Odessa, the minor homeland of Greeks, and
Odessans, who believed you and hoped that you would never betray the Church of Christ and not
dare to rend the Savior’s robe, mourn.

Your Beatitude, think what you are doing! Orthodoxy is in danger. A schism of the Orthodox
Church is, quite unfortunately, becoming a clearly unavoidable and historical fact. After all, you
well know that this scam with the artificial Ukrainian “autocephaly” is aimed at the destruction
of Orthodoxy, at the destabilization of inter-Orthodox relations. You stated that you made this
decision after much thought. But that is not true! Everyone well understands that this decision
was rash, made under external influence and pressure. Please, tell the entire world which canon

144
gives the right to declared self-ordained schismatics, having no sacred orders, to be clergymen
and to grant them a tomos and autocephaly?

The “tomos” did not bring peace to Ukraine, but, on the contrary, enmity, malice, and hatred
aimed at the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the representatives of the so-called
“OCU,” which the false patriarch Philaret himself has renounced, who previously was zealously
in favoring of granting the “tomos.” Churches are being seized and priests and the faithful of the
canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church are being beaten. The seized churches stand empty, and
the faithful Ukrainian people of God, whose opinion the Ecumenical Patriarch ignored, will
never pray with the self-consecrated schismatics. The canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church will
never recognize the so-called “OCU,” because it is contrary to the sacred canons of the Holy
Church. The only possible way for them to enter the Church is to first begin to believe in God, in
the Gospel, and to bring forth the good fruits of sincere repentance.

Unfortunately, history vividly testifies to us of the names of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and
Alexandria who fell into heresy and trampled upon the sacred canons. They forever remain
apostates from the true faith and traitors to Sacred Tradition. They were all victims of the
negative influence exerted upon the Church by the state, interfering in its teachings and inner
life. And today we see open interference in the internal affairs of the Church and pressure on
hierarchs to be obedient and loyal in the matter of adapting the Church to the needs of the
politics of globalization.

Your Beatitude! Do not become one of them condemned by history, the Church, and God! After
all, even here on Earth you will have to give an answer before the face of all of world
Orthodoxy. It’s only a matter of time, not to mention that every one of us will have to appear
before the Judgment of God, bearing in mind that the sin of schism is not washed away even by
martyr’s blood.

Your Beatitude!

If God be for us, who can be against us? (Rom. 8:31).

We are praying for you to our Heavenly God the Father and greatly hope that you will reconsider
and reexamine your decision, and come to knowledge of the truth and defend the unity of
canonical Orthodoxy.

+ Agafangel
METROPOLIAN OF ODESSA AND IZMAIL,
PERMANENT MEMBER OF THE HOLY SYNOD
OF THE UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

Metropolitan Agafangel of Odessa

Translated by Jesse Dominick

11/22/2019

145
What is Patriarch Bartholomew’s Error?
On the essence, causes, and ways to overcome the current
crisis in inter-Church relations
Priest Alexander Mazyrin

The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate continues its discussion of the crisis in inter-Orthodox
relations and the uncanonicity of the decisions and actions of the Bartholomew Patriarch of
Constantinople. In the April issue for 2019, that journal acquainted the reader with the
historical background of what is currently going on. In this article, Doctor of Church history
and doctoral candidate in historical sciences Priest Alexander Mazyrin explains, in his view, in
what consists the theological error of the modern primate of the Phanar and why the canons do
not give any exclusive rights to the Constantinople Patriarchs.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions...

(2 Thess. 2:15)

146
    

In recent months the Orthodox world has been experiencing a crisis on a scale that it has
probably not experienced since the time of the Great Schism of a thousand years ago. The
similarity is obvious. Just as it was then, the primary see (then Rome, now Constantinople) has
made a claim that is unacceptable to Orthodox consciousness: that it occupies an exclusive
position and has authoritarian primacy over the other Local Churches. Back then it led to the
separation of the Roman popes from Orthodoxy, and now the Constantinople Patriarchate has
stepped on that same path.

First without equal?

The Ukrainian Church question, which is now at the epicenter of the conflict, has a significance
that is by no means merely local. It has revealed a problem of particular scale and exposed
distortions in the Phanar’s ecclesiology that cannot be classified as anything other than a heresy.

The Constantinople Patriarch has directly proclaimed himself the head of all Orthodox patriarchs
and primates, and now not only as a private opinion, but more than officially—in a Tomos

147
“granting autocephaly” to the so-called Sacred Church of Ukraine. By insisting along the lines of
the Roman popes’ longtime example that he is the head of the entire Orthodox Church, to what
place does the Constantinople Patriarch relegate Christ, Whom the Church from apostolic times
has confessed to be its Head (Eph. 1:22)?

In proclaiming himself the head of the entire Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew supposes
that he can make what was into what was not (revoke the transfer of the Kiev Metropolia to the
Moscow Patriarchate that took place 300 years ago) and, to the contrary, make the nonexistent
into existent (to make with the mere flourish of a pen the graceless false hierarchy of the
Ukrainian schismatics into ones having grace).

By accepting schismatics and the semi-self-ordained1 in their “existing rank” and granting them
“autocephaly”, Patriarch Bartholomew is at the same time ignoring the canonical Ukrainian
Orthodox Church, despite the fact that it far surpasses in numbers of parish and worshippers all
the various local autocephalists taken together, and even the Constantinople Patriarchate itself.
Moreover this is being done in obvious contradiction to the position of all the other Local
Churches2 and in categorical refusal to submit the matter to a Pan-Orthodox decision.

Patriarch Bartholomew and his apologists are openly proclaiming and embodying a teaching that
out of the primates of the Orthodox Churches, supposedly they are not the first among equals but
the first without equal (primus sine paribus).3 Moreover they are claiming that the source of his
primacy is not the Church, but he himself, like God the Father in the Holy Trinity.4 What is this
if not an ecclesiological5 heresy? A heresy that is deepened even further by its distortion of the
Orthodox teaching on God the Trinity, inasmuch as the historically conditioned changeable
interrelations of the Local Churches in this false teaching are being compared to an inter-
Trinitarian relationship—a relationship that takes on an element of subordinationism (co-
subordination),6 which is already a step towards Arianism.7

As the basis for the Constantinople Patriarchs’ supposedly exclusive rights are cited the 9th and
17th canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. In them is stated that if someone be “offended by
his metropolitan”, he can take it for judgment to the Constantinople throne. However, according
to the explanation of the most authoritative canonists (Greek ones, we must note), this is not at
all about this throne’s universal jurisdiction, and Constantinople patriarchs can hear appeals from
“offended” clerics only within the boundaries of their own territory, which, according to canon
28 of that same Council, is limited to the Pontan, Asian, and Thracian provinces (now within in
the main territory of modern Turkey).

Thus, John Zonaras (twelfth century) said plainly that “the Patriarch of Constantinople is not
placed as judge over all metropolitans without exception, but only over those under submission
to him.” Further he explains that the metropolitans of Syria are to be judged by the Patriarch of
Antioch, those of Palestine by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and those of Egypt by the Patriarch of
Alexandria.8 St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite (eighteenth to nineteenth centuries) in his explanation
of the “Pedalion” (the “Rudder”) wrote absolutely unambiguously that the “Constantinople
primate is the first and only judge over the metropolitans in submission to him—but not over
those who are in submission to all the other patriarchs.”9 Thus, the canons do not give the
Constantinople patriarchs any kind of exclusive rights.

148
It should also be noted that that same canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, to which the
Phanariots so like to refer, talks about the statute of limitations on bishops’ appeals for claims
concerning the boundaries of canonical territories as being thirty years. If the Constantinople
patriarchs had any pretenses against the Moscow patriarchs concerning the Kiev Metropolia,
they had to announce them 300 years ago. And it is even more absurd when they say that the
Phanar can “revoke” the Moscow Patriarchate’s autocephaly, which was confirmed at a council
held in the sixteenth century.

The background and prehistory of the current crisis

Although even a year ago hardly anyone could have imagined such a rapid deterioration of
relations in world Orthodoxy, the escalating crisis is not an accident and can in no way be laid at
Patriarch Bartholomew’s feet alone. We can say that it has ripened over the course of decades
and even centuries. In part, its premises are of an ethnophyletistic (the preference of national
interests over the interests of the whole Church.—Ed.) character, and in part geopolitical. There
is also an element of corruption at play here.

The most profound, almost perennial factor disrupting Church unity is the cultural-religious
chauvinism present amongst certain Greek Church figures, which they have exalted with the
name, Hellenism. Of course, no one can deny the greatness of Byzantine Christian culture or
ignore the fact that the books of the New Testament and the larger part of all patristic writings,
the resolutions of the Ecumenical Councils, the liturgical monuments, and many other very
important works of ecclesiastical literature appeared in the world in the Greek language. From
the moment of its appearance, the Church of Christ has come into close contact with the world
through Hellenic culture, and much has been drawn from that culture.

However, regardless of all that, the Church has since apostolic times unalterably confessed that
in Christ there is neither Greek, nor Jew, nor Scythian (cf. Cor. 3:11). Not one nation, no matter
what imprint it has left on Church history, can claim some sort of religious exclusivity and
demand primacy over other Christian peoples and their submission based on that supposed
exclusivity. Nevertheless, such claims have been and are being sounded by Greek spiritual
leaders (not all, of course).

The volume of these Hellenic claims to ecclesiastical lordship has been first of all determined by
political circumstances. Naturally, after the Turks conquered Constantinople, when Russia
became the only Orthodox kingdom, to whose intercession the Greeks were continually forced to
have recourse, the Phanar, like it or not, had to moderate its ambitions with regard to the Russian
Church. Meanwhile, other Orthodox peoples on the territory of the Ottoman Empire had to
experience full oppression not only from the Turks, but also from the Phanariots.

In 1917 the Orthodox monarchy in Russia was toppled, after which the Russian Church went
from being protected by the government to being cruelly persecuted. Practically at the same time,
Turkey sustained a serious defeat in the First World War, and the Greeks found themselves on
the side of the victors, hoping that they would soon be able to bring to life their “Grand Idea” of
reviving their sovereign nation’s former greatness with its capital in Constantinople. In the
official publications of the Constantinople and Alexandrian Patriarchates, passionate articles

149
were circulated, saying that “the Greek nation will be happy and proud to behold” how
Constantinople “will become, finally, the center of Orthodoxy, and its bishop, exalted over
nations and tribes, will become the visible head and common connecting link for all Orthodox
federal Churches.”10

The Greeks had then placed strong hopes in Great Britain for their final victory over the Turks,
and the Phanar tried to develop the closest possible ties with the Anglican Church in order to
strengthen this alliance, expressing their readiness to make all kinds of concessions. According
to the memoirs of one Anglican bishop who was conducting negotiations with the Phanariots in
1920, they said to him unabashedly behind the scenes, “If England can get the Hagia Sophia for
us, we will recognize any ordinations and agree to practically any teaching.”11

Just the same, in the critical moment, England did not help. The Greek army’s mad march into
the depths of Asia Minor (with the attempt to seize not only coastal Ankara) catastrophically
ended in 1922. After this the question arose as to whether the Constantinople Patriarchate would
even be able to remain in its historical homeland. Times began for the Phanar of, on the one
hand, the struggle for survival, and on the other, unbridled expansion all over the whole world in
attempts to compensate for what it lost on its own canonical territory, through acquisitions into
other places and at the expense of other Local Churches—primarily at the expense of the Russian
Church under Bolshevik oppression.

In that situation, the Phanar’s involvement with the schismatic renovationists who appeared on
the Russian scene in 1922 becomes quite explainable. The mass of Orthodox people in Russia
viewed the newly-appeared schismatics with repugnance, seeing in them enablers of the militant
atheists. But the renovationists were interesting to the Phanar in that, on the one hand, they were
ready to support its authoritarian claims in the Orthodox world (something they could not expect
to get from His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, against whom the schismatics were waging war), and
on the other hand, through them it was convenient to ask the Bolsheviks for aid, inasmuch as the
Bolsheviks not only held the power over Russia in their hands, but had even gained particular
influence over the Kemalists who were victorious in Turkey. The renovationists’ pronounced
ecclesiastical modernism was likewise interesting to the Phanar in light of its planned reforms,
which were intended to bring the Orthodox Church closer to the heterodox (calendar reforms,
etc.).

No sooner had the self-formed renovationist “Supreme Church Administration” appeared than
the chief Bolshevik curator of the schism L. D. Trotsky was informed that the Moscow
representative of the Constantinople Patriarchate Archimandrite Yakovos (Dimopoulos) had
rushed to inform the renovationists that “his lord, His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch”
(Meletios Metaxakis.—Auth.) could come to the council in Moscow, recognize the Supreme
Church Administration, participate in the judgment against Patriarch Tikhon, and in a word, do
everything that the Supreme Church Administration needed, even unto the deposition of Tikhon,
“according to all the canons.” He let them know what this would cost: by “His Holiness’s”
arrival in Moscow, the return to him of the house of the Constantinople Patriarchate and 10,000
Turkish lyra.”12

150
It must be supposed that it was not the money, nor even the rebuilding of the former
Constantinople Patriarchal metochion that had earlier been used as an apartment rental property
but was now a municipal building, which attracted Patriarch Meletios personally, but the
opportunity to demonstrate to the whole world that the Patriarch of Moscow was subject to his
judgment, so that he might confirm his primacy of power once and for all.

Nevertheless, other representatives of the Phanar, in their traditional manner, did not forget about
the material side of the deal either. Thus, the successor to Meletios (Metaxakis), Patriarch
Gregorios VII, signed in 1924 a Tomos of autocephaly of the Polish Church (of course, without
any agreement from the Russian Church), for which, as it is documentarily proven, the Polish
government paid the Phanar 12,000 pounds sterling in its dollar equivalent. The prime minister
of Poland Władysław Grabski inquired as to “whether they might receive the blessing less
expensively”, but it was explained to him that, “in analogous situations in the past, the Phanar
demanded significantly larger sums.”13 Moreover the 12,000 pounds were paid for only a copy of
the Tomos given to the Polish ambassador. The document itself was yet to be solemnly brought
to Warsaw, which came to pass the next year and cost the Polish treasury no small sum spent on
the reception and gifts to the high-ranking Greek delegation.

In the 1940’s, as a result of the Second World War, the political situation again underwent
essential changes. The soviet leaders turned away from the course they had earlier taken to
destroy the Russian Orthodox Church and even began to help bolster its position abroad.14 The
Constantinople Patriarchate could no longer ignore it as it had during the 1920s–30s.

At the same time, the Phanar totally reoriented itself on the United States, which was able to
place the American archbishop Athenagoras (Spirou) on the Constantinople cathedra. He said
plainly to the General Consul of the USA in Instanbul that he sees the “cornerstone” of his
activity as patriarch to be the “promotion of American ideals”. The American diplomat was even
shocked at such candor and wrote to the State Department, “I was inclined to recommend that we
do all that depends on us in order to impart more subtlety to the Patriarch’s expressions of his
quite understandably pro-American disposition, and to build our future relations with him very
tactfully in order to avoid having him be too closely associated with us.”15 Verbal “subtlety”
perhaps increased in the Phanar after this, but its association with the American government
never disappeared.

In recent years, as can be seen, it seemed to Patriarch Bartholomew and his retinue that the
geopolitical circumstances have become the most favorable for the realization of the Phanar’s
longstanding desire to confirm its hegemony in world Orthodoxy. At first an attempt was made
to achieve this goal “in a nice way” through the Council of Crete, the point of which consisted in,
obviously, not the signing of several declarations, but in the ratification of a new model of
governing the Orthodox Church with the Ecumenical Patriarch at the head, having no equals.

After this plan was foiled by God’s mercy, the Phanar switched to fighting for its total power “in
a not nice way”, taking advantage of the West’s course of isolating Russia, and the Ukrainian
leadership’s desire to tear up the last vestiges of ties between Kiev and Moscow. Here it is
perfectly clear that the Phanar itself is making use of powers that are hostile toward the Orthodox
Church to destroy it from within.

151
 How should we react to Constantinople’s hostile actions?

The Russian Orthodox Church does not fight for primacy, power, territory, or anything of the
sort. The idea that found expression in the sixteenth century of “Moscow the Third Rome” is not
an ideology of the Russian Orthodox Church, which remains apolitical. As the holy Patriarch
Tikhon wrote back in 1923, “Any attempts, no matter which side they come from, to throw the
Church into a political struggle should be rejected and condemned.”16

Needed of course are organizational solutions that would guard the Church from the danger of
papism. Understandably, that model of inter-Orthodox cooperation, which is built upon a
particular empowerment of the Constantinople Patriarch and to which the Russian Orthodox
Church nearly agreed on the threshold to the Council of Crete, has lost its relevance. The
Constantinople Patriarch used the great trust shown to him for evil—for the authorization of his
ecclesiological heresy. Agreeing after this to his exclusive rights would mean condoning this
heresy.

It is imperative to stand up for the purity of canonical tradition preserved by the Orthodox
Church and repel all attempts at any papist perversion, be it from the West or from the East.
There must be a detailed and all-encompassing exposé of the dogmatic, canonical, and moral-
ethical bankruptcy of the Constantinople Patriarchate’s claims and actions. Especially since
Patriarch Bartholomew himself has driven away even those who were formerly quite loyal to
him (for example, the Russian Western European archbishopric).

If the Russian Orthodox Church will stand firm in Christ’s truth, all sincerely Orthodox people,
including Greeks, will be convinced of the outrageous wrongness of Patriarch Bartholomew and
those with him. Then the Church crisis that Constantinople has provoked can be overcome.

Priest Alexander Mazyrin

Translation by OrthoChristian.com

Tserkovny Vestnik

11/14/2019

“If the Phanar Continues to Systematically

Split Orthodoxy, Then Anything Can
Happen”
Archbishop Theodosy (Snigiryov) of Boyarka

At the beginning of our conversation with Vladyka Theodosy (Snigirev) of Boyarka, one of the
speakers of the UOC, we leaf through the files of Church periodicals in 1992 that tell about the
events of twenty-seven years ago. Upon the arrival in Kiev on June 10, 1992, of His Beatitude

152
Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) of Kiev and All Ukraine († 2014), who was elected primate of
the UOC at the historic Kharkov Council (in May 1992), congratulatory telegrams and letters
arrived to the Metropolis from the heads of all Local Churches, including Constantinople and
the Greek Church, which emphasized the recognition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—the
only Church that was canonical and independent in its administration on the territory of the
newly-established state of Ukraine. The texts of these documents were published in the official
UOC publications “Orthodox Church Gazette” and the journal “Orthodox Herald.” After that,
representatives of the aforementioned Churches of Constantinople and Greece participated
many times in UOC Church celebrations in Kiev, on Vladimir Hill and in the Kiev Caves Lavra
on the day of the Baptism of Rus’, and repeatedly expressed condemnation of the schism
perpetrated by the former Metropolitan Philaret, as evidenced by the published epistles, reports,
and communiqués of these Churches.

Archbishop Theodosy (Signirev)     

—Vladyka, can you explain such a contradiction in the official position of the
Constantinople and Greek Churches? As you know, at its last Council, the GOC declared
the recognition of “Ukrainian autocephaly” and the right of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople to unilaterally grant it. At the same time, the text of the decision of the
GOC Council does not mention the so-called OCU at all, but only speaks of the recognition
of some “autocephaly.” What is with the casuistry?

153
—In this case, we are seeing a classic example of the substitution of concepts, to mislead the
faithful of the Greek world. In general, the substitution of meanings and their distortion has been
used to deceive people from time immemorial by the enemy of the human race. In the Akathists
to the Most Holy Theotokos, we sometimes find these words addressed to the Mother of God:
“Rejoice, thou who dost abolish the corrupter of meanings.” The destroyer of meanings, that is,
he who corrupts concepts and substitutes meanings, is the devil, the eternal liar. In this case, the
system of lies and substitution of concepts in the Ukrainian Church question, developed by the
Ukrainian schismatics, was foisted upon the Greek Bishops’ Council by the Phanar, and many
seem to have believed and accepted it.

The deception and corruption of meanings lies in the fact that autocephaly is not at all the key
issue in the Ukrainian “bundle.” The severity of the problem now is not who, how, and under
what circumstances this autocephaly can be granted. Those are secondary questions that can be
discussed and that have been discussed within the framework of inter-Orthodox contacts. The
main problem, which gave rise to the division and threatens Orthodoxy with an irreparable
schism, is the anti-canonical “legalization” of the Philaret schism, the recognition of laity as
bishops and concelebration with them, and the recognition of the quasi-Church politicized
structure, parallel to the UOC, as the Church of Ukraine. The second important question is on the
edge of heresy—the vaticanization of the Phanar and its invasion of foreign canonical territory,
which provoked persecution against the faithful of the UOC. These are the real problems, the
questions that could split the Church again, like a thousand years ago.

And they’re talking about some right to grant autocephaly at their Bishops’ Council, while the
principal issues remain in the shadows. And on this basis, they adopt a catastrophic
communiqué. It’s terrible to think of the consequences of such carelessness from the majority of
the participants in the Greek Church’s Council. The agenda with an inverted meaning was,
obviously, imposed on them from outside. And they full well could have recognized and rejected
it. But they didn’t.

—We know that not all the hierarchs of the GOC, or of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
agree with recognizing the OCU. What does this indicate—about the tendencies towards
schism within these Churches?

—It speaks to the fact that not all the hierarchs of these Churches managed to contract the
bacteria of eastern papism, which means the lies of the Ukrainian schismatics cannot so easily
penetrate their minds. The courage of a whole number of Greek metropolitans, priests, laymen,
and theologians who defend the right to Truth in spite of hierarchical pressure arouses spiritual
admiration. The truth is on their side. I am sure that precisely these hierarchs and laymen are
now, in the eyes of God, the true Church of Greece, its glory and its honor.

As for the possibility of a schism within Local Churches, let us hope that it won’t come to that.
Although if the Lord does not, in ways known to Him alone, place a limit on the attack of
Patriarch Bartholomew, and the Phanar continues to systematically split Orthodoxy, then
anything can happen.

—Vladyka, what, in your view, can counter these phenomena?

154
—Let’s first define the concepts. You’re asking now about a canonical demarcation between
groups of Local Orthodox Churches, and not about a schism along the line of
Orthodoxy-“Phanarodoxy?” After all, this line—Orthodoxy-“Phanarodoxy”—will run not just
between Churches, but within the Local Churches themselves; that is, between the ascetics of
faith and zealots of the canons of Orthodoxy on one hand, and ecumenists, religious liberals, and
Greek ethnophyletists on the other. And if, by God’s intervention and admonition, the Phanariots
—the new papists—do not come to understand the Truth and to repentance, then such a global
division between Orthodoxy and “Phanarodoxy” is wholly possible and not far off. But in that
case, the Orthodox Church will only be cleansed of a foreign element, of new heresies.

If we are speaking about a schism between individual Local Orthodox Churches within their
borders, as a consequence of the current inter-Orthodox situation, then theoretically,
unfortunately, even this is possible. And by human reasoning, everything is leading to this. But I
hope the Lord will not allow this, otherwise, the prophecies of the saints, including of new times,
would have said a lot about it. But they didn’t. On the contrary, they spoke otherwise, saying a
lot that inspires optimism. I believe the Lord will correct the situation with such circumstances
that over time, the Orthodox will only remember with a smile the miniscule but proud heresy of
eastern papism, which will have sunk into oblivion.

How can we counter the possibility of a global split in Orthodoxy? First of all, hope in God,
prayer to Him; sincere prayer, with sighing. Let this prayer even be brief, but daily and sincere.
If we pray this way for unity, then it will be hard for us to slander our opponents without looking
back. This is very important right now. We can criticize their false doctrines, errors, and
destructive actions, but we mustn’t cross over to personally insulting hierarchs and humiliating
concepts that are sacred for the Greek world, if they’re not heretical, of course. Unfortunately,
not all apologists on our side or theirs adhere to these obvious rules of polemics. Sometimes it
comes to personal insults and outright rudeness. It can’t bring peace; it’s the devil blowing this
wind, especially as offensive words and careless statements mean much more for those of
Eastern cultures than for us “northern” peoples. There will be great shame over this when it all
settles down later.

—Alongside what’s happening, in the actions of Constantinople, and now Athens, we see
the tendency of new contacts between Patriarch Bartholomew with the Throne of Rome.
He also received the leader of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics. Does this somehow overlap
with the theme of the schism in Ukraine?

—The philocatholicism of many hierarchs who are now supporting Patriarch Bartholomew in his
anti-canonical actions in Ukraine isn’t a secret for anyone, either here or in Greece. Is it evidence
of an organized and planned movement of “liberal Orthodoxy” into the embrace of the Pope? I
don’t know. Many consider it to be so. In any case, an unhealthy trend exists. Whether it is
thought out or situational—“the call of the heart”—is difficult to say, but it exists, and it’s
obvious. And if for foreign Orthodox philocatholic hierarchs, their drift towards the Unia seems
conscious and long-desired, then they will lead our schismatics from the OCU there on a short
leash, without asking their opinion.

155
For clarity, compare the intellectual and theological level, and the degree of authority of the key
figures from the OCU and the UGCC, for example. They’re of completely different magnitudes.
We’re not even going to take representatives of the Vatican, or the Phanar as examples—there
simply is no comparison. Add to this the fuzzy canonical consciousness in the OCU, their lack of
independence and unconditional obedience to the Phanar, their awe of the authorities of foreign
centers, and their obedience to secular powers. Can we really suppose that when it is necessary,
they will suddenly oppose all of this and stand in “defense of Orthodoxy” and sacrifice
everything for the sake of Truth? It’s doubtful. Most likely they will walk in the footsteps of their
patrons. Many believe there is a plan to do a trial run of a new Unia with this structure. Others
think it could become a bargaining chip in big religious geopolitics. We can only assume. But
it’s absolutely certain that it all lies in the channel being laid now by the mighty of this world to
fight against Orthodoxy—the last outpost of truth on Earth.

—The faithful are concerned about whether they can visit churches of the GOC abroad
and go to OCU churches here in Ukraine, participate in their Sacraments—Baptisms,
weddings, funerals?

—We had a detailed conversation not long ago about OCU churches and the grace of their
“sacraments,” so I’ll just say a few words now. We cannot go to these churches. The situation in
this structure has not changed at all; laymen in vestments are “celebrating the Sacraments”
there.1

There was and is no Apostolic Succession there, and that means there is no sacramental grace.

As for the Greek Church, according to the recent decision of the Holy Synod, “prayerful and
Eucharistic communication with those bishops of the Greek Church who have entered or will
enter into such communication with representatives of the Ukrainian non-canonical schismatic
communities” is stopped. Pilgrimages to dioceses governed by the aforesaid bishops are also not
blessed. The list of these hierarchs and dioceses will be complied and published—a very wise
and measured decision from the Holy Synod.

At the same time, it should be understood that stopping Eucharistic communion is a disciplinary
measure and in no way refers to a lack of grace in the Sacraments celebrated by the aforesaid
bishops and in their dioceses. I’m talking about this especially because there has recently been a
wide discussion among Orthodox about whether there is grace in the Sacraments celebrated by
the hierarchs who recognize the OCU, and whether it’s possible to “catch” schism by serving
with Patriarch Bartholomew or praying at a service where Sergei Dumenko (Epiphany) is
commemorated, or some other way…

But it doesn’t work completely that way. According to the age-old tradition and practice of the
Orthodox Church and the spirit of the canonical rules and precedents of Church history—to
deserve canonical punishment and to be subjected to it are not the same thing. As long as a cleric
is not defrocked, but only deserves it, the Sacraments he celebrates are considered valid—even if
he sinfully dares to celebrate them while being suspended (but not yet defrocked!). For this there
is canonical defrocking, which puts a final limit on the rites of such a person. Therefore,
Patriarch Bartholomew, not to mention the hierarchs and clerics who serve with him, is not

156
devoid of grace in the Sacraments he celebrates, even serving with the layman Sergei Dumenko
(Epiphany). Although he grievously sins thereby, and is, undoubtedly, subject to ecclesiastical
court. But that hasn’t happened yet.

Therefore, the rupture of Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a

whole and with a number of hierarchs of the Greek Church is for us a disciplinary measure, like
a quarantine protecting us, so as not to come under judgment of the canons and the danger of
defrocking. This rupture does not speak of an absence of grace in the Sacraments of the Greek
hierarchs. As long as they sin but are not condemned by a council, they are not defrocked, and
the Sacraments they celebrate, including ordinations, will be recognized as lawful in history.
That means, that’s how they are now for us, unlike the “sacraments” of the OCU, for example, in
which the thread of Apostolic Succession is broken. This is the canonical coordinate system that
has operated in the Orthodox Church throughout its history. Complex questions of healing
schisms and the repentant return to the Church of those who fell away from it, whether in their
clerical dignity or not, were always resolved within this system of coordinates. It is precisely in
this system of coordinates that the “Augean stables”2 which the Phanar has now heaped up,
mixing the righteous with the sinful, the lawful with the lawless, will be cleared out in time.

Deacon Sergei Geruk

spoke with Archbishop Theodosy (Snigiryov) of Boyarka
Translated by Jesse Dominick

Pravoslavie.ru

10/28/2019

“They Will Not Destroy Greek-Slavic

Friendship”
The Russian Holy Synod’s Statement of October 17, 2019 on
the Ukrainian Issue and the Greek Church

157
 spzh.news

On October 17, 2019, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a statement on
the situation in the Greek Orthodox Church after the extraordinary Bishops’ Council on October
12, 2019 on the Ukrainian Church issue.

Members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church got acquainted with the documents
of the extraordinary Bishops Council of the Greek Orthodox Church on October 12, 2019 that
were published in the media, in particular, the communiqué from the Council and the report of
His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and all Greece, “On the Autocephaly of the
Church in Ukraine,” which proposes to “... recognize the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of
the independent Ukrainian republic.”

Since the self-governing Ukrainian Orthodox Church, headed by Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev
and all Ukraine, which unites 95 bishops, more than 12,000 parishes, more than 250 monasteries,
and tens of millions of believers, is in canonical unity with the Russian Orthodox Church and has
not appealed to anyone for autocephaly, it is obvious that we are talking about the recognition of
schismatic communities in this country. Earlier, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople
repeatedly declared the recognition of Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine as the only
canonical primate of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine (the last such statement was made by him
publicly at the Synaxis of Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches in January 2016). However,
at the end of 2018, Patriarch Bartholomew changed his previous statements and, without
canonical authority, “restored to dignity,” without repentance and renunciation of the schism,
those who had been expelled from it, anathematized, or who had never had a canonical
ordination, or even formal Apostolic Succession. The head of the newly-created structure is a

158
man who received his “ordination” from the ex-Metropolitan of Kiev Philaret, who was
defrocked and excommunicated from the Church. The latter was also “restored” to “the episcopal
dignity” by the Patriarch of Constantinople, but soon after left the newly-established “Church”
and declared the restoration of his former schismatic community, which he calls the “Kievan
Patriarchate.”

The Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly informed the authorities of the Greek Orthodox
Church about the difficult situation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church after the anti-canonical
legalization of the Ukrainian schism by Constantinople and about the violence and persecution
against its faithful children deployed by the former authorities of Ukraine. On October 9, 2019—
a few days before the above-mentioned extraordinary Bishops’ Council of the Greek Church—
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia addressed his Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos of
Athens and all Greece with a fraternal message, calling on him to refrain from unilateral actions
and not to make any “hasty decisions until the Holy Spirit gathers the primates of all the holy
Churches of God and guides them together on behalf of the entire Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church to find a solution that will suit everyone and serve to overcome the current crisis.”

It is sad that His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos bases the necessity for hasty and unilateral
recognition of the non-canonical schismatic community on a number of erroneous and false
arguments repeatedly refuted not only by the hierarchs, scholars and theologians of the Russian
Orthodox Church, but also by many prominent archpastors, pastors and theologians of the Greek
Orthodox Church.

The statement of his Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos that “the Orthodox Church of Ukraine...
has always remained in the canonical ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Mother Church—the
Ecumenical Patriarchate” does not correspond to reality. In 1686, by the gramotas of His
Holiness Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of the Church of
Constantinople, the Kiev Metropolis was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Moscow
Patriarchate. For more than 300 years, the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate over
the Kiev Metropolis was recognized by the entire Orthodox world, including the Greek Orthodox
Church. At the same time, according to the sacred canons of the Church, disputes over territorial
jurisdiction have a statute of limitations of no more than thirty years (Canon 25 of the Sixth
Ecumenical Council).

All these facts were ignored by the two commissions of the Greek Orthodox Church that were
entrusted with the study of the Ukrainian Church question. In their conclusions, these
commissions, according to Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythera, “overlook more
than 300 years of living tradition of the dependence of the Metropolis of Kiev and all Ukraine on
the Moscow Patriarchate. And these realities were reflected in all the calendars of the Greek
Church up to this year. Perhaps they also overlook the fact that the current Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew, in his Patriarchal letters of 1992 and 1997, recognized the canonical jurisdiction
of the Moscow Patriarchate over the Kiev Metropolis and respected the canonical penalties
imposed on the defrocked and schismatic clerics who are now purified and restored.”

The statement of his Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos that “due to the absence of the Moscow
Patriarchate” from the Cretan Council in 2016 “there was no opportunity to discuss the issue of

159
granting autocephaly” does not correspond to reality. In fact, the topic of autocephaly was
removed from the agenda of the Council much earlier, at the insistence of Patriarch
Bartholomew. Now the reason for this becomes obvious. After all, at the meetings of the Inter-
Orthodox Preparatory Commission in 1993 and 2009, representatives of all Local Orthodox
Churches agreed on the procedure for granting autocephaly, which involves a) the consent of the
Local Council of the Mother Church for a part of it to receive autocephaly; b) the identification
by the Ecumenical Patriarch of the consensus of all Local Orthodox Churches, expressed by the
unanimity of their Councils; c) on the basis of the consent of the Mother Church and the pan-
Orthodox consensus, the official proclamation of autocephaly through the publication of a tomos,
which is “signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and witnessed to by the signatures of the most
blessed primates of the most holy autocephalous Churches invited for it by the Ecumenical
Patriarch.” Regarding the last point, only the procedure for signing the tomos was not fully
agreed upon, but this fact does not cancel the agreements reached on the remaining points. At the
Synaxis of Primates in 2014 and 2016, the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate, along with
representatives of some other fraternal Churches, insisted on including the issue of autocephaly
in the agenda of the Council. The Russian Church finally agreed to the exclusion of this topic
from the agenda of the Council only after Patriarch Bartholomew assured, in January 2016 in the
presence of other primates, that the holy Church of Constantinople had no intentions of carrying
out any actions related to Church life in Ukraine, either at the Holy and Great Council or after
the Council.

The arguments listed in the report of His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos and repeatedly refuted
earlier exactly follow the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, there are
doubts whether the fullness of the Greek Orthodox Church shares them. Metropolitan Seraphim
of Kythira testifies to the lack of unanimity between the hierarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church
on this issue and that the voices of those who disagree with the recognition of the Ukrainian
division were ignored: “First, the gray-haired and highly-respected Metropolitans Seraphim of
Karystia and Germanos of Eleia, who with great wisdom and prudence talked about this burning
issue, acknowledging that yes, the Ecumenical Patriarch has the canonical right to grant
autocephaly under certain conditions, but the current situation is very critical, and therefore
extraordinary circumspection and deep study and investigation of the whole complex problem
are required without any haste. The speeches of the Right Reverend Metropolitans Daniel of
Kaisariani, Nicholas of Mesogaia, Seraphim of Piraeus and others were in the same vein. The
Right Reverend Metropolitans Andrew of Dryinoupolis and Cosmas of Aetolia did not take the
floor, but joined the Right Reverend bishops who had previously spoken. The Right Reverend
Metropolitans Simeon of New Smyrna and Nektarios of Corfu, who were absent but expressed
their position in writing, approached this serious Ukrainian issue with the same sensitivity and
from the same point of view.”

In his letter addressed to the Bishops’ Council and His Beatitude, Metropolitan Simeon of New
Smyrna notes that the granting of autocephaly to Ukraine under the conditions in which it was
granted, “has nothing in common with other autocephalies that were previously granted” by the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. He stresses that “the hasty recognition ... of schismatics and so-
called ‘self-consecrators,’ in circumvention of the canonical Local Church, but also the Moscow
Patriarchate, which condemned the schismatics, and the granting of autocephaly to the new
church structure creates justified questions and causes opposition.” He also points to the

160
canonically unacceptable fact of the existence of “two parallel Local Churches” in Ukraine and
the repeated schism that has already occurred within the “new church structure that received
autocephaly.” He explicitly mentions the interest of major geopolitical forces in hastily granting
“autocephaly” to schismatics. Comparing the current situation of Orthodoxy with the events of
the Great Schism of 1054, he urges the hierarchy “not to rush to take a position.” “A forced and
hasty approach to the issue,” says Metropolitan Simeon, “will make us vulnerable and put our
Church at risk. It would be a mistake to assume that this kind of approach to the issue will serve
as support for the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”

Metropolitan Nektarios of Corfu, who was unable to attend the extraordinary Bishops’ Council
of his Church, addressed the Council with a letter in which he called for “postponing a decision.”
He notes that the present “time is not the right time to make a decision on this acute issue,
including because geopolitical conditions in the wider region are not ideal, with the result that
any decision is likely to cause difficulties in our country.” He also calls on the Greek Church to
“assume the role of mediator” in order to start a dialogue between the Patriarchate of
Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Moscow.

Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, known as a specialist in the Church’s canon law, not only
presented an exhaustive study to the Council, in which he convincingly refuted the arguments set
forth in the report of the primate of the Greek Church, but also sharply criticized the so-called
“unification council” of the schismatics in his oral speeches. He stressed that “the so-called
‘unification council’ is not valid because it was composed of laity, and that the granting of
autocephalous status to this non-existent ‘church’ structure is also invalid.” He further noted that
all attempts to justify this “canonical lawlessness” by anomalous canonical practice, “with
reference to the Ottoman captivity of the Church” and the difficult period when a number of
Local Churches were directly dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, “suppress the
canonical ecclesiastical order of the holy Ecumenical Councils.” “I demanded,” Metropolitan
Seraphim testifies, “that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece convene a pan-Orthodox
council to resolve this complex issue, which, unfortunately, is mixed with geopolitics, or even
geostrategy, which affects all the primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches. At the same
time, I confronted the Synodal Commission on Inter-Orthodox and Inter-Christian Relations
about the fact that it had not submitted to the Permanent Holy Synod and His Beatitude the
Chairman of the Hierarchy of the Greek Church, any report on the views on this issue of other
autocephalous Orthodox Churches, nor an assessment of the possible consequences for the unity
of the Church in the event of a rupture of communion by the Russian Church and its recognition
of the Old Calendarists in Greece. At the same time, I replied to the Chairman of the
Commission on Church canonical issues that Metropolitan Onuphry could not have taken part in
the so-called ‘unification Council,’ just as His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens could not
participate together with the self-proclaimed ‘Archbishop of Athens’ Parthenios Vesireas—a
defrocked deacon of the Greek Church.”

The communiqué of the extraordinary Bishops’ Council reported on the decision taken following
the discussion of the given report. But who exactly made this decision and in what form remains
unclear. A number of authoritative hierarchs drew the attention of the Council to the critical
situation of world Orthodoxy, the need for extreme caution and deep study of the problem—

161
without any haste and pressure from outside. Several metropolitans, including those who were
absent from the Council, appealed to the Council in writing to postpone the decision of the issue.

The decisions of the Bishops’ Council of the Greek Church are made by vote of all participants.
However, the hierarchy voted neither on the issue of recognition of the Ukrainian non-canonical
communities, nor on the issue of the approval of the decisions of the Permanent Holy Synod of
the Greek Orthodox Church regarding Ukraine. This was stated by Metropolitan Seraphim of
Kythira: “As you know, decisions in our Church are made by voting: either by the raising of
hands, or openly, or secretly, or by surveying all participants in the meeting. Perhaps a sufficient
number of votes would have been cast in favor of autocephaly, but there would have been many
who held the opposite view, as well as those who, by their silence, would have joined the latter.”

There is no official document signed by the Greek archpastors openly available, which could be
considered evidence of a single conciliar decision of the Local Church. Moreover, the news that
the Greek Orthodox Church recognized Ukrainian autocephaly was spread very quickly, which
does not correspond to the text of the communiqué or the position of many participants in the
Council. There are serious concerns that the conciliar way of making decisions, sanctified by the
words of the Holy apostles: It is pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us (Acts 15: 28), and the two-
thousand-year history of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, was violated in this
case.

If the Ukrainian schism is truly recognized by the Greek Orthodox Church or its primate—in the
form of a joint service, liturgical commemoration of the leader of the schism, or sending him
official letters—it will be a sad testimony to the deepening division in the family of Local
Orthodox Churches. Full responsibility for this division will fall, first of all, on Patriarch
Bartholomew of Constantinople and on those external political forces in whose interests the
Ukrainian schism was “legalized.” Instead of admitting his mistake and trying to correct it
through pan-Orthodox discussion, Patriarch Bartholomew has blocked any negotiation initiatives
in this direction and for a year, according to many testimonies, has exerted unprecedented
pressure on the hierarchs of the Greek Church, demanding that they recognize the schismatics.
He repeatedly declared the recognition of the non-canonical false hierarchs of Ukraine by the
Greek Church as a settled matter, as if it were not an independent decision of an autocephalous
Orthodox Church. The situation of the Greek Church, which is essentially limited in its
autocephalous structure, is complicated by the dual jurisdiction of a large part of its episcopate,
canonically dependent upon Constantinople: These hierarchs, for example, were sent circulars
from the Patriarchate of Constantinople demanding immediate recognition of the newly-created
pseudo-Church structure. Those who found the courage to openly denounce the errors of the
Patriarch of Constantinople and enter into a discussion with him were threatened, disciplinary
measures were enforced against them, and they were accused of betrayal and a lack of
patriotism.

It is sad that in this way the historical merits of the Greek people in spreading Orthodoxy are
exchanged for short-term political benefits and support for geopolitical interests alien to the
Church. But these gambles on national feelings will not succeed. They will not be able to
undermine the unity of our faith, bought by the blood of the New Martyrs and Confessors of our
Churches. They will not interrupt the unity of our ascetic tradition, which was created by the

162
exploits of many venerable fathers and ascetics. They will not destroy the centuries-old
friendship of the Greek and Slavic peoples, paid for with the blood of Russian soldiers and
hardened in the common struggle for the freedom of the fraternal Greek people.

We cherish prayerful communion with our brethren in the Greek Orthodox Church and will
maintain a living prayerful, canonical and Eucharistic connection with it—through all those
archpastors and pastors who have already spoken out or will further oppose the recognition of
the Ukrainian schism, who will not stain themselves by concelebrating with the schismatic false
hierarchs, but will show an example of Christian courage and a firm stand for the truth of Christ.
May the Lord strengthen them in their podvig of confession, through the prayers of Sts. Mark of
Ephesus and Gregory Palamas, Maximus the Confessor and all those Greek saints who were and
are venerated in our Holy Rus’.

At the same time, we remember that the sacred canons of the Church condemn those who enter
into prayerful communion and concelebration with those who are defrocked and
excommunicated (Apostolic Canons 10-12; Canon 5 of the First Ecumenical Council; Canon 2
of the Council of Antioch, etc.). In this regard, we cease prayerful and Eucharistic
communication with those bishops of the Greek Church who have entered or will enter into such
communication with representatives of the Ukrainian non-canonical schismatic communities. We
also do not bless pilgrimages in dioceses managed by the aforesaid bishops. The relevant
information will be widely distributed among the pilgrimage and tourist organizations of the
countries that make up the canonical territory of our Church.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church authorizes His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of
Moscow and All Russia to stop commemorating the name of His Beatitude the Archbishop of
Athens and All Greece in the diptychs if the primate of the Greek Church begins to
commemorate the head of one of the Ukrainian schismatic groups during Divine services or
takes other actions testifying to his recognition of the Ukrainian Church schism.

Translation by OrthoChristian.com

Patriarchia.ru

10/17/2019

Repentance Cannot Be Replaced or Annulled

A Letter to the Holy Synod of Greece About the Ukrainian
Schismatic Church
Dr. Demetrios Tselengidis

163
 turtlemom3.files.wordpress.com     

DemetriosTselengidis is professor of dogmatic theology at the University of Thessaloniki. The

Greek original of this letter is available here and a Romanian translation is available here. The
English translation has been published by Orthodox Synaxis.

***

SUBJECT: Regarding the institutional legitimization of the schismatic church of Ukraine

Most Blessed Primate,

Reverend Holy Hierarchs,

With regard to the upcoming convocation of the Holy Synod of Hierarchs, as the least member
of our local Church, but also as professor of the Church’s Dogmatic Theology, I would like—

164
with a sense of responsibility—myself humbly to put into Your view some Dogmatic-
Ecclesiological dimensions, as well as some soteriological ramifications of unconditionally
accepting the schismatic Church of Ukraine into ecclesiastical-sacramental communion, in the
event, of course, of an eventual Synodal decision by You to recognize its “autocephaly”.

The first and most important issue is, in this case, the Ecclesiological issue, which is relevant to
the “ecclesiastical construct” in question. First of all, it should be examined whether this
“construct” fulfills the conditions of an Ecclesiastical Community. If, on the contrary, its
“autocephaly” is recognized, then the ecclesiastical “legitimacy” of the Schismatic Church is
automatically recognized.

As is well-known, there has previously been Pan-Orthodox condemnation of the Schismatic

Church of Ukraine with defrocking and excommunication. This Pan-Orthodox condemnation has
not been revoked. Finally, with the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Tomos of Autocephaly (January 6,
2019), an institutional overreach of a spiritual and ecclesiological character occurred, which
raises reasonable questions about its ecclesiastical legitimacy. And this is because, at least as far
as we know, the fundamental patristic and spiritual conditions were not met, something that
raises reasonable objections to the canonicity of the terms and conditions of the Patriarchal
Praxis, so long as there has not been public repentance and renunciation of Schism. What we are
saying in the case in question does not mean that we are calling into question the institutional
competence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant Autocephaly with the consent, of course, of
the entire of body of the Church expressed synodally. Here only the issue of the valid conditions
for issuing the Tomos in question is being raised.

According to scriptural testimonies (Matthew 4:17, 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 and 2 Corinthians 2:6-8),
as well as according to the Patristic and Spiritual tradition of the Church, the integration or
reintegration into the one and indivisible body of the Church in any case presupposes a profound
experience and sincere expression of repentance on the part of the member or wider community
being integrated or reintegrated.

The condition of expressing repentance is not invalidated or annulled by any institutional person
or institutional ecclesiastical body. There exists no Ecclesiastical Economy that can replace or
annul repentance. Repentance itself constitutes the fundamental condition and spiritual “key” to
receiving and possessing the Economy of salvation, as well as the “key” to activating or
reactivating it, in accordance with the testimony of Scripture: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand (Matthew 4:17).

For precisely this reason, the Meletian Schism in the ancient Church was restored after not only
expression of repentance, but also the anathematization of the Schism by the Schismatics
themselves. And, as St Theodore the Studite characteristically notes, “anathematizing their own
schism, as they say, they are received into the Catholic Church” (Letter 40 to Naukratios, PG 99
1053C). Only then did there follow the synodal Pan-Orthodox restoration at the First Ecumenical
Council.

In the case of the Schismatic Church of Ukraine, as it appears, no repentance was sought or
expressed. Here, in practice, repentance was annulled, even though it is an explicit

165
commandment of the Lord and the age-old practice of the Church. There can be no talk of
Ecclesiastical Economy for this. In fact, this is a flagrant ecclesiastical transgression, which
makes salvation impossible, not only for the Schismatics, but also for those who sacramentally
commune with them, since they too become excommunicates (see Canon 2 of the Council of
Antioch, which was validated by the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils).

From the above, it becomes clear that the issue in question is essentially Ecclesiological-
Dogmatic, with inevitable soteriological ramifications, as has already been very rightly
expressed in the Letter of the Hagiorite Elders to the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain
(March 2019).

For this reason it is also essential that the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy decide on the identity of
the Schismatic Church of Ukraine and to demand the application of the age-old ecclesiastical
conditions for its reintegration. That is, repentance and the anathematization of the Schism. This
spiritual responsibility is fully within the competence of the Hierarchy about to recognize the
“Autocephaly” in question, which of course has other parameters of Canonicity, so long as it
does not take into account the existence of the Canonical Church in the same country, under
Metropolitan Onufry of Kyiv, the Canonical Church from which it split. That is to say,
“Autocephaly” has, in this case, been granted to unabashed schismatics. And this unprecedented
matter, which is logically, canonically and spiritually unthinkable, is now being asked to occur
with the Synodal consent of our Church.

With the “rationale” for accepting the Tomos of “Autocephaly” of the Schismatic Church of
Ukraine, we are in danger of possibly also being led in the future to the sacramental acceptance
of Papism and other heresies without the fundamental conditions of repentance and the
renunciation of their dogmatic delusions, something that Ecumenism attempts today, not only in
theory but already in practice. So we wonder, essentially, whether the spiritual institutions within
our Church have begun to “function” devoid of their spiritual foundation. We wonder whether in
recent decades a “new ethos” has been introduced with the hidden aspiration to become the
habitual ethos also in customary law, which will undermine the Canonical Tradition of the
Church. Historically, we know that when such a mentality was consolidated in the West, the
Western Church was led to Papism– with all its dogmatic deviations– and ended up cut off from
the One and only Church.

To summarize, we note that any eventual decision about the “Autocephaly” of the Schismatic
Church of Ukraine cannot be unconditional. Because then– indirectly but clearly– it would mean
in practice an illegal ecclesiastical-institutional “legalization” of the existing Schism, something
that has no historical precedent in the Ecclesiastical Tradition of the Holy Fathers. Most
importantly, the eventual recognition without spiritual conditions gravely harms the unity of the
entire Church, something than which there is nothing more precious. The danger is clear– that of
creating Schisms throughout the entire Church on account of your eventual assent to recognizing
the “Autocephaly” of the Schismatic Church of Ukraine, something that we wish to avoid with
all our heart.

Finally, the spiritual solution to the current ecclesiastical problem is repentance. And
unfortunately, at the moment this is lacking. Nevertheless, there is realistic hope. Those of us

166
who love the Church in Christ, let us ourselves take the cleansing and deifying medicine of
repentance and then Christ will give healing to the sick, according to the testimony of the Holy
Fathers [see St Nicholas Cabasilas: “everyone marvels at God’s goodness, though no one escapes
an illness when someone else takes the medicine, seeking to be released from chastisement while
others suffer” On the Life in Christ, Part 7, PG 150 700C) Here some may marvel at the
goodness of God. No one can be rid of illness without taking the medicine. Can someone be rid
of the consequences of sin when others do the work for them?]

With the deepest respect,

Demetrios Tselengidis
Professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Dr. Demetrios Tselengidis

Orthodoxsynaxis.org

9/10/2019

The Wolf and the Sheep: One Village’s

Experience of the Insatiable OCU
In Shandrovets, Lvov region, the priest was dragged out of
his house in winter; church seizures continue across Ukraine
Deacon Sergei Geruk

167
    

In connection with the existing situation in the village of Shandrovets in the Turka district of
Ukraine’s Lvov (Lviv) region, where a canonical Orthodox church was seized by schismatics in
January 2019, I cannot help but recall an episode of 2014, when a young woman who had come
from the combat zone in Donetsk to Kiev wondered: “How can you organize shows and concerts
at Maidan Square, when people are being killed in Eastern Ukraine?!” Today we can see a
similar situation in the Ukrainian political elite: Everyone has been celebrating the victory in
the parliamentary elections all the time without saying a word about acts of extreme violence
and outrage of schismatics from the so-called “Orthodox Church in Ukraine” (OCU) along with
local bureaucrats nationwide, with church seizures, real persecutions, and the beating of and
slander campaign against Orthodox Christians from the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church
(the UOC-MP), its clergy, flock and even children.

Residents of this village called the press service of the UOC-MP’s Kiev Metropolia with the
request to protect Archpriest Ilia Urusky, rector of their ancient Church of the Archangel
Michael where he had served for twelve years. They related how in January this year, Fr. Ilia had
been thrown out of his house into the freezing cold, how a wild mob of “Right Sector” militants
and local “activists” had humiliated the pastor and his parishioners, how they cut off the locks on
the church doors and taken it over. Fr. Ilia, who became homeless, had to travel to the village of
Ulichno in the Drogobych (Drohobych) district some sixty miles away, where he has a house
inherited from his parents. Once a week and before great feasts the archpriest drives his car back
to Shandrovets to serve the Liturgy in the house of one of his parishioners. Fortunately they
managed to save the church antimensions without which it is impossible to celebrate the Liturgy.

168
 The seized Church of the Archangel Michael in Shandrovets, the Lvov region     

Thus, as it was in the first centuries of Christianity and during the Communist persecutions in the
twentieth century, Fr. Ilia and his faithful parishioners gather in the homes of different people in
secret for worship to avoid possible reprisals by the schismatics and their patrons, who don’t
scruple to use any means to sully the archpriest’s good name. The raiders caroused throughout
the night when Fr. Ilia’s house was taken over, and then one of them published a photograph of
empty liquor bottles in social media and made a cynical and slanderous remark: “This is how a
priest of the Moscow Patriarchate ‘takes Communion’.”

169
But even that was not enough for the persecutors. One of the “well-wishers” reported to the
Ulichno village council that Fr. Ilia was allegedly going to open a new “Russian parish” in his
native village. In reality, the archpriest only equipped a prayer room inside his parents’ house,
where he holds services, reads the Psalter and Akathist hymns alone. The village council
administration obliged him to leave Ulichno immediately or they would “take appropriate steps”.
Fr. Ilia knew about those “appropriate steps” not only from experience but also from news
reports that time and again had been coming from western and other regions of Ukraine, where
acts of violence were being committed by members of OCU, and, earlier, by the “Kyiv
Patriarchate” of Philaret Denisenko, the “Right Sector” militants and other ultranationalist
groups under the patronage of local bureaucrats, and through pure negligence by the police.

The physics teacher Galina Petrovna Kozanchin has worked at the high school of Shandrovets
for many years, enjoying indisputable authority. At the same time, she has been a permanent
parishioner of St. Michael’s Church for years, and she was among the first to stand up for
Archpriest Ilia. The enemies of the canonical Church expressed their hatred in a petition (filed by
schismatics, with several school staff workers among them) to the school principal, demanding
that the physics teacher G. P. Kozanchin be fired “for her anti-Ukrainian political views and for
belonging to the Russian anti-national Church”. The principal declined to consider the false
denunciation, saying that those demands contradicted the laws and Constitution of Ukraine.

Let us remark in passing that religious rights in Ukraine are not only being violated—the lawful,
historic, canonical Orthodox Church and its faithful are simply being eliminated in different parts
of the country. And the events in Shandrovets are just one of the numerous illustrations of this
legalized lawlessness.

As we know, the last wave of anti-Orthodox campaigns was initiated by Ukrainian ex-president
Petro Poroshenko and the ultranationalist parliamentary majority where anti-Russian hysteria has
been fueled over the past five years, and laws to abolish the UOC-MP were repeatedly proposed.

Although the project of the OCU tomos of autocephaly, initiated by Poroshenko and Patriarch
Bartholomew, has basically fallen through, a wave of anti-Church hatred is still sweeping
through Ukraine’s cities and villages, where “conscientious” officials are still fighting with the
UOC-MP’s Orthodox parishes, and people are still being brainwashed by political clichés about
the “Russian” Church. Now Shandrovets (and it is a village of over 100 people) bears a heavy
cross of persecution.

This is what Galina Petrovna Kozanchin told us about the situation with the church seizure:

“I was born here, have lived and worked here as a school teacher. The life of our village and the
life of my family are connected with this church. My grandmother took me to church when I was
a girl. The church has always been active and open—no one ever closed it. The churches of the
neighboring villages were closed, but the life of our church never stopped—an old priest and
monk, Fr. Alexander, served here. And we have never had any religious strife. And someone
were to tell me that this tragedy would happen on January 13 of this year, I would have never
believed it. Our highly respected rector, Fr. Ilia, faithfully served in the village for twelve years,
and I could have never imagined that he would be thrown out of his house into the freezing cold.

170
But that is what happened. And it was committed by people who had earlier kissed his hand,
people for whom he had prayed. He baptized children, performed marriages and performed
funeral services for the reposed. These people hardly ever attended church services; they were
primarily interested in financial matters: how much the priest gets paid and how this money is
spent. We would club together, each giving ten hryvnia [the basic monetary unit of Ukraine.—
Trans.], to pay our priest, while those people gave nothing. When the political turmoil in Ukraine
broke out, they complained with one voice that we were in the ‘Russian’ Church, that we were
arming ‘separatists’ and so on.

“Our Fr. Ilia has prayed and still prays for peace at every service, he prays for our country, for
the civil authorities and armed forces—but do they really hear these prayers?! The only thing
they had in mind was how to take over the church, how to drive Fr. Ilia out of the house of
God… And on Sunday, January 13, they held a meeting of the village council on the initiative of
Dmitr Popil, the Village Council Chairman. Deputy Head of the District Administration Yuri
Lilo arrived at the meeting. We don’t know how many people were present there. They say
everybody unanimously voted to transfer our church to the schismatics (OCU). But neither Fr.
Ilia nor any member of our large community was invited to the meeting! Later, they claimed that
there had been 520 voters, but the figures must have been fabricated because they even refused
to show us the minutes of the meeting. The main reason for their complaint was allegedly the
‘Russian language’, in which, as they believe, our services are held. These individuals have no
idea about Church Slavonic—the language in which our Church has prayed for 1000 years in
Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Russia and indeed all over the world. These people have little if
anything to do with the Church, they don’t believe in God, and they are driven by hatred and
aggression rather than Christian feelings.

“Two days later, Deputy Head of the Turka District Administration came to the village with his
‘young activists’ and held another meeting. After the assembly a 100-strong infuriated mob
headed for the rector’s house that stands close to the church, broke down the doors, burst inside
Fr. Ilia’s home, dragged the lightly dressed archpriest out into the cold and didn’t even allow him
to take warm clothes with him… This was committed in the presence of the police, who didn’t
lift a finger to stop the atrocity. Later, the church locks were cut off too…”

171
 Archpriest Ilia Urusky, rector of the persecuted UOC-MP St. Michael’s Orthodox community,
with his flock after a service in one of the houses of the village of Shandrovets     

The Orthodox community appealed to the prosecutor’s office, about ten applications were filed
to legal and administrative agencies, but no so far one has responded to them. The faithful still
pray in private houses, and there is no one to help. Though weary, the people don’t lose heart,
knowing that God is with them.

Lesya Alexandridi, a human rights activist and lawyer of the Dominanta legal group, who is
investigating the religious situation in Shandrovets, is of the view that the constitutional principle
of the supremacy of law is being willfully disregarded in the whole region:

“State and local government officials, with the support of the ‘Right Sector’ radical unit and with
the inaction of law-enforcement agencies, organized and carried out a series of illegal actions
aimed at the termination of civil legal capacity of a religious community of the UOC-MP as a
legal entity, took possession of its property, helped to stir up religious strife and insult religious
feelings of UOC-MP believers because of their religious convictions.”

The activities of the assailants of the raider-style campaign of seizure of churches fall within the
scope of several articles of the Ukrainian Penal Code. In her analytical and legal opinion letter to
the country’s highest judicial bodies, Lesya Alexandridi states:

“Violence, legitimized by the Government under the pretext of national interests and aimed at
restriction of the rights and complete liquidation of a particular religious community, has shown
signs of ideological terror both from representatives of the state authority bodies and particular

172
segments of the local population, which pose as supporters of a ‘right’ and ‘nationally oriented’
religious community.”

Indeed the call of the new President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky for an interfaith dialogue, “so
that faith would unite rather than divide Ukrainians”, on July 28—the 1031st anniversary of the
Baptism of Russia, sounded somewhat awkward against a background of tyranny waged by
schismatics and their patrons in the person of officials and politicians of different levels.

Responding to the new Ukrainian leader’s “good will call”, the Chancellor of the UOC-MP,
Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanich) justly noted:

“These are important and necessary words, since for several years now, the religious sphere of
Ukraine has been in a state of immense turbulence… If the violation of the rights of our flock is
put to a stop, if the church seizures are put to an end, if all the churches that were seized are
returned to our Church, then the prerequisites for dialogue are sure to appear. If this does not
happen, then any good words about reconciliation will, unfortunately, remain simply words.
After all, as St. Nilus of Sinai said. ‘The wolf has never talked amicably with the sheep, and
likewise, merciless and insatiable thoughts cannot go before goodwill’.[1]”

Deacon Sergei Geruk, press service of the UOC-MP’s Kiev Metropolia

Translated by Dmitry Lapa

Pravoslavie.ru

8/21/2019

Dialogue Cannot Take Place Against the

Backdrop of Church Seizures
Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanich) of Boryspol and Brovary

His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanich) of Boryspol and Brovary, the Chancellor of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church, recently responded to a call from Ukrainian President Vladimir
Zelensky for churches in Ukraine to engage in dialogue.

Metropolitan Anthony, a noted theologian, is a native son of Transcarpathia, Western Ukraine,

a historical region that produced many great saints who suffered under Uniate, Ukrainian
nationalist, and Soviet persecution.

In this response, he explains that the canonical Ukrainian Church is not against dialogue, but
believes any words of reconciliation must be genuine, and not empty.

He is pointing out what many Ukrainian Christians believe from their experiences: that various
forces persecute the Church and then suggest that the Church should come together with them,

173
even as they continue to persecute the Church at the same time. Many Ukrainians consider
certain offers of dialogue from historical persecutors as cynical, or not genuine, because of
these painful experiences.

An excellent example of this was explained in this article by noted Ukrainian Archpriest
Rostislav Yarema from Lviv, who described hundreds of conflicts throughout Ukraine,
particularly Western Ukraine, in the last hundred years. Fr. Rostislav described situations
where Greek Catholics or schismatics seized an Orthodox church, and then the local authorities
(rather than enforcing the law) told the Orthodox citizens that they really needed to come to
dialogue with their Uniate “brothers” and improve their relationship, as if the Orthodox are
somehow to blame.

With the context of these situations in mind, here are Metropolitan Anthony’s thoughts on the
President’s call for dialogue:

Photo: news.church.ua     

On July 28, 2019 on the Day of the Baptism of Rus’, the President of Ukraine Vladimir
Alexandrovich Zelensky called for inter-confessional dialogue so that faith would unite, rather
than divide Ukrainians.

174
These are important and necessary words, since for several years now, the religious sphere of
Ukraine has been in a state of immense turbulence. She is shaken by various blows—both
planned and caused by emotions, which are fueled by the works of a number of unscrupulous
media organizations. This concerns the adoption of “anti-Church” laws, the activities of the so-
called black registrars (employees of some state administrations who, on the basis of forged
documents, transfer UOC communities to another jurisdiction), information campaigns against a
particular confession, and many other things that do undermine the inter-confessional and
societal peace.

But even against this background, such blatant lawlessness like the large-scale and systematic
campaign to seize churches of the canonical UOC stands out. Under these conditions, our
believers are humiliated, beaten, maimed, and thrown out into the street from thoe churches that
they built with their own hands, and into which they put a piece of their soul.

In some cases, the situation reaches quite unimaginable limits. For example, in June in the
village of Postiine of the Rivne Province, supporters of the so-called OCU fought their way into
the house in which believers of our Church were praying after the seizure of their church.
Following the ensuing attack, three women from the UOC community were hospitalized.

And there are many such cases. Unfortunately, they are occurring even now, when the old
government is gone, and there is hope that the situation will stabilize.

Of course, we are not against dialogue and have repeatedly stated this publicly. But any full-
fledged and fruitful dialogue can be built only on trust, and of course, the absence of a desire of
one party to break the other over its knee.

Back in 2015, we stated that it was impossible to advocate for reconciliation with words alone.
We need concrete cases that would prove the sincerity of the words of the representatives of the
other side concerning the desire to improve relations. On our part, it was stressed that the first
important step on this path should be the return of all the churches seized from the UOC.

Unfortunately, our appeals were not heard. Moreover, we later faced an even greater scale of
pressure and persecution.

Against this background, it is very, very difficult to talk about some kind of full-scale dialogue.
Moreover, attempts of new raider-style seizures are still ongoing.

However, we will continue to hope for the best. Our conscience is clear—it is not us who seize
churches, but it is our churches being seized. We do not violate anyone’s rights, but our believers
suffer because of their loyalty to God. We do not shed blood and we do not provoke the
incitement of sectarian strife.

If the violation of the rights of our flock is put to a stop, if the church seizures are put to an end,
if all the churches which were seized are returned to our Church, then the prerequisites for
dialogue are sure to appear.

175
If this does not happen, then any good words about reconciliation will, unfortunately, remain
simply words.

After all, as the Venerable Nilus of Sinai said: “Never has the wolf talked friendly with the
sheep, and so also, merciless and insatiable thoughts cannot be in advance of goodwill.”

Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanich) of Boryspol and Brovary

Translated by Matfey Shaheen

Ukrainian Orthodox Church

8/1/2019

How Patriarch Bartholomew is Healing the

Schism and Restoring Church Unity
A Tomos of Schism instead of a Tomos of Unification
Alexei Smirnov

The author of this analysis, Alexei Smirnov, is a leading religion columnist in Ukraine. Mr.
Smirnov writes for top Ukrainian media such as Vesti, and the 112 TV channel. He is also an
expert in religious studies for NewsOne TV channel.

176
 Photo: spzh.news     

In his interview with the Bulgarian news agency BGNES, Patriarch Bartholomew said, “The
decisive factor that motivated the Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant autocephaly to Ukraine was
its desire to heal the existing schism and restore Church unity in that country.” According to
Bartholomew, it was for this good purpose that he took advantage of his privilege to accept
appeals against the decisions of other Local Orthodox Churches and to provide autocephaly,
without taking anyone else’s opinion into account.

Bartholomew’s words about restoring Church unity sound pretty on the outside. However, his
actions are far from being in accordance with the canons adopted in Orthodoxy, according to
which the Patriarch of Constantinople is only “the first among equals” (primus inter pares) and
does not have direct authority and special decision-making powers over and beyond those
exercised by the other Primates. Most importantly, his actions have directly led to the completely
opposite result—instead of unification, they have caused an even greater schism in Ukrainian
Orthodoxy.

Here are the latest facts.

On June 20, 2019, at the St. Volodymyr [Vladimir] Cathedral in Kyiv, the Honorary Patriarch of
“OCU” Philaret convoked a “Local Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv
Patriarchate” where he proclaimed the full resumption of UOC-KP activities.

The participants of the “Local Council” adopted a summary resolution of ten clauses, in which
they withdrew their signatures from the decision made at the Unification Council of December

177
15, 2018 concerning the liquidation of the UOC-KP and the creation of the “OCU”, instead
proclaiming that the Kyiv Patriarchate will be resuming its activities under the lifelong
leadership of “Patriarch” Philaret. They also declared their exclusive rights to manage
monasteries, and Ukrainian and foreign dioceses that were formerly part of the UOC-KP. In
addition to this, Philaret and the members of his “Council” refused to recognise those conditions
of the Tomos that “deprived the Ukrainian Church of its foreign parishes and made it completely
dependent upon the Patriarchate of Constantinople.”

Philaret, disillusioned by the insignificant support shown by his former hierarchs of the Kyiv
Patriarchate, ordained two new bishops, blessing them to take their places in the newly formed
UOC-KP Synod, which had resumed its work. He reminded everyone present that the Primate of
the “OCU” and most of its bishops had been ordained by him without any support or recognition
by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the other Local Orthodox Churches.

In response to the actions of Philaret, the Extraordinary Synod of the “OCU”, held on June 24,
stripped the Honorary Patriarch of his status as administrator of the Kyiv Diocese, expelled his
closest supporters from its episcopate and announced that Kyivan churches and monasteries will
be placed under the jurisdiction of “Metropolitan” Epiphany.

Thus, after a period of only six months, Ukrainian Orthodoxy now finds itself in the same
predicament that it was in prior to the creation of the so-called “OCU” and the granting of the
Tomos of Autocephaly by Patriarch Bartholomew. Only now, instead of the schismatic UAOC
(along with the canonical UOC and the schismatic UOC-KP), there is now a newly created
Constantinople-controlled, so-called “OCU” in operation. And Church disputes have been
replaced by raider seizures as well as by attacks on churches, all happening with the active
participation of government officials and armed radical ‘activists’. Until recently, the main
victims of these illegal actions were clergymen and parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church (UOC). Now, literally a day after the “Council” of the UOC-KP, Philaret and the clergy
who support him have begun complaining about insults and threats levelled against them as well
as the forcible seizures of churches formerly belonging to the UOC-Kyiv Patriarchate.

The true Goals of Patriarch Bartholomew

The facts of a deepening schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy are so eloquently stated that
Bartholomew who “aspires to restore Church unity” should immediately if not revoke the Tomos
granted to the “OCU” (as he did in November 2018 regarding the Western European Exarchate
of Russian parishes), then at the very least convene a Pan-Orthodox Synaxis to discuss the
situation in Ukraine and appeal to the Ukrainian authorities, who are supporting one of the
church organisations, to stop interfering in the affairs of the Orthodox Church.

However, the Patriarch of Constantinople isn’t doing anything of the kind and doesn’t intend to
do so. The reason for this has got nothing to do with Bartholomew’s self confidence and belief in
his own canonical correctness nor, indeed, in his desire to save face. The true reason is that the
calculated actions of Bartholomew in Ukraine fully fit into the long-term strategy of the Phanar
which is aimed at strengthening the position of the Constantinople Patriarchate and establishing
its authority over the other Local Orthodox Churches. According to the logic of this strategy,

178
Local Orthodox Churches should recognize the unconditional primacy of the Patriarch of
Constantinople (analogous to the primacy of the Pope in the Catholic Church), his privilege to be
the sole and supreme arbiter in all Church disputes, as well as his right to make individual
decisions and establish Stavropegy in the territories of all Local Orthodox Churches. In addition
to this, and according to this strategy, in the future Local Orthodox Churches should limit their
activities exclusively to national borders and abandon their foreign dioceses in favour of The
Phanar.

Bartholomew indicatively included all of his goals in the text of the Tomos of Autocephaly that
was granted to the “OCU”. According to this Tomos, “The ‘Orthodox Church of Ukraine’
(‘OCU’) recognizes: 1) the Ecumenical Throne as its head, as supposedly do all the other
Patriarchs and Primates”; 2) the “inalienable right of the Ecumenical Throne to establish
Stavropegy everywhere”; 3) the “canonical responsibility of the Ecumenical Throne to make
peremptory judicial decisions for all of the Local Orthodox Churches and; 4) that it [OCU]
“cannot appoint bishops and establish parishes outside its state boundaries and must renounce its
existing parishes in favor of the Ecumenical throne, which has canonical powers in the diaspora.”
It is this very text that Bartholomew proposes all the Local Orthodox Churches recognize;
thereby, confirming his special and unlimited powers in the Orthodox world.

By the way, Ukraine is not the only victim of the aggressive strategy of The Phanar. Over the
past thirty years alone, the Patriarchate of Constantinople first swallowed up the American
Exarchate of the Alexandrian Church, then established an autonomous Estonian Apostolic
Orthodox Church on foreign canonical territory, and then transferred the American parishes of
the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem to its own jurisdiction. And in the interval between
these seizures, it also forced the Greek Orthodox Church to hand over thirty-six parishes in the
so-called “new Greek territories” to its control. After Ukraine, the next offensive actions of The
Phanar may be aimed at: recognizing the Macedonian and Montenegrin Churches (these are in
the canonical territory of the Serbian Orthodox Church), the Abkhazian Church (located on the
canonical territory of the Georgian Orthodox Church), as well as swallowing up other dioceses
and parishes belonging to the Antiochian, Russian, Romanian and the Bulgarian Orthodox
Churches in Western Europe, Australia and North America (which the Patriarchate of
Constantinople is particularly interested in).

If in the course of Phanar’s realization of its long-term strategy, the Primates and Councils of the
Local Orthodox Churches do not act against it collectively, then World Orthodoxy may change
in the most radical way, and the Patriarch of Constantinople from the “first among equals”
(primus inter pares) will be transformed into a new Eastern Pope (primus sine paribus) with
unlimited powers throughout the Orthodox world. The result of such a transformation could
indeed be a dystopian restoration of Church unity under the dictates of the Ecumenical Throne
and the complete eradication of Orthodox conciliarity. This may even lead to a new global union,
following the Lyon and Florentine unions, between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of
Constantinople.

Alexei Smirnov

7/20/2019

179
Politicians Try to Sit Upon the Throne of the
Church Because They Do Not See Christ
Upon It
Deacon Sergei Geruk, Metropolitan Onuphry (Berezovsky)

In this talk with His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine on the Church of
Christ and pseudo-churches, the primate speaks about what it means for him personally to be in
the Church and how he makes decisions that could affect the fate of many people.

   

—Your Beatitude, the feast of the Holy Trinity, Pentecost, is called the birthday of the
Church of Christ, but not everyone knows why…

—For someone, a Christian, who lives the life of the Church, that is, who observes the fasts,
prays, confesses, communes of the Holy Mysteries of Christ, does good deeds, and fights with
his infirmities and shortcomings, it is not necessary to explain what the Church is and what

180
Pentecost is. He understands all of this not only with his mind, but with his heart and soul. But
for us who haven’t attained such a spiritual measure, the holy Church lovingly reminds us not
only of the birth of the Church, but of the entire path of preparation for this sacred event.

The holy Church gives us this literal reminder throughout the annual cycle of feasts and Divine
services, especially beginning with Great Lent. During Great Lent, the holy Church literally
leads us after Christ, during His public ministry, His suffering, His voluntary death upon the
Cross, and His voluntary burial. On Pascha, the holy Church unites us with the Resurrected
Savior, filling everyone with the joy of the return of the lost Paradise to us. From holy Pascha
until the Ascension, the holy Church reminds us of the Resurrected Christ’s forty days with His
apostles and His miraculous Ascension into Heaven. Ten days later, after the Savior’s Ascension
into Heaven, when the apostles were gathered in the upper room on Mt. Zion, the Holy Spirit
descended upon them, and alighted upon each of them in the form of tongues of fire. The Holy
Spirit filled the apostles with marvelous wisdom and power, by which they, previously but
simple fishermen, enlightened and converted the entire world from evil to good.

Thus, this blessed day, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles, is the birthday of the
Church of Christ. It is the mystical, that is, sacramental Body of Christ, the head of which is
Christ Himself. The Church is given to us who believe in Christ as the Son of God and Savior of
the world; it is a spiritual ship leading us through the troubled sea of earthly life to that blessed
place where the Savior has prepared for us an abode of joy and peace and eternal beatitude.

The creation of the Church is the fulfillment of the Savior’s promise that He gave to His
disciples: And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (Mt. 28:20). The Savior,
as the Son of God and Word of God, as the Creator of the world, is always with His creation; He
providentially guides and sustains everything. He is our life, but the Savior dwells in the Church
in a special way; He is here as the God-Man. In the Church, Christ the Savior unites us with
Himself through communion with the Sacraments of the Church, especially through the
Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist, where we partake of His Divine Body and drink of His
Divine Blood, which makes us able to accommodate within ourselves the Divine grace that
brings us into eternal life and blessedness.

—Your Beatitude, we see how the enemy of mankind is fighting against the Church of
Christ in our day. New pseudo-churches are born not without the interference of the
“powers of this world,” and our ancient churches are transferred to the representatives of
the “hierarchy” of these “churches,” schismatics seize them in villages and in cities… All of
this happened with the complete silence of the authorities, and more often with their
assistance… How can ordinary citizens figure out which churches to go and which not?
After all, many now go to the schismatics’ churches based solely on political views and
sentiments…

—Indeed, new pseudo-churches have appeared today. They arose thanks to the interference of
certain politicians in the life of the Church. Politicians who dare to invade the life of the Church
understand the Church as a political organization. Because of their low personal spiritual level,
they don’t see Christ in the Church. They don’t understand that the head of the Church is Christ.
They see the throne in the Church, but they don’t see Christ seated upon it. Personal pride

181
compels them to sit upon the throne of the Church, and this is where the tragedy begins: A
politician climbs upon the throne, but the throne leaves him. Politicians hunt for Church
property, to which, by the way, they have no relation; they take churches, they malign the
faithful, they offend and oppress them, trying thereby to climb up upon the throne of the Church,
but here they are seized by failure. But God will judge them, and we pray that the Lord would
enlighten them with the light of His truth.

As for the question of which church to go to: Go to the church where they are seeking the
Kingdom of God and His Truth—Christ lives in such a church, while He is not in other churches.
Seek Christ, live with Christ, and be happy and blessed.

—As you know, the newly-created OCU (with a tomos from Patriarch Bartholomew)
claims canonicity and unity with the Local Churches of the world.

—Not a single Local Church has recognized the OCU, and several of the Local Churches have
made official statements of non-recognition. Church history testifies that not a single schism has
brought any good, that schisms can bring only harm. The Lord created the Church, which is a
spiritual ship leading man through the stormy sea of earthly life to eternal life. Knowing that the
Church is the ark of salvation, the devil has been fighting against the Church of Christ from the
first days of its creation. But the Lord forewarned the faithful, saying that the gates of hades
would not overcome His Church (Mt. 16:18).

—Your Beatitude, allow me to give you a purely journalistic question: What is the Church
for you?

—I recall one book by His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of blessed memory called The
Orthodox Church… My Life is In It. I can say the same. The Church is my life. I think every true
Christian thinks the same.

182
    

—In your homilies you often remind the people about the need to pray, to fulfill even a
small, but regular prayer rule. However, sometimes there are difficult circumstances in life,
and prayer and even faith in God’s help are lost. How can we preserve a peaceful spirit and
prayerfulness?

—Every trial in life is a kind of test of our faith. We must always remember that without God’s
will or the permission of God, nothing happens on earth or in the life of each individual person.
The more we rely on His will, the easier it is to undergo trials. But if we happen to lose courage,
to lose heart, to lose our spiritual landmarks—to put it simply—to get lost within ourselves, as in
a forest, we must not fear. Like a soldier on the front, we must show courage, and force ourselves
to get up and walk, or even crawl to Christ through repentance, then the Lord will come to meet
us, like the father to the prodigal son, and remove from us despondency, lack of faith, and
cowardice. We must call out to the Lord as the Prophet David called out to Him in a difficult
moment in his life: I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy
mountain. I laid me down and slept (spiritually); I awoke; for the Lord will help me (Ps. 3:4-5).
These words are heard every day in the churches of God, and we must remember them and
repeat them in difficult moments, as the Prophet David repeated them. It is important to always
force ourselves to courageously return to the former positions of the spiritual life.

183
—Your Beatitude, which prayers should we give preference to?

—All prayers offered by the Church are salvific. The Holy Fathers always gave preference to
short prayers, which are good and convenient to say at any time. Especially common is the Jesus
Prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” But this prayer should be
said orally. If someone wants to engage in mental prayer, it should be done under the direction of
an experienced spiritual father.

—You often have to make important decisions that could affect the faith of many people.
How do you make them, knowing they are fateful, touching millions of people?

—Every bishop, making any statements or decisions, should not do so on his own behalf, but on
behalf of the Church, guided by the conciliar mind. Of course, like every Christian, I also pray
that the Lord will enlighten and guide me according to His will to answer the important questions
posed to me.

—What would you wish for our readers in these holy days of Pentecost?

—I wish each of us to show that we are real Christians. After all, to be a Christian, a member of
the Church of Christ, is a great honor and great joy for every soul. I wish for myself and all of
our readers to be worthy of this high title: Christian.

Deacon Sergei Geruk

spoke with Metropolitan Onuphry (Berezovsky)
Translated by Jesse Dominick

Ukrainian Orthodox Church

6/20/2019

The Two-headed Hydra of the Ukrainian

Schism and World Orthodoxy
Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev)

184
 Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev)     

The sixth of May marked four months since Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople signed the
“Tomos” of autocephaly of the “Orthodox church of Ukraine,” according to which Epifany
Dumenko was appointed the head of this newly-established structure with the title of,
“Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine.” Patriarch Bartholomew sent out a letter to Primates of
the Local Orthodox Churches, demanding that they recognize this structure as the canonical
Orthodox Church of Ukraine instead of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church led by His Beatitude
Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine.

For the past four months not a single Local Orthodox Church has recognized the act committed
by Patriarch Bartholomew in flagrant violation of Church canons. A number of Churches
officially expressed their disagreement with this act, as well as their non-recognition of the
legalization of the schismatics, and expressed their support for the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox
Church led by Metropolitan Onuphry. Other Churches took time to examine the situation. None
of them has supported the lawlessness. Why?

Firstly, everyone knows that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church unites the majority of the Orthodox
believers in Ukraine, having almost thirteen thousand parishes, over 200 monasteries and
millions of members. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and not the group of schismatics which
have now received legitimization from Patriarch Bartholomew, is the only canonical Church of

185
Ukraine, as Patriarch Bartholomew has publicly stated himself more than once, the last time
being in January of 2016, at the Synaxis of Primates of the Local Churches.

Secondly, it is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church led by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry that
is the national Orthodox Church of Ukraine. It is not a “Russian church,” as Petro Poroshenko
who is stepping down from his Presidential post tried to call it. Its members are citizens of
Ukraine, born and bred in their country, who have Ukrainian passports and love their homeland.
Its administrative center is located not in Moscow, but in Kiev. Despite Poroshenko’s
allegations, prayers in the Ukrainian Church are offered not for the Russian authorities and the
Russian army, but for the Ukrainian authorities and the Ukrainian army. The self-governing
Ukrainian Orthodox Church enjoys all the rights that allow it to be the national Church of its
country. It is linked with the Moscow Patriarchate by spiritual and historical unity dating back to
the times of the Kievan Rus’. It has neither administrative, nor financial, nor any other
dependence on Moscow.

Thirdly, it is common knowledge that the schismatic community legalized by Patriarch

Bartholomew is made up of two groups, one of which had no canonical hierarchy when
recognized by Constantinople. One group, the so-called “Kiev Patriarchate”, is led by a man
whose excommunication was recognized by all the Local Churches, including Constantinople.
The other group is traced to a bishop of the Russian Church, suspended from serving, and a man
who not only never had an episcopal consecration, but even ordination into the priesthood. In
common terms such people are called “self-ordained.” This false hierarchy was recognized
without a proper study into its origin and even without formal re-consecration, but by Patriarch
Bartholomew’s volition alone.

Fourthly, even after receiving the “Tomos” the schismatic community continues to demonstrate
absolute canonical lawlessness, trampling upon all Church rules. This community, which calls
itself the “Orthodox church of Ukraine,” has two heads with almost identical titles. One calls
himself “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine,” while the other, “Patriarch of Kiev and All
Rus’-Ukraine.” The first one exists for external use, while the second one for internal use. It is
the second one, not the first one, who governs the “Kiev Metropolia.” Here is what he has
recently said: “The OCU is officially recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Yet, in Ukraine
there is the Kiev Patriarchate, because we are not satisfied with a status of metropolia. We have
existed as a patriarchate for over 25 years. And people chose the patriarchs. I am the third
patriarch. Before me there was Patriarch Vladimir, and Patriarch Mstislav. There were
patriarchs! Therefore, for Ukraine we are a patriarchate. And for the outside world, that is for the
Orthodox world, we are the Kiev Metropolia.” Can any of the Local Orthodox Churches
recognize such a two-headed hydra?

Fifthly, the schism demonstrates its complete spiritual and canonical failure. Provisions of the
“Tomos” are subjected to ambiguous interpretation and not carried out in practice. For instance,
the “Tomos” stipulates that the “Orthodox church of Ukraine” cannot include parishes outside
Ukraine. However, from a point of view of false patriarch Philaret Denisenko such parishes can
remain within the so-called “Kiev Patriarchate.” “We cannot make them leave and we cannot
reject them,” he said, “Since they do not want to leave us, we consider them ours.” The two-
headed hydra cannot but have double-entry bookkeeping. For an internal user there is still the

186
“Kiev Patriarchate” with a network of “parishes” abroad, and for an external user there is the
“Kiev Metropolia” without them.

Sixthly, with the involvement of the authorities who shamefully lost the elections, a campaign
was initiated, which has not been stopped, of supporters of the schism seizing church buildings
belonging to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. These seizures are carried out using
force—masked men break into a church, beat up the faithful, drive them and a priest out of the
building, and proclaim themselves the lawful owners. How should world Orthodoxy react to
such lawlessness? Just as it has already reacted in the persons of Patriarchs Theodore of
Alexandria, John of Antioch and Theophilos of Jerusalem, who assembled in Cyprus and along
with Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus “called upon all people concerned to work on the one
hand, to achieve Eucharistic unity, which constitutes the fullness of the Church in Christ Jesus,
and on the other hand, to protect the faithful, their churches and their monasteries against all
forms of transgressions and all acts of violence coming from any side, whatever the causes and
motives are.”

Taking the unprecedented decision to legalize the Ukrainian schism, Patriarch Bartholomew
expected that hierarchs of the canonical Church would join the structure created by him and that
this structure would be recognized by the Local Orthodox Churches. Neither one thing nor the
other happened; his “blitzkrieg” failed. Instead of healing the schism, Patriarch Bartholomew
only deepened it, causing the rightful rejection of his actions in world Orthodoxy. And if earlier,
as “the first among equals,” he could play a coordinating and consolidating role in the family of
the Local Orthodox Churches, now, having declared himself “the first without equals,” he has
liquidated himself as a coordinating center.

Photo: Romfea     

187
Therefore, it is quite natural that the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches begin to seek
other formats of interaction. The first sign was a meeting of the four Primates in Cyprus. The
communiqué adopted at the outcome of the meeting reads: “His Beatitude Chrysostomos,
Archbishop of Cyprus, briefed them [the three other Primates] on his personal initiative of
mediation. After listening to His Beatitude, the Primates of the three Churches gave their support
for his initiative to bear it for the good of the unity of the Orthodox Church in Christ Jesus.”

What does it mean? It means that in the absence of a coordinating center in the person of “the
first among equals” the Orthodox Churches will try to create another center of interaction. When
the first in the diptych has in fact withdrawn and isolated himself, the second, the third, the
fourth and the tenth can become a coordinator of the pan-Orthodox efforts aimed at overcoming
schisms and disorders—anyone to whom the Local Orthodox Churches can entrust this mission
because he has the necessary wisdom and humility and does not lay claims to primacy and
supremacy.

When in the fifth century Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople fell into heresy, Patriarch Cyril
of Alexandria played a leading part in condemning this heresy at the Third Ecumenical Council.
And when in the fifteenth century the Patriarch of Constantinople supported the Unia with
Rome, other Eastern Patriarchs did not recognize that act. Now, when Patriarch Bartholomew of
Constantinople has found himself on the side of the schism, world Orthodoxy has not been
beheaded. The Head of the Universal Church has never been the Patriarch of Constantinople. It
has always been and is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And while within the Catholic tradition a
concept developed about the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, His earthly representative, the
Orthodox tradition has never known such concept.

“As man is subject to death and cannot be the permanent head of the Church, our Lord Jesus
Christ Himself, as the Head holding the helm of governance of the Church, governs it through
the Holy Fathers.” Under these words the four Eastern Patriarchs—of Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem—placed their signatures in 1723. And in 1895, in reply to
Pope Leo XIII’s appeal the Synod of the Church of Constantinople was stated: “Relying on the
Fathers and Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries we ascertain that the
bishop of Rome was never regarded as the supreme leader and infallible head of the Church and
that any bishop is the head and primate of his particular church, subject only to conciliar
resolutions and decisions of the catholic Church as the only infallible decisions, and that the
bishop of Rome was in no way, as the church history shows, an exception from this rule. The
only eternal Chief Leader and immortal Head of the Church is our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The current Patriarch of Constantinople has, in fact, repudiated the pan-Orthodox teaching,
unambiguously expressed in these texts, and considered himself the only infallible head of the
Orthodox Church who has the right to accept appeals from any of the Local Churches, to
interfere in their life, and to administer and arrange their affairs at his own discretion and self-
will. However, a sad experience of his oportunistic interference in the Ukrainian situation has
showed that while fully respecting the existing institutions stemming from the primacy of honor
in accordance with the diptychs, the Plenitude of world Orthodoxy rejects such excess of powers
by the Patriarch of Constantinople, just as in the past it consistently rejected attempts by any
hierarchs to appropriate prerogatives that did not belong to them.

188
A schism is still a schism, and Orthodoxy only gets stronger through the ordeals it suffers, as is
demonstrated by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—which is today following the path of
martyrdom, calmly and courageously responding to the external and internal challenges. In its
heroic defense of the truth it enjoys the strong support of the Local Orthodox Churches, and it is
such consolidated support that will ultimately help heal the Ukrainian schism.

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), Chairman

Department for External Church Relations
Slightly edited by OrthoChristian.com

DECR Communication Service

5/21/2019

Archbishop Ieronymos Has Reached a Dead

End on Ukraine
Patriarch Bartholomew is Isolated: The Danger of
Ethnophyletism
Fr. Theodore Zisis

189
 Archbishop Ieronymos II, primate of the Greek Orthodox Church.     

For the first time, the Constantinople Church has found itself isolated from the other
autocephalous Churches, due to its anti-canonical and anti-conciliar actions in granting
autocephaly to the Ukrainian schismatics.

Thus, it itself has placed under doubt its accepted coordinating role as a unifying factor and
driven its hitherto proven and effective ecclesiastical politics into complete failure. It all began
with the incomplete, truncated representation of the Body of Christ at the pseudo-council in
Kolymvari, Crete.

In our previous articles we noted the unavoidable danger arising for the Grecophone leaders of
many Local Churches (Alexandrian, Jerusalem, Cypriot, Greek, and Albanian) of falling into the
temptation of following ethnophytelistic criteria, supporting the Greek first-throne Church. This
would in fact mean falling into the heresy of ethnophyletism, which was condemned by the
Local Synod of Constantinople in 1872 due to the Bulgarian ethnophyletistic demands of the
time.

Unfortunately, such criteria dominate amongst a significant part of the Grecophone clergy,
theologians, and specialists in canon law who place patriotism and ethnic origins higher than the
national integration of all Orthodox into one body of the Church of Christ, Where there is

190
neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free:
but Christ is all, and in all (Col. 3:11).1

Thus, it is clear as God’s day that the Constantinople Church’s interference in the Russian
Orthodox Church’s jurisdictional territory, to which the Ukrainian Church has belonged for over
three centuries since 1686 with total and uncontested recognition by all the Local Churches and
even the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself (as scholarly research into the historical and sacred
canonical aspect demonstrates), is anti-canonical.2 However, despite this fact, today we have a
planned attempt by researchers to present a different picture that favors the supposedly existing
jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch over the territory of Ukraine, and what is worse, a
jurisdiction that supposedly allows it to independently grant autocephaly without the agreement
of the entire body of the Church, expressed in a conciliar and pan-Orthodox manner.

This newly-proclaimed ecclesiology is trying to represent the Ecumenical Patriarch not as the
“first among equals” (primus inter pares)—and thus expressing and accepting decisions on a par
with others—but as the “first without equal” (primus sine paribus), ruling in the papal-
monarchical manner. Its apotheosis is the Ecumenical Patriarch’s completely self-willed
“restoration” of the Ukrainian schismatics without meeting the conditions stipulated by the
sacred canons, namely public expression of repentance and their re-ordination or re-consecration.

In the case of the Ukrainian schismatics, even worse and unthinkable from the ecclesiological
and pastoral point of view is that they are not returning to the bosom of the canonical Church that
has existed for centuries, which is led by Metropolitan Onuphry, and from which they broke off.
But Patriarch Bartholomew has instead created a parallel jurisdiction on the same territory and a
new synod, and thus has become the initiator of a schism with painful consequences not only for
Ukraine, but also for Universal Orthodoxy.

The Grecophone leaders of the Local Churches are not in agreement with the Ukrainian
autocephaly

As of today, four of the five Grecophone Churches have not united with the Constantinople
Church, while the fifth—the Church of Greece—is waiting and remaining silent. Furthermore,
two Churches, of Cyprus and Albania, have synodically resolved to require that a Pan-Orthodox
Council be convened to decide the Ukraine question.

The fullness of Orthodoxy has satisfactorily accepted this supranational position of two primates
—Chrysostomos and Anastasios—who despite their meeting in Vienna at the invitation of the
Constantinople Patriarch have not relinquished their stance of rejecting the anti-canonical, anti-
conciliar, and unilateral granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian schismatics.

For both primates this true position is small redemption for their sincere participation in the
convocation of and work in the pseudo-council on Crete, and for encouraging Patriarch
Bartholomew to act like a pope; if they had not aided him on Crete to ignore and not take into
consideration the objections of four autocephalous Churches that represent the majority of
Orthodox believers, he would not have dared now to ignore the opinion of the Church (including
the [Ukrainian Church’s] mother Church—the Russian Church), and moreover the opinion of the

191
Local canonical [Ukrainian] Church, which did not ask for autocephaly, and make this decision
in isolation, self-willfully restoring the deposed schismatics.

Neither would he have dared to assume the role of teacher, citing examples in his reply to
Archbishop Anastasios of Albania from Church history such as the Melitius schism, which bear
no relationship to the Ukrainian schism. Others have already pointed this out, including
Archbishop Anastasios himself in his second letter in answer to Patriarch Bartholomew’s letter
of criticism, which, as the former quite rightly wrote, “could have been evaluated as a monument
to strengthening the Phanar’s supposed primacy in the Orthodox Church.”3

The Archbishop of Albania’s contradictory statement. He is not in agreement with the

schismatics, but remains on the side of one who provoked the schism

It is worth noting that although the primate of the Albanian Church, Anastasios, had the courage
to argue justly and on a high scholarly level against the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian
schismatics, at the same time, in order not to look like a Russophile, accused the Russian
Orthodox Church as well, satisfying in part the ethnophyletist supporters of the Phanar and,
again and again, praising Patriarch Bartholomew for the “unique value of his Orthodox
achievements over the past ten years, (such as) the Pan-Orthodox councils of primates and the
holy and great Council of the Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s tireless zeal, and
that of Your Divine All Holiness personally.4

He essentially devaluated his own Orthodox resistance in the matter of pseudo-autocephaly of

the Ukrainian schismatics and amazed us with his explanatory declaration at the end of the
second document, saying that if a schism should occur due to Patriarch Bartholomew’s erroneous
actions (which he himself complimented), the Albanian Church will be on the side of those who
provoked the schism. That is, the Archbishop of Albania will direct his flock into destruction,
because neither heresy nor schism leads to salvation.

Amazing! And how does this jibe with the Archbishop’s erudition and intellect, as well as the
painstaking missionary work that he has performed over the course of his whole life with the
intention of bringing people to salvation?

Only ecumenical mingling and the equalizing of religions, heresies and schisms can explain such
a contradiction.

He writes the following, word for word: “In order to avoid any possible perplexities we clarify
that that in the case of a tragic departure—schism (may the Lord not allow it!), the Albanian
Autocephalous Orthodox Church will remain unchangeably with true love on the side of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate.”5

Just how true a love can be that leads to schism is clear from only two testimonies—one that is
conciliar and has universal authority, and another that is patristic (which we will cite below).

192
The second canon of the Council of Antioch (which we reference) says: Whoever communes
with those who are excommunicated becomes excommunicated himself; that is, the famous, “He
who communes with the excommunicated is excommunicated himself.”6

The “second Paul” of golden speech, St. John Chrysostom, teaches that causing a schism in the
Church is no less an evil than falling into heresy: “Dividing the Church is no less of an evil than
falling into heresy.”7 Nothing angers God more than heresy and schism. Even martyric blood
cannot redeem the sin of schism. Is there anything more obvious, and even worse than
ethnophyletism, than joining up with a patriarch of one’s own tribe and people who provokes
schisms and divisions, placing not only his own salvation under threat but also that of his flock?

How did the authoritative theologian, the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, end up falling?

As we have already noted above, out of five Grecophone leaders of corresponding five
autocephalous Churches (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Greece, and Albania), four do not
accept the Ukrainian pseudo-autocephaly and do not commemorate the schismatic primate,
“Metropolitan” Epiphany, in the dyptichs.

In order to resolve this problem they are requesting that a pan-Orthodox Council be called, which
Patriarch Bartholomew, who claims primacy of power, refuses to do.

The position of the Greek Church up to this writing remains unknown and indefinite, and its
primate Ieronymos neither makes any decision himself nor convenes the hierarchy (in order to
accept a synodal resolution), but is dragging the matter out, passing it on for discussion to the
synodal committees and promising that at some point—which?—he will bring it before the
hierarchy at a Synod.

And because at the Synod of bishops many serious objections will naturally be raised by sound-
thinking hierarchs, as is already clear from the published statements made by the Metropolitans
of Piraeus and Kythera, he is probably trying to avoid an atmosphere of division and tension,
leaving the matter in a suspended state and hoping that the situation might clarify itself or that
something out of the ordinary might happen.

However in the ecclesiastical sense the situation is absolutely clear: Not one Local autocephalous
Church has recognized the new pseudo-autocephaly in Ukraine or commemorates the schismatic
primate, Epiphany, in the dyptichs.

In actual deed, Archbishop Ieronymos also declines to do this, because he doesn’t commemorate
the schismatic Epiphany either. Thus, it would be completely logical and correct from the
synodal and canonical point of view for the Greek Church to join the pan-Orthodox non-
acceptance of this autocephaly and not leave the Ecumenical Patriarch an opportunity to progress
along the path of a new schism, as happened in the past with the calendar reform.

At that time the Phanar provoked the calendar schism with the cooperation of the Church of
Greece, and now it is creating the Ukrainian schism, apparently again counting on help from the
Church of Greece.

193
Archbishop Ieronymos leaves the matter open and does not make any effort to close it, because it
is obvious that he is under pressure from political, governmental, geopolitical and ecclesiastical
centers that are cultivating Russophobia and heating up Greek ethnophyletism in their own
interests.

And because in theological and ecclesiastical circles, especially amongst the hierarchs, there is
not likely to be found a theologically educated bishop who enjoys authority and recognition who
would prepare a planned and practically guaranteed acceptance of the pseudo-autocephaly of
Ukrainian schismatics, this rather unpleasant, anti-canonical and anti-synodal role was assumed
(consciously or unconsciously) by Metropolitan Heirotheos (Vlachos), formerly well known for
his anti-ecumenism and extensive literary activity against heresies. The antichristian powers
know very well how to neutralize their opponents and lead even the elect into error.

We truly did not believe our eyes, and our mind was amazed and shocked when we read the
official epistle that the Metropolitan sent on March 30 of this year to the Holy Synod of the
Greek Orthodox Church, in which as a member of the hierarchy of the Greek Church he
expresses his opinion on the Church problem in Ukraine.

In the first three sections he expands on:

a) a brief history of autocephaly and the statuses of a patriarchate,

b) patriarchal and synodal tomoses on the presentation of autocephaly and statuses of a

patriarchate,

c) a discussion of the method of pronouncing one or another Church autocephalous. He supposes

that in these sections he placed a theoretical, theological, historical and sacred canonical
foundation for the conclusions contained in the following section:

d) discussion of the Ukrainian question. In this section, repeating in total the positions and claims
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and possibly also of Archbishop Ieronymos and all the other
Russophobic political and geopolitical powers, he comes to a completely unfounded and
unacceptable conclusion, formulating it in the following way, word for word: “The Greek
Church cannot reject the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate concerning his granting of
autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine, but it should now accept this decision and abide in
expectation of the time when it can express its common opinion and judgment, when an
Ecumenical Council is convened. Then it will be discussed not only how the tomos was granted
to Ukraine, but also [how it was granted] to the rest of the Churches. Non-acceptance of the way
the patriarchal tomos grants Ukraine’s autocephaly places under doubt the autocephaly of eight
existing autocephalous Churches, including the autocephaly of the Greek Church—because these
autocephalies were granted only by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”8

We will not spend time right now criticizing the metropolitan’s position. No few researchers
have already done this quite successfully. Many have justly expressed bitterness, anger,
disappointment, and indignation concerning his connections with the political and ecclesiastical
establishment and especially regarding the fact that he is directing the Greek Church into the

194
theological line of accepting this patriarchal tyranny in granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian
schismatics.

Even the canon law expert A. Vavouskos (his co-fighter and adherent in his support of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate’s schismatic actions), noted how Met. Hierotheos came to these
conclusions without a deep understanding of the sources and bibliography.9

We will only note that the Metropolitan of Navpaktos is hiding his head in the sand, and refusing
to see and understand the enormously significant fact that autocephaly is being granted not to the
canonical Ukrainian Church, but to two groups of schismatics, who have not publicly repented
and expressed their desire to return to the bosom of the canonical Church headed by
Metropolitan Onuphry.

All the other autocephalous Churches have decisively underscored the schismatic character of
the new pseudo-autocephalous church as the main hindrance to its acceptance and consider that
the schism in the Ukraine continues, because the Church, having pronounced deposition and
excommunication, did not cancel [its accusation of schism] after public repentance, inasmuch as
Metropolitan Hierotheos in his letter does not at all discuss the ecclesiological problem of
schism. The word “schism” is not in his text; it has disappeared.

It is just as if we were talking about granting autocephaly to the canonical Church of Ukraine,
were only considering the question of whether the Ecumenical Patriarchate had the right to grant
autocephaly, and historical and sacred canonical testimony needs to be cited in connection with
that.

However, not in a single instance of granting autocephaly in a country, in an ecclesiastical sphere

by which this autocephaly is granted, have there ever been both canonical and schismatic
churches [at one and the same time].

Autocephaly was always requested and received by only one Church, which represented all the
faithful in that country; or, if that Church had previously fallen into schism it proclaimed its
repentance and returned to the bosom of the canonical Church, and then received autocephaly. In
Ukraine, however, the only canonical Church that has been recognized for centuries by all the
other autocephalous Churches has not, as of the present, asked for autocephaly.

Now, on the same territory, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has created a second, parallel local
church with a separate synod, which is not recognized by the canonical Church—that is, its state
of schism has been ratified by patriarchal bulla.

How will two parallel church jurisdictions exist on one and the same territory? We have been
trying for so many years to solve the problem of multiple jurisdictions in one territory within the
Orthodox diaspora, and now we are creating [the same problem] within autocephalous Churches
without any sort of theological and sacred canonical basis.

195
We will cite several testimonies showing that the Ukrainian schism, willfully and anti-
canonically legalized, is one of the main reasons why all the autocephalous Churches have
rejected this autocephaly (while the Metropolitan of Navpaktos groundlessly ignores this).

The canonical Church, headed by Metropolitan Onuphry, says among other things in its latest
synodal decision that “autocephaly is granted only by one Church within the boundaries of one
specific nation, but in no way to a part that has separated itself from the body of the Church.”10

Archbishop Anastasios of Albania in his first epistle to Patriarch Bartholomew shows that the
millions of the faithful under the headship of Metropolitan Onuphry have refused to participate
in the process of granting autocephaly, “while as in the past the ecclesiastical fullness of those
countries (Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, Albania, Czechia, and Slovakia), to
whom autocephaly has been granted, have expressed unanimity.”11

In the epistle sent by the Serbian Orthodox Church to the Ecumenical Patriarch on February 6,
2019, there is a more stern tone—first of all, it criticizes the Phanar’s anti-canonical interference
in the canonical jurisdiction of the Holy Russian Church, and also adds the following: “We do
not recognize as the 'autocephalous church of Ukraine' the 'confederation' of schismatic offshoots
in Ukraine that was pronounced autocephalous without canonical grounds, and in reality forcibly
created (even now already mutually conflicting amongst themselves and unrestrainedly heading
towards division). The schismatics have remained schismatics. Once a schismatic, always a
schismatic, with the exception of those cases of sincere return (to the bosom of the canonical
Church) and deep repentance. The only Church we know and recognize is the canonical
Ukrainian Orthodox Church that has as its head His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and
All Ukraine.12

Likewise two distinguished hierarchs—Niceforos of Kykkos, a metropolitan of the Cypriot

Orthodox Church, and Irinej of Baska, a bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church—write in this
regard the following:

Metropolitan of Kykkos: This action, in my humble opinion, is considered anti-canonical,

because according to the sacred canons, any punishment (including the above-mentioned
deposition and excommunication) is revoked by the same Body that invoked it—of course under
the condition of the condemned party’s prior repentance. It would follow that only the Orthodox
Moscow Patriarchate, which made the decision to depose and excommunicate, has the
nomocanonical jurisdiction to restore and return the condemned to the bosom of the Orthodox
Church. Another, in my opinion, very serious error of the Ecumenical Patriarch consists in his
contemptuous disregard for his Beatitude Onuphry, the metropolitan of the only generally
recognized Orthodox Church in Ukraine, as well as his recognition of Epiphany, who was never
canonically consecrated—or ordained—as the metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine and
granting to him a Synodal tomos of autocephaly during concelebration with him.”13

The bishop of Baska also writes: “Along with this, unacceptable is the violation of sacred
canonical principles, which are obligatory to all, and which do not allow for communion with the
excommunicated (that is, with those who have deprived themselves of grace by their own will).
It is unthinkable and unacceptable to revoke the essential difference between the Church and

196
schism, between the lawful successors to the holy apostles and the “self-ordained” or “self-
proclaimed”.14

Unfortunately, in opposing the sacred canons, the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos proposes that the
Greek Orthodox Church enter into communion with excommunicated Ukrainian schismatics and
cancel the difference between Church and schism.

That is, until the convening of an Ecumenical Council, which in his opinion will make a
judgment as to whether or not it was correct to grant autocephaly to schismatics, we will become
schismatics ourselves, and thus place our own salvation and the salvation of our entire flock
under threat.

Isn’t this pastoral and soteriological concern absolutely timely? Aren’t the bitterness,
disappointment, and worry about this inexplicable—or explicable—fall of the Metropolitan of
Nafpaktos quite justified?

Fr. Theodore Zisis,

Professor Emeritus of the theological department of Aristole University in Thessalonica
Translation from the Russian version by OrthoChristian.com

Pravoslavie.ru

5/21/2019

The Gospel According to Poroshenko:

Politics, Religion, and the New Church of
Ukraine
Nicolai N. Petro

Source: Yale Journal of International Affairs

April 15, 2019

197
    

Religious conflict in Ukraine has been much in the news of late, ever since President Petro
Poroshenko very publicly embraced the ambitious idea of creating a single, unified Orthodox
Christian church out of the country’s many Orthodox denominations. This idea, long dear to the
hearts of Ukrainian nationalists, kept the issue on the front pages of the media in Ukraine,
Russia, and other predominantly Orthodox countries for most of 2018.

Then, quite unexpectedly, he got his wish. On January 6, 2019, the Patriarch of Constantinople,
primus inter pares among Orthodox Church hierarchs worldwide, granted Poroshenko a church
document (tomos) designating the newly minted Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) as the sole
legitimate and independent Orthodox church in Ukraine. The question that many Orthodox
Christians both in Ukraine and elsewhere are now asking themselves is, at what cost?

Poroshenko’s achievement has evoked conflicts within both Ukraine and the rest of the Orthodox
world. While he has gained the backing of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the rest of the
Orthodox world has taken a wait-and-see attitude since, in the tradition of Orthodox Christianity,
the consequences of these actions will not become fully manifest until far into the future.

...Read the rest at Yale Journal of International Affairs.

198
Nicolai N. Petro

4/15/2019

The Return of the “New Rome”

Fr. Patrick Burke

These thoughts on the current crisis in Ukraine were offered by an Orthodox-leaning Anglican
priest of the Church of Ireland, who serves in County Kilkenny, Republic of Ireland. Fr. Patrick
Burke is a graduate of National University of Ireland and Trinity College, Dublin, with a
Masters degree from Troy State University, Alabama.

Photo: vaticannews.va     

Many years ago when Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium and
renamed it Constantinople it was often referred to as the “New Rome”. With the passage of time
and the passing of the Empire that title slipped away. However, echoes of Rome seem to be
returning to Byzantium. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has made claims towards a
degree of universal jurisdiction in his letter to the Albanian Orthodox Church that seems more
reminiscent of the papacy than Orthodoxy. One might therefore be forgiven for wondering if the
Constantinople of today is beginning to think itself once more as the “New Rome”.

199
What is happening concerning in the Ukraine is poorly understood, I think, by most Western
observers. This is not surprising. While training to become an Anglican priest I noticed a curious
thing regarding the study of Church history. The vast majority of books went almost directly
from the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire under
Constantine to the time of Reformation in the fifteenth Century. This was a gap of over a
thousand years.

The reason, I think, is that books looking at things from a Protestant perspective wanted to skip
over what was to them the history of the Roman Catholic Church; and even the Catholic-oriented
volumes seemed to prefer to pass over the long centuries in which nothing they considered very
dramatic happened so that they could get to the more exciting years of conflict and confrontation
that came about when characters such as Martin Luther and John Calvin came on the scene.

This skipping over vast swathes of Church history, however, comes at a price. And that price is a
general ignorance not only of a huge part of that history, but a particular ignorance of the
relations between the Church in the East and the West and how and why it was that the great
Schism between the two took place in the eleventh century.

The whys and wherefores of that matter are too complex to go into here. But one very important
reason for the separation was a rejection of the Eastern Church led, ironically enough, by
Constantinople, of claims by Rome to having a universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. So
it can only seem strange that Constantinople today should seem to be set on imitating the claims
of its old rival.

Like many in the West my understanding of the manner in which the various Orthodox Churches
relates one to another is relatively poor. But I do, I think, understand the principle behind
autocephaly, which is that each of the churches is independent and self-governing and that none
of the other churches is entitled to interfere in how another church manages its affairs. And while
I am no expert in the Canons of the Church, I know enough to realize that there is nothing in
them to permit the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch either in the internal affairs of the Church
in the Ukraine or indeed in the manner in which he has dismissed the objections to that
interference raised by the Albanian Orthodox Church.

In the absence of a canonical basis to these jurisdictional claims, it would seem to me all that
remains is Constantinople’s former status as the New Rome. However, the Empire is long gone;
what need has anyone today of a New Rome? And Constantinople might do well to reflect on the
fact that if such claims were to have any merit, the Old Rome still remains; it can only make its
claims if it accepts the claims of the other. Constantinople’s resurrection as the New Rome leads
inexorably to its bowing in obedience to the Old.

Fr. Patrick Burke

3/26/2019

200
An American Perspective on the Ukraine
Crisis
Archpriest John Whiteford

This is the text of a talk that I gave at St. Tikhon University in Moscow, at a conference entitled
"Causes and Challenges of the Current Crisis of Inter-Orthodox Relations," on February 25th,
2019.

With Fr. Sergei Baranov, who translated     

Introduction.

I discovered Orthodox Christianity a bit more than 30 years ago. I was studying to be a
Protestant minister, and was serving as an associate pastor at a church which organized a pro-life
group in Oklahoma City, and invited other churches in the area. At the first meeting, I was sitting

201
with my wife, and in came a Russian Orthodox priest. I had never seen anything quite like him.
He was wearing a black cassock, a gold pectoral cross, and had a long gray beard. I said to my
wife, “Could you imagine me dressed like that?”

As time went on, I got to know the priest, and began asking him theological questions, and was
intrigued by his answers which made a lot of sense to me. Then one Saturday I visited his parish
for a Vespers service. It was not in a beautiful Church like you have here in Russia. It was in a
small storefront, in a rundown shopping center. But the beauty of the service and of the hymns
had a deep impact on me. I was not ready to convert just yet, because I had a lot of theological
objections that I had to work through, but about a year later, I did. And since I became Orthodox,
I have devoted a great deal of time and effort to bringing others into the Church. I had discovered
a great treasure, and I wanted to share it with as many people as possible.

This brings us to the topic at hand. You might wonder why Orthodox Christians in America
would care about what is going on in Ukraine, but even though it is far away from us, one reason
why this matters to me is because it harms the witness of the Orthodox Church, and it makes it a
lot more difficult to explain to people what the Orthodox Church is, when we have the waters
being muddied by the uncanonical actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Many speakers
have already ably discussed the history, and the canonical issues in question here, and so I will
not attempt to rehash those issues, but will simply talk about how this issue is viewed by the
Orthodox in the United States, how it is impacting us, and what the long term implications are.

I. Background in America

In order to understand the situation we are in, in the United States, let me explain briefly a few
things about the Orthodox Church in America. The Russian Church sent missionaries to North
America 225 years ago. But for the most part, Orthodoxy was brought to the United States by
immigration from various parts of the Orthodox world, and so we have different jurisdictions
reflecting the various ethnic groups that established parishes in in the United States. Of these
groups, the largest are the Greeks, though they have been experiencing a decline in recent years.
Orthodox Christians represent about one percent of the total population. The Greeks in the
United States were originally under the Church of Greece, but were transferred to the jurisdiction
of Constantinople in the 1922 by Patriarch Meletius Metaxakis, of whom we will talk about more
later.

However, the Russian Church began the process of translating the services into English in the
late 19th century, with the hopes of reaching out to the non-Orthodox people of the United
States, and this eventually began to bear fruit – particularly beginning in the 1980’s, and today
there are now many converts to the Orthodox Faith in the United States.

II. Reactions to the Ukraine Crisis in America

The reactions among the Orthodox in the United States to the Ecumenical Patriarch’s actions in
Ukraine have varied. In the Greek Archdiocese, there are of course company men who support
the the Patriarch, regardless of the merits of his actions; there are those who are confused by
what has happened, and there are those who are indifferent. But there are also those who are

202
opposed to what the EP has done. For example, we now have a new ROCOR parish in Lubbock,
Texas, because several families from the Greek parish there could not in good conscience stay
under the EP, and so have now formed a new parish. There are many more who are waiting to
see what will happen, but I have personally spoken with quite a few of them, and if the EP does
not change course, they intend to leave too.

Most other jurisdictions in the United States have been very negative towards the actions of the
EP. On the other hand, we have Ukrainian Nationalists who are very anti-Russian, and very
supportive of what the EP is doing.

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is very supportive of the stance taken by the
Moscow Patriarchate, and I have not seen much evidence of dissenting opinions on the matter.
And this is certainly not because ROCOR has anything against Ukraine or Ukrainians. Our
Metropolitan is a Ukrainian. My Archbishop is of Don Cossack descent. Our most important
monastery, Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, was founded by monks from the
Pochaev Lavra. We also have a large number of Ukrainians in our parishes. In my own parish I
have quite a few Ukrainian families, from various parts of Ukraine.

III. How it is Affecting Us.

In many ways this crisis has a bigger impact on those of us in the US, then it does in Russia. Of
course, those in the Ukraine are impacted the most, by far. But in Russia, you don’t have Greek
parishes around you, and so the fact that we have broken communion with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate does not disrupt fellowship with parishes in your area, but for us, this is a big issue.

I have personally spent many years working to strengthen inter-Orthodox relations in my area.
We have had a very strong clergy association, that includes all the Orthodox Churches in the
Houston area, and I was the president of that association for many years until just this last year.
Now the current head is a priest of the Greek Archdiocese, and so I cannot even attend the
meetings. In my parish I have many people who have family who attend Greek parishes, and I
have some parishioners who have moved to areas where the only parish in their area is a Greek
parish. In Texas there are two very pious Greek monasteries, and quite a few of my parishioners
have frequently visited those monasteries, and they love to go there to pray. And so this is very
painful to us, because there are many good and pious people in the Greek Archdiocese, they are
our friends, and parts of many of our families, and but now these relationships are being
disrupted.

As I mentioned, this impacts our ability to reach out to the non-Orthodox in our country. One of
the common questions I am asked by non-Orthodox people is, “What is the Orthodox Church?”
And one of my quick answers to that question has been, “You have probably heard of the Greek
Orthodox Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church… well it’s the same Church.” That’s an
answer that has been made more complicated by this mess.

IV. What is the Cause of this Crisis

203
I would like to talk about the observations made in 1938, by St. John (Maximovitch) of
Shanghai, in a report to the 2nd All-Diaspora Sobor, which was held in Yugoslavia. It is
interesting to note that what he observed then is only all the more apparent today. To summarize
the points that he made, he noted that the Ecumenical Patriarchate had been greatly diminished
as a result of the Balkan wars of liberation, and then the after affects of the Turkish Ethnic
cleansing of Greeks from Asia Minor after World War I, and that ever since that time, the EP has
been trying to make up for lost territory and lost revenue. The EP has also been trying to find
some way to make itself relevant to the rest of the world. The EP also began to take advantage of
the chaos the Bolshevik Revolution was causing, and to slice off portions of territory that had
belonged to the Russian Church – and did so, for the first time, under the pretext that the Kiev
Metropolia was really under their jurisdiction. It was also around this time the EP assumed
control of the Greek parishes in North and South America, which had been under the authority of
the Church of Greece, and to establish dioceses in Western Europe and Australia. St. John also
pointed out that during the 1920’s, the EP recognized the renovationist “Living Church” as the
legitimate Church in Russia, and entered into communion with it.

St. John closed his report with these words:

“The moral authority of the Patriarchs of Constantinople has likewise fallen very low in
view of their extreme instability in ecclesiastical matters. Thus, Patriarch Meletius IV
arranged a "Pan-Orthodox Congress," with representatives of various churches, which
decreed the introduction of the New Calendar. This decree, recognized only by a part of
the Church, introduced a frightful schism among Orthodox Christians. Patriarch Gregory
VII recognized the decree of the council of the Living Church concerning the deposing of
Patriarch Tikhon, whom not long before this the Synod of Constantinople had declared a
"confessor," and then he entered into communion with the "Renovationists" in Russia,
which continues up to now.

In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the whole universe and
in fact extending its authority only over several dioceses, and in other places having only
a higher superficial supervision and receiving certain revenues for this, persecuted by the
government at home and not supported by any governmental authority abroad: having lost
its significance as a pillar of truth and having itself become a source of division, and at
the same time being possessed by an exorbitant love of power – represents a pitiful
spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of Constantinople.”

V. Meletios Metaxakis

It is interesting to note that the “Living Church” held its first “Council” in April of 1923, and that
the Ecumenical Patriarch, Meletius Metaxakis held a so-called “Pan Orthodox Congress” in May
of 1923. Although this “Pan Orthodox Congress” issued a statement supporting Patriarch
Tikhon, its agenda was remarkably similar to that of the “Living Church.” This council was
called “Pan Orthodox” despite the fact that Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem all refused to
take part in it. In addition to the introduction of the New Calendar, they supported allowing priest
to remarry, the shortening of the fasts and the shortening of the services.

204
Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis had a very interesting career. He began as a priest of the Jerusalem
Patriarchate, but was expelled for "activities against the Holy Sepulcher." He then went to the
Church of Greece, and was even made Archbishop of Athens, but was deposed by it because of
his active participation in an Episcopal service in the United States (he was fully vested,
venerated their holy table, gave a sermon, and blessed the people). However, the Church of
Greece was pressured into lifting his deposition because he was elected Patriarch of
Constantinople. And even this election was highly questionable. Another candidate was actually
elected with 16 out of 17 votes, but he was pressured into withdrawing his candidacy, and
Meletios Metaxakis was elected instead. Not long after his election, he held this “Pan-Orthodox
Congress”. The faithful were so incensed by the decisions of that council that he was forced to
resign. He was then elected Patriarch of Alexandria, through the influence of the British, who
then occupied Egypt. In fact, at each step in his career, foreign governments used their influence
to advance him, because they knew he would favor their agenda. At the second council of the
“Living Church,” held in 1925, both Constantinople and Alexandria sent representatives and
gave their support to the “Living Church” against the canonical Church of Russia. And also,
soon after Meletios became Patriarch of Alexandria, he switched that Church to the New
Calendar as well.

And we see from recent proposals of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that they have very much the
same agenda as the Living Church even today. However, today, they make the Living Church
look Traditional by comparison.

In the United States and in the English-speaking Orthodox world generally, we hear many voices
from within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which are supporting homosexuality, openly. The
Archons have helped fund an Orthodox institute at Fordham University. The heads of this
institute have used this platform to launch a website called “Public Orthodoxy” which regularly
promotes homosexuality and other forms of deviancy. And it is not bad enough that they publish
this material in English, but they now translate their articles into Russian, Greek, and Serbian.
And they do this without the slightest hint of any rebuke from the Greek Archdiocese of
America. In fact, whenever they have a big event, Archbishop Demetrios of New York is usually
present, adding his authority to that event.

For example, one of the heads of this institute, Aristotle Papanikolaou, in an article in another
pro-homosexual journal, The Wheel, wrote that expecting people who suffer from same-sex
attraction to remain celibate is “unrealistic” and unhealthy, and that such desires should best be
expressed in the context of “long-term committed relationships or marriages” (The Wheel 13/14,
Spring/Summer 2018, p. 97 [emphasis added]. See also "Unitarian Morality With a Little
"Theosis" Sprinkled on Top," "The Living Church 2.0," and "Cultural Marxism and Public
Orthodoxy").

Patriarch Bartholomew’s Archdeacon, Fr. John Chryssavgis, has made a number of pro-
homosexual statements. For example, he wrote a review of a book that was a simple piece of
pro-homosexual propaganda written by a homosexual Episcopal priest, and he gushed with
praise for what a great contribution this book was to the important “dialogue” on homosexuality.
The only slight criticism he made of this book was to say that he remained “unconvinced” by
some of the book’s arguments that the Scriptures support homosexuality. This is from a man who

205
has no difficulty expressing his disagreement, in eloquent and striking terms… when he wishes
to.

Many of you are aware of the call that was made to “Metropolitan” Epifany, by a Russian
prankster, who pretend to be western diplomat, and congratulated him on the “autocephaly” of
the Church in Ukraine, but expressed his hope that the Epifany would take a different stand on
homosexuality than the conservative one taken by the Russian Church. Epifany assured him that
he would not take such a conservative stand against homosexuality.

And what I have noticed, in the English-speaking Orthodox world at least, is that those who
promote the acceptance of homosexuality in the Orthodox Church have all lined up behind the
EP’s actions in Ukraine.

One other agenda item that I think is clearly behind the EP’s actions in Ukraine is the goal of
union with Rome. We already see the schismatics in Ukraine concelebrating with Uniates with
increasing frequency. One thing that is certain is that Patriarch Bartholomew’s actions in Ukraine
make no sense, if he intends to remain in the Orthodox Church.

Furthermore, there are very strong indications that the United States State Department has had
some role in pushing for these actions, but to what extent, or in what form this pressure was
applied, we do not yet know.

VI. Where We Seem to be Headed

It does not appear to me to be at all likely that Patriarch Bartholomew will change course. The
best-case scenario, that might yet minimize the damage to the Orthodox Church would require a
very swift and strong stances taken by the other local Orthodox Churches, leading not just to a
call for a Pan-Orthodox Council, but to actually holding one, which would formally condemn the
EP’s actions. This would have the best chance of forcing the EP to back down from the positions
he has taken on Ukraine – but it seems unlikely that he would do so, even then.

If this schism becomes a permanent one, I believe we will see further divisions in other local
Churches that will ostensibly be about the schism in Ukraine, but will really be driven by
divisions over the moral issues that are really behind the EP’s agenda. I think that the Russian
Church Abroad, Antioch, and the Serbian Patriarchate will all remain firm. However, I think the
Greek Archdiocese in America and the Orthodox Church in America will likely see a split.

Most of the Greek Archdiocese will probably remain with the Ecumenical Patriarch, because of
the financial costs that would come with opposing him. However, there are very Traditional and
conservative people in the Greek Archdiocese that will place fidelity to the Tradition over any
financial considerations they may have to face.

I think most of the Orthodox Church in America will likely stand with the rest of the Church, but
they do have a liberal faction that will likely side with the EP.

206
I hope that I am wrong, and that this whole question is resolved in the right way soon, and we are
all united in the Faith at the end of the day.

I would note in closing that I believe it was providential that the New Calendar Patriarch of
Constantinople chose the Old Calendar Feast of St. Maximus the Confessor for the enthronement
of the schismatic “Metropolitan of Kiev” – who at least for the time being, observes the Old
Calendar. St. Maximus stood firm against a heresy that was motivated by purely political
purposes, which was aimed at uniting the Empire with one faith and one Church, but had little
concern for the Truth of the Orthodox Faith, and so attempted to compromise that Faith. St.
Maximus went to the west, participated in councils that condemned what the Patriarch of
Constantinople was doing, and then when he was captured by the emperor, and brought back to
Constantinople, he was threatened in every way imaginable to try to force him to accept entering
into communion with the heretical Patriarch of Constantinople. They even lied to him, and tried
to convince him that all of the Church had now accepted the compromised teachings of the EP,
and had entered into communion with Constantinople again. St. Maximus replied:

“Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate
with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares
that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel,
introducing some new teaching.”

And

"…This is the reason why I, your servant, will not enter into communion with the Church
of Constantinople. Let these offenses, introduced by the aforementioned men into the
Church, be removed; let those who have introduced them be deposed; and then the path to
salvation will be cleared of all barriers, and you will walk on the smooth path of the
Gospel, cleansed of all heresy! When I see the Church of Constantinople as she was
formerly, then I will enter into communion with her without any exhortation on the part of
men. But while there are heretical temptations in her, and while heretics are her bishops,
no word or deed will convince me ever to enter into communion with her."

Fortunately, we see many people in Ukraine who like St. Maximus, are willing to suffer the loss
of property, and are even being beaten for their Faith. St. Maximus was beaten, and had his
tongue cut out, and his right hand cut off to silence him. But when the Sixth Ecumenical Council
was convened, it was St. Maximus who was affirmed, and all those who opposed him who were
condemned by the Church. So I pray that the Church in Ukraine will stand firm for the Faith,
because that is the treasure that I want to preserve, and that I want to pass on to others in the
United States.

I also want to thank you, the faithful in Russia, for having stood firm for the Faith in your
country, and to thank your ancestors for having brought that Faith to United States so that people
like me could come to know that Faith as well.

Fr. John Whiteford's Commentary and Reflections

207
Archpriest John Whiteford

3/27/2019

“They Will Suffer a Shameful End”: How St.

Laurence of Chernigov (1868-1950) Foretold
the End of the Current Reign of Satan in
Washington, Kiev and Istanbul
St. Laurence of Chernigov

St
Laurence of Chernigov. Photo: miloserdie.ru
    

208
Foreword

There are those so deluded by secularism, the ways of the world, that they believe that to solve
the present crisis in the Ukraine, caused by the love of power and money of Greek politicians in
Istanbul, all we have to do is to come to a compromise. They present the crisis as a political
disagreement between Constantinople and Moscow, or even an ethnic dispute between Greeks
and Slavs, or that it was caused by Moscow’s refusal to attend the 2016 meeting in Crete (which,
they forget to mention, was in fact caused by the refusal of three Non-Slav Churches to attend a
dictatorial meeting).

These people, some Anglicans among them, see Church life as a continual compromise. Not
really believing, because it is all an intellectual game for them, they forget that in dogmatic
matters, that is, in matters of principle concerning the salvation of the soul, no compromise is
possible. There can never be any compromise between Good and Evil, Truth and the Lie, White
and Black, Light and Darkness, God and Satan. Today there is only one choice, the way of the
Russian Church or else the Lie. All who have a conscience must decide.

St. Laurence’s Prophecies

St. Laurence of Chernigov (Feast: 11 January) said that during ‘the little freedom’ (which we
now know to be the period since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and which continues to this
day – Ed.), ‘churches and monasteries will open and be restored, but all manner of false
teachings will appear, through demons and secret atheists (Catholics, Uniats, self-consecrated
Ukrainian schismatics). These will join battle against the Russian Orthodox Church and her unity
and catholicity in the Ukraine. The schismatics will be supported by an atheist government’
(Washington – Ed.).

He added that: ‘We must resist the invasion of ‘the civilized world’, that is, dark demonic forces,
which will try and penetrate into spiritually undefended areas. They will seize church buildings
from the Orthodox and beat up the faithful. Then the Metropolitan of Kiev (unworthy of his
name) with his supporting clergy will shake the Russian Church to the foundations. The whole
world will be astonished at his iniquity and stand in fear (just as we do today – Ed.). But he will
go to eternal perdition like Judas. All these assaults of the evil one and false teachings will
disappear in Russia and there will be One Orthodox Church of All Rus’.

209
 St Laurence of Chernigov. Photo: wikipedia
‘Kiev, without the great Russia and separate from it, is anyway completely unthinkable. Kiev has
never had a Patriarch. Our enemies in Poland so much disliked the word ‘Rus’ that they changed
the name of this area to Little Russia and then to ‘the Ukraine’ (meaning ‘the borderlands’), so
that we will forget the name Rus and so forever be torn away from Orthodox Holy Rus. In those
who have erred or fallen away from Orthodoxy there is no grace of the Holy Spirit, salvation or
obtaining of the Kingdom of Heaven’.

‘To break away from the Church is the greatest and unforgiveable sin, for it is the sin against the
Holy Spirit’. Towards the end of St. Laurence’s life the head priest of the Kiev Caves Lavra, Fr
Kronid, said that self-consecrated schismatics and Uniats had disappeared. But St. Laurence
answered: ‘The demon will enter them and they will attack the Orthodox Faith and Church with
Satanic malice, but they will suffer a shameful end and their followers will bear a heavenly
punishment from the Lord and King of Hosts’.

‘Then all heresies and schisms will vanish from Russia. The Church will not be persecuted. The
Lord will have mercy on Holy Rus because it suffered the terrible period before Antichrist. A
great host of Martyrs and Confessors shone forth there, beginning with the highest levels of the
clergy and society, the Metropolitan and the Tsar, the priest and the monk, the child and the babe
in arms and laypeople. They all beseech the Lord…’.

‘You must be quite clear that Russia is the portion of the Queen of Heaven, She cares for it and
intercedes for it especially. The whole host of Russian saints with the Mother of God will ask

210
that Russia be spared. The faith will prosper in Russia and there will be rejoicing as before
(though only for a short time, as the Dread Judge will come to judge the living and the dead).
Even Antichrist himself will fear the Tsar of Rus. But all the other countries will be under
Antichrist’s control and suffer all the horrors and torments described in the Holy Scriptures’.

St. Laurence of Chernigov

Orthodox England

2/4/2019

Greco-Protestantism
Alexander Shchipkov

Martin
Luther and the heroes of the Reformation
    

The threat of secular reformation is hanging over Orthodoxy. We have written about this more
than once, but just a few years ago we could not have supposed that through the efforts of the

211
Constantinople Patriarchate this threat would take on a completely new form, the form of Greco-
Protestantism,1 about which we will speak more particularly below.

The Russian Orthodox Church is at the moment not being accused of servility and phytelitsm,2
since against the background of the Ukrainian government’s interference in church life such
accusations simply pale. Nevertheless, the general traits of many statements now coming from
ideologists of religious reformation are the same as before—proposals to reorganize the entire
church structure. Moreover the Church’s many centuries of conciliar experience and rule by
canon law is being edited out, without so much as a parenthetical reference.

It is quite explainable that the reaction to these new challenges is not only the sobering up and
concentration of the healthy majority in the Church, but also a vigorous reanimation among the
liberal Orthodox subculture, which always correlates precisely with external political events. The
church liberals’ initiatives are in submission to one goal—the direct or indirect support of the
Constantinople Patriarchate in its efforts to transform Orthodoxy into a kind of post-modern
ideology.

Today this is one of the most interesting questions: Against the background of the watershed
events of a new schism, how is liberal-Orthodox thought developing inside Russia? Telling in
this sense is the compilation-article by Leonid Sevastianov, “Orthodox Blockchain” (published
autumn 2018), in which the author sums up the more frequently appearing ideas of liberal
Orthodox society.

If we were to define the thesis of the article’s content, it would be the following: Orthodoxy
should be built according to a general principle that is being obstructed by the ecclesiastical
“vertical authority”. Sevastianov uses the term, “blockchain”, by which he tries to describe a
“model of self-organization of society, which is not ruled from above but rather spreads
responsibility and decision making among its members.” For those unfamiliar with the term,
blockchain is what they call a public database with information on the transfer of money from
one addressee to another. Every church community that belongs to the so-called Orthodox
blockchain is, in the author’s mind, an independent Church, and all together they make up one
Church, the center of which is continually moving around along a chain from one block to
another. Sevastianov states with pleasure that this proposed model guarantees that schisms would
be impossible. And that is true, because this model they are proposing is permanent schism. In
fact this is what we have seen over the past four hundred years in Protestantism, where schism is
a norm of existence.

The author further proposes introducing an elective episcopate as soon as possible, and
reformatting the Church as a “confederation of free communities” (this term was coined by
Stanislav Belkovsky ten years ago), inasmuch as the “center of spiritual life is not in the bishop,
who is the same member of society as any layperson, but in the parishes, monasteries, and
evangelical groups.”

Sevastianov doesn’t even mention the institution of patriarchy as an historical phenomenon,

since for him it so obviously has no place in this model. The figure of the Patriarch is erased

212
from Sevastianov’s imaginary picture of the ecclesiastical world. This is logical, because in the
Protestant way of thinking the institution of patriarchy does not exist.

The alluring epithets, “confederation”, “self-sufficient spiritual centers”, and “blockchain” do not
change the essence of this phenomenon. Looking at the example of modern Protestants it is very
clear how a movement in this direction will end. The number of “churches” will multiply, each
one with its own rules and isolated from the others. The parishioners’ freedom within such a
community is often very limited. Meanwhile we see unlimited, arbitrary reformations of
Christian dogma. Some Protestant movements are even demanding that people do away with the
“totalitarian concept of sin”, or the “personality cult” of Christ.

Alexander Shchipkov
For the Orthodox ecclesiastical space, schism is a sickness that we simply cannot pronounce as
the norm. In modern Orthodoxy, schism often arises in the form of a quasi-church, a structural
imitation of churchliness according to the model of a “church” within the Church. Such a schism
is often initiated from without, as in the case of the false “legitimatization” of the schismatic
structures of the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kiev Patriarchate” and the “Ukrainian
Autocephalous Church”. The main initiators and profiteers of such processes are always
secularist centers of power. If we were to liquidate the Church hierarchy, which is what
Sevastianov and other representatives of the liberal Orthodox establishment are basically
proposing, then its place will immediately be occupied by a certain political “vertical power” that
will take advantage of the situation for the sake of its own interests, which is what we are seeing
today in Ukraine.

213
The ideal church life for the liberal Orthodox is a state of slow-burning schism and chaos.
Because the state of chaos-making in Orthodox space makes it easier to force a change in
religious identity.

The liberal Orthodox in and of themselves are a particular form of inner schism. Essentially
having already separated themselves from the Church, they are in no hurry to leave it. Their main
aim is not to create their own space or their own community, but to corrupt another space,
another community; to deprive others of this space who think differently from them. In other
words, to clear out the Orthodox territory and Protestantize it, preserving the outward ritual form
of Eastern Christianity. That is, to create a new type of “spiritual unia” with Protestantism—
Greco-Protestantism. And as a battering ram they are using an infirm, weak-willed man—
Patriarch Bartholomew (Archondinis).

The schism in Ukraine will inevitably hasten the formation of the Greco-Protestant ideology, and
then there will be a push for the creation of an analogous structure in Russia. This is part of one
whole process.

Therefore, today the theoreticians of liberal Orthodoxy are not only working out the concept of
the liberalization (in other words, Protestantization) of Orthodoxy, but are already thinking about
who will make it happen, and on what social strata they will rely. We can view the institution of
“active parishioners” (derived from the idea of “active citizens” from the era of the Moscow
revolution of 2012) as a platform for the final stage of the Church’s dechristianization and
Protestantization.

In upcoming years, the Greco-Protestant doctrine will be studied and outlined in detail by
theologians and philosophers. We are at the very beginning of this road, but as the author of this
term, I will already now allow myself to distinguish the four main parts of it.

Rejection of apostolic succession. Patriarch Bartholomew has clearly demonstrated this by

receiving into Church communion men having no canonical ordination. Apostolic succession
becomes a matter of indifference to adherents of Greco-Protestantism, just as it became a matter
of indifference to the Catholic monk Martin Luther in his day.

The “blockchain” structure of the church, organized, as the adherents of Greco-Protestantism

assert, according to the principle of a “confederation of free community associations.” The
Church will be forced to have elections of bishops, and then of clergy, who will turn it into a
friable, amorphous medium without any spiritual unity, composed of a multitude of
“denominations”, “wings”, “movements”, etc.

The renunciation of patriarchy for Local Churches with the temporary preservation of patriarchy
in Constantinople itself, which will serve as the “motor” for these transformations—until the
time comes.

Ethnophyletism. That is, structuring the Orthodox Churches along the lines of a national
principle, and transferring their allegiance to their ethnocrats. There is an idea being propagated
that every country should have its own national Orthodox Church.

214
The formation of Greco-Protestantism and transformation of the religious space will meet with
resistance from the Church’s majority—the supporters of traditional Orthodoxy founded upon
the following of canons and the principles of apostolic succession, and on the preservation of
Church hierarchy. The hierarchy of the clergy is both a tradition and a symbol, and at the same
time, the condition for preserving the Church.

The Church is an image of heaven on earth. That means that the Church hierarchy reflects the
heavenly hierarchy, and Church conciliarity (“communality”) has its prototype in the
indivisibility and freedom of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The Church consists of many
communities and forms the one Body of Christ, and freedom within the Church cannot exist
without the hierarchy of clergy. Freedom and communality are not negated by hierarchy, but to
the contrary are strengthened by it. In part, the hierarchy defends the church space from being
swallowed up by external political powers, the “secular vertical”, and “secular Leviathans”.

At the moment we can observe how these power centers are applying repressive measures
against the Apostolic Church in Ukraine. In order to stand up against similar repressions, the
Church needs a hierarchy. Symbolism and tradition here go hand in hand with historical
pragmatism.

It is on this very path that the Church will escape the apostasy connected with the sickness of
Greco-Protestantism, and preserve and multiply is spiritual influence.

Alexander Shchipkov is a political philosopher, and first Vice Chairman of the Synodal
department of the Russian Orthodox Church for Church interrelations with society and media.

Alexander Shchipkov
Translation by OrthoChristian.com

Parliament News

2/2/2019

What is the Price of “Unity”?

Fr. James Rosselli

The Ecumenical Patriarch's actions in Ukraine have prompted calls for a Synaxis. Patriarch
Bartholomew's refusal to convene one has prompted some to suggest suspension, hopefully
temporary, of communion with the CP, and an appeal to Alexandria, the next in line, to convene
the meeting. There is hesitation, based on concern for unity. In response, many are beginning to
ask…

215
    

What is the price of unity?

Concerns about suspending communion, even temporarily and for a constructive purpose, are
well-founded. St. John Chrysostom himself tells us, “Nothing so provokes God's anger as the
division of the Church.” Immediately before that, however, he clarifies who the dividers are:
“Nothing will so avail to divide the Church as love of power.” 1 The Fathers further make it clear
that those who join with schismatics become schismatics themselves.2

A key tactic of the Left is to create division and then to accuse those who object of
“divisiveness.” The tactic began to be employed against ecclesiastical institutions in the 1970’s,
and by the 1990’s every one of the hitherto strong moral and doctrinal positions of the “mainline
churches” had been overthrown. The new “Religious Left,” gaining control of the seminaries and
denominational institutions, silenced their opposition—even their highest-ranking opposition—
by invoking “church unity.” They then leveraged their positions to impose their agendas through
the sheer exercise of power.

Now similar guns are aimed at us.

Again, St. John Chrysostom, from the same homily:

216
 Yea, though we have achieved ten thousand glorious acts, yet shall we, if we cut to pieces
the fullness of the Church, suffer punishment no less sore than they who mangled His
body.

The Local Churches’ response to the CP’s schismatics has been uncompromising:

Archbishop Theodosius of Boyarka fears a split into Orthodoxy and “Phanarodoxy;” 2

Antioch’s Patriarch John X admonished, “It is unreasonable to end a schism at the expense of the
unity of the Orthodox world,” 3 stressing the need for a Synaxis.

Dr. Alexander Shchipkov, professor of philosophy at Moscow State University, proposes an

“inter-Orthodox ecclesiastical court” to “make judgments about the anti-canonical actions and
heretical ideas of Patriarch Bartholomew.” 4

Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro has stated, “Constantinople’s lust for power is

catastrophic for Orthodoxy.” 5

Archbishop Jovan of Ohrid has called for a Council.6

Finally, Metropolitan Danil of Vididn, Bulgaria, declined to attend the Ukrainian “Unity
Council” by quoting from Psalm 1: “Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of
the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the pestilent. But his will is
rather in the law of the Lord, and on His law will he meditate day and night.” 7

Concerns about “encouraging disunity” appear to be waning: if someone leaves the room, those
who point out that he has left are not the ones who have departed;

Calls for a Synaxis are virtually unanimous among the Local Churches. Calls are not actions,
however, and so far Bartholomew has simply ignored them. Pragmatically, this makes sense:
every day that goes by solidifies his position.

Suspending communion with Constantinople would clear the way for a Synaxis. It’s a step
nobody wants to take, but It would seem the time has come to consider the cost of not taking it.

Fr, James is Rector of St. Joseph of Arimathea Orthodox Church and House of Prayer, a
Western Rite ministry of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. His opinions are his
own.

Fr. James Rosselli

1/29/2019

The Heresy of Constantinople Papism

217
Priest George Maximov

Priest George Maximov   

Intrusion into Ukraine

The decision of Constantinople patriarch Bartholomew to intrude in Ukraine has caused huge
upheavals in the entire Orthodox Church, and they haven’t ceased for many months now. The
Orthodox of various countries are looking on in perplexity and horror as the primate of a
respected Church suddenly proclaims as his own canonical territory what has for over 300 years
been accepted by everyone without exception as part of another Local Church, and pronounces
those whom the entire Orthodox Church has unanimously recognized as schismatics to be part of
the canonical Church—at the same time threatening to pronounce as schismatics those who have
been abiding in Eucharistic unity with all the Local Churches.

Meanwhile, Patriarch Bartholomew as if doesn’t notice that his actions have set a flywheel in
motion of government persecutions against the canonical Church of Ukraine. After all, the
“received tomos” is one of the main points in the pre-election program of the current Ukrainian
president, who wants to be elected for a second term this spring. So now the hierarchs of the
canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church are being called to the carpet by secular officials who
hand them letters from the Constantinople patriarch; priests are being taken in for “prophylactic
talks” to the special services—the Ukrainian successor to the KGB—and monastics are being
threatened with eviction from their monasteries.

218
Patriarch Bartholomew calls his actions “granting autocephaly to Ukraine,” but at the same time
two thirds of the Ukrainian Orthodox are parishioners of a Church that never asked him for
autocephaly and refuses to accept it. Probably for the first time in history we are seeing a forced
“granting of autocephaly”, which gives us pause to think about many things.

Over the recent months, many articles and speeches have appeared from Local Churches
criticizing the actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate. There have also been apologetic
articles written by Constinople’s representatives, and the ensuing polemic basically plunges the
reader into the thickets of history, where he is offered various interpretations of one or another
combination of words from seventeenth century texts. These themes are undoubtedly also
important, but we can imagine that it is much more important to look at what is happening in the
broader context and understand what caused the current upheavals. For this we need to answer
two questions.

The first question:

Are the current actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Ukraine something

unprecedented?

Patriarch Meletius IV (Metaxakis). Alas, no. The

same invasion took place in Estonia in 1996, when Patriarch Bartholomew received those
schismatics into communion. We will say right off that it would have been a mistake to look for
an explanation of this action in the personality of this specific patriarch, because his predecessors

219
made similar actions in the early 1920s, from the time of the ill-famed Patriarch Meletius IV
(Metataksis). In 1923 he took over the parishes of the Russian Church in Finland and Estonia,
subjecting them to his jurisdiction, and the next year his tore the diocese in Poland from the
Russian Orthodox Church, self-willfully declaring it “autocephalous”. In 1936, the
Constantinople patriarch proclaimed his jurisdiction in Latvia, five years earlier, against the will
of the Russian Orthodox Church, included the Russian émigré parishes of Western Europe,
turning them into his own exarchate (recently dissolved by Patriarch Bartholomew).

We can’t help but note that these acts of intrusion and capture were perpetrated right during the
time when the Orthodox Church in Russia was literally bleeding, enduring unprecedented
persecutions from a godless regime. If the Communists confiscated churches and monasteries of
the Russian Orthodox Church within the USSR, then the Constantinople Patriarch was doing this
beyond its borders.

But it would be wrong to say that similar actions have only been taken against the Russian
Orthodox Church. In the 1920s, the Constantinople Patriarchate obtained from the Greek Church
its cessation of ecclesiastical presence in the U.S. and Australia, in 1986 it manage to dissolve
and swallow up the Alexandrian Church’s American exarchate, and very recently, in 2008,
Patriarch Bartholomew forced the Jerusalem Church to give up its parishes in the U.S. and
transfer them to the Constantinople jurisdiction.

These actions did not always end in victory for Constintinople. For example, in 1931,
Constantinople Patriarch Photius II tried unsuccessfully to transfer the Serbian parishes outside
of Serbia to his jurisdiction. He wrote to Patriarch Barnabas: “All the Church communities
located in the diaspora and outside the borders of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches,
regardless of nationality, should be ecclesiastically subject to our Most Holy Patriarchal Throne.”
But the Serbian Church did not give in to this demand, nor did the Romanian Church.

If in the twentieth century the efforts of the Constantinople Patriarchs were mainly concentrated
on subjecting the Orthodox diaspora to itself, then in the twenty-first century their expansion has
reached into the territory of the autocephalous Churches themselves.

In speaking about criticism of their actions in the Ukrainian question, Patriarch Bartholomew
recently tried to explain it away through national differences—so to say, it’s all a matter of: “Our
Slavic brothers cannot endure the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of our nation in
Orthodoxy.” This remark in and of itself racist, which falls under the category of the heresy of
ethnophyletism, was calculated to gain support in Greek society. It is a sort of attempt to play on
the Greeks’ feeling of national solidarity. However, it by no means reflects the real situation,
because the Constantinople Patriarchate acted no less cruelly with regard to the other Greek
Churches than it has with the Russian Church.

For example, in 2003 Patriarch Bartholomew suddenly demanded that the Greek Orthodox
Church transfer to his control thirty-six dioceses in the so-called “new territories” of Greece—at
least regarding the appointment of bishops to these cathedras. The Synod of the Greek Church
refused to submit, and its primate at that time, Archbishop Chrystodoulos of Athens, said that

220
submitting to that demand would discredit the very fact of the Greek Orthodox Church’s
autocephaly.

After new bishops were chosen without his consent, on April 30, 2004 Patriarch Bartholomew
announced a break in Eucharistic communion between the Constantinople Church and the Greek
Church. When the Russian Church recently broke communion with Constantinople as a protest
and extreme measure against Constantinople’s unlawful intrusion into Moscow’s canonical
territory, many criticized this decision as too harsh. However the Constantinople Patriarchate
itself used the same measure to pressure another, likewise Greek, Local Church.

The Greek Church was unable to withstand this pressure and in the end submitted, giving over
the “new territories” to the rule of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Did this happen because the
Greek Church’s hierarchs were convinced of Patriarch Bartholomew’s correctness? No! The
Greek Church called its decision an “act of sacrifice for the sake of peace in the Church.”

But did this sacrifice truly preserve peace? Alas, no. Even the historical facts cited above show
that the sacrificial acts and concessions by various Churches did not appease but rather whetted
Constantinople’s appetite even more and encouraged it to launch new raids.

And now, after its intrusion into the canonical territory of the Greek Church, an even larger-scale
and more outrageous intrusion has taken place on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox
Church, namely on the autonomous Ukrainian Church. And what if the Russian Church were to
respond in this conflict as the Greek Church ultimately did? Would it appease the Constantinople
patriarch’s appetite, and could we expect that no more Churches will be subjected to such
violations from it? Will it all end after Ukraine?

Alas, no. Patriarch Bartholomew has already announced that he is getting ready to do the same
thing in Macedonia, which is the canonical territory of the Serbian Orthodox Church. From the
start, the “Ukrainian” and “Macedonian” questions were reviewed together.

On April 9, 2018, Patriarch Bartholomew met with Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, and
on April 10 with Macedonian president George Ivanov. Both presidents asked that canonical
status be granted to the schismatic groups of their respective countries. And both presidents came
away from their meetings with the patriarch optimistic about the future.

On May 30, the Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate took up a “review of the status” of the
schismatic “Macedonian Orthodox Church”, which, just like the Ukrainian schismatics, sent a
request for recognition. On June 11, Patriarch Bartholomew publicly announced: “When the
Mother Church seeks the path of salvation of our brothers from Ukraine and Skopje, it is
fulfilling its apostolic duty. It is our obligation and responsibility to bring these peoples back to
ecclesiastical rightness and canonical order.”

All of these steps point to the fact that Constantinople proposed a dual intrusion into Ukraine and
Macedonia with recognition of their schismatics contrary to the will of the Local Churches,
whose canonical territories those lands are. However, judging by everything going on, precisely
the Russian Orthodox Church’s tough position regarding the intrusion into Ukraine, as well as

221
the obvious displeasure on the part of other Local Churches have forced Patriarch Bartholomew
to set aside his intrusion into the territory of the Serbian Church. He decided to return to the
already proven tactic of breaking the Local Churches one at a time. But without a doubt, if world
Orthodoxy resigns itself to the lawlessness perpetrated in Ukraine, then Macedonia will be next.

But will Macedonia be the last intrusion? This is a rhetorical question, for the answer is clear.
Not a single Local Church is insured against intrusion from Constantinople. And even if there is
no base assumption to this, for example in Romania or Bulgaria, then when the situation changes
and the occasion arises, Patriarch Bartholomew or his successors will no doubt take advantage of
it.

After Serbia, the very likely candidate for intrusion is the canonical territory of the Georgian
Orthodox Church due to the complex situation in Abhazia, where there already are schismatics
fighting for the resolution to the local ecclesiastical question by addressing it to the
Constantinople Patriarchate. They proclaimed themselves the “Holy Metropolia of Abhazia” and
in 2012 had already visited Patriarch Bartholomew, turning to him again in 2016 with a request
for “the resolution of the Abhazian church problems.”

Within the current geopolitical conditions an intrusion is not likely, but if the situation changes in
the future, then undoubtedly it will happen and nothing will hinder the Constantinople patriarch
from again announcing that he is “fulfilling his apostolic duty” to “save our brothers” in
Abhazia.

“A new ecclesiological concept”

222
 Synaxis of the Constantinople Patriarchate.     

Now let us go on to the second question: What stands behind these actions of the Constantinople
patriarchs? Why do they consider that they have the right to takeover, and what aims are they
pursuing? To answer this question we do not need to rely on conspiracy theories or guessing
games. It is sufficient for us to pay attention to words that were publicly pronounced.

Behind all the expansions mentioned above, as well as many others that we have not even
mentioned, and in order not to drag this article out longer than needed, stands a particular
ecclesiological teaching on the exclusive position of the Constantinople patriarch in the
Orthodox Church.

In early September, at the Synaxis of bishops of the Constantinople Patriarchate, Patriarch

Bartholomew announced that “for Orthodoxy the Ecumenical Patriarchate serves as a leaven that
leavens the whole lump (Gal. 5:9) of the Church and history... The beginning of the Orthodox
Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in it is life, and this life is the light of the Church”...
“Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate... the Ecumenical Patriarch as the
head of Orthodox Body... If the Ecumenical Patriarchate... leaves the inter-Orthodox scene, the
Local Churches will become like ‘sheep having no shepherd’” (Mt. 9:36).

These remarks can be supplemented by remarks made by other representatives of the

Constantinople Patriarchate. For example, the words of Metropolitan Amphilochius of
Adrianopolis: “What would the Orthodox Church be without the Ecumenical Patriarchate? A
form of Protestantism... It is unimaginable that some Local Church... should break communion

223
with [with the Ecumenical Patriarchate], because the canonicity of its existence comes from it
[the Ecumenical Patriarchate].”1

And here are the words of Protopresbyter George Tsetis: “The Constantinople patriarch, whether
someone likes it or not, is the Primate of Orthodoxy, the visible sign of its Unity and the
guarantee of the normally functioning institution that we call the ‘Orthodox Church.’”[2]

As we see, the matter has gone very far. If it all began with the assertion that all the Churches in
the diaspora should be in submission to him, now it has reached a point where the
Constantinople patriarch, as it turns out, is the primate of all Orthodoxy, the head of the
Orthodox Body; all the bishops of all the Churches are subject to his judgment, and the primates
of all the other Local Churches are like sheep to their shepherd. And without him, the Orthodox
Church would not even be Orthodox.

Is this what everyone, always and everywhere has believed? Don’t these statements shock
anyone who is even a little acquainted with Church history? As we know, even claims to
exclusive primacy by the bishop of Rome were rejected as heresy by the Orthodox world, but the
bishops of Constantinople have even less grounds for such claims—if only because before the
fourth century, Constantinople didn’t exist. Who at that time was the source, leaven, life and
light of the Church? The Church did just fine without the Constantinople Patriarchate during one
of the most glorious periods of its history. And after the creation of the Constantinople See, as
everyone knows, there were heretics seated there many times. It would be no mistake to say that
in the history of the Constantinople throne, heretics occupied it more often than any other ancient
patriarchal see. And these periods stretched on for years, even decades. How, after this, can
anyone say that Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate and that all the
other Churches receive their canonicity from it? In those times it was precisely the opposite—
canonicity and belonging to Orthodoxy was determined by the break in communion with the
Constantinople throne (and the preservation of purity of faith, of course).

As it is not hard to see, we have to do with a new, false teaching being preached by the
Constantinople Patriarchate. This teaching is the very source, and at the same time, theoretical
basis for all his anti-canonical intrusions over the past 100 years, beginning with Finland and
ending with Ukraine.

Any new false teaching that arose in the Church has met opposition and criticism—and this is
how it is with the teaching we are talking about.

Back in 1924, the holy confessor Patriarch Tikhon wrote to Constantinople patriarch Gregorios
VII: “We are not a little disturbed and surprised that... the head of the Constantinople Church,
without any prior communication with us as the lawful representative and Head of the whole
Russian Orthodox Church, is meddling in the internal life and affairs of the Autocephalous
Russian Church. The Holy Councils (see canons 2 and 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council and
others) recognized only the primacy of honor of the bishop of Constantinople, but did not nor
does recognize primacy of authority.”

224
This was said in response to the Constantinople patriarch’s recognition of the schismatic-
renovationists supported by the Communist regime, and that he called for Patriarch Tikhon to
step down and revoke the establishment of patriarchy in the Russian Church.

St. John (Maximovitch) also noted in 1938 that the appearance of this false teaching coincided in
time with the Constantinople Patriarchate’s loss of almost its entire flock on its own canonical
territory as a result of the wars at the beginning of the twentieth century. Thus, the
Constantinople patriarchs decided to compensate for this loss at the expense of expansion into
other Churches.

In the words of St. John, “the Ecumenical Patriarchate wanted to compensate for the loss of the
dioceses that went out from under its possession, as well as the loss of its own political
significance within the boundaries of Turkey, in regions were there had never been an Orthodox
hierarchy up till this time, as well as the Churches of those states where the government is not
Orthodox... At that time there was a subjection of separate parts of the Russian Orthodox Church
that found themselves cut off from Russia... Limitlessly expanding its craving to subject the
Russian regions to itself, the Constantinople patriarchs even began making statements that the
joining of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate was unlawful... The next step for the Ecumenical
Patriarchate would be to announce that all of Russia is under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.”

But in fact, as St. John says, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate... having lost its meaning as the Pillar
of Truth and itself become the source of division, at the same time seized with exorbitant love of
power, presents itself as a pitiful sight that reminds us of the worst days in the history of the
Constantinople See.”[3]

225
 Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov). The disciple
of St. Siluoan of Mt. Athos, Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), spoke even more specifically
about this problem. In 1950 he wrote:

At the present time, in the bowels of our Holy Church, a great danger has appeared that
threatens to pervert the dogmatic teaching on it... You ask: In what is this distortion now
seen? We reply: In Constantinopolitan neopapism, which is trying to move quickly from
the theoretical phase into the practical...

[Adherents of this teaching] at first accepted that Constantinople has jurisdictional

rights... then they began insisting that it has the right of highest appeal in the universal
Church, forgetting that it was precisely these claims by Rome that lead to the great and
final separation of the Churches (1054)... After assuming the Roman Catholic principle of
development, they have accepted that Constantinople has exclusive rights to the entire
Orthodox diaspora in the world, and rejected this right for all the other autocephalous
Churches with respect to the diaspora... [Constantinople] thinks that other autocephalous
Churches are reduced before it: Constantinople is everything, it is the Ecumenical
[universal] Church, and all the rest are parts, which only belong to the Ecumenical
[universal] Church to the extent that they are connected with Constantinople.

What true Christians will accept this? And if, shall we suppose, due to one or another
catastrophe the First and Second Rome disappear from the face of the earth, does that
mean that the world will be left without a true connection with God, because the
connecting links with Him disappeared? No, this is a strange voice (Jn. 10:5). This is not
our Christian faith.

226
 Need we say that this form of papism is also an ecclesiastical heresy, just like Roman
papism?.. We reject any “Rome”—the First, Second, and Third—if this means the
introduction of a principle of subordination into the life of our Church. We reject any
Constantinople, Moscow, London, Paris, New York, or any other papism as an
ecclesiological heresy that distorts Christianity.[4]

Not only Russian ecclesiastical authors have written about this problem, but also authors from
other Local Churches. Thus for example, after the above-mentioned teaching of the
Constantinople Church was stated, Archpriest Radomir Popovich of the Serbian Church noted
that “this type of thinking reminds us of Rome... here they are talking not only about the bishop
of Constantinople’s primacy of honor, but about a whole package of prerogatives of exclusive
powers over the whole Orthodox world. This, unfortunately, is identical to the pretenses of the
Roman bishop, and therefore many are justifiably talking about the appearance of a new
pope.”[5]

And here are the words of one bishop of the Antiochian Church, the archbishop of Australia and
New Zealand:

In educated circles it is well known that the patriarch of Constantinople does not have the
same position in the church hierarchy of the Orthodox Church that the bishop of Rome
occupies in the Catholic church. The patriarch of Constantinople is not the Roman pope
of the East. It is also well known in educated Orthodox circles that in the past there have
been cases when the Constantinople patriarchs at Ecumenical and other Local Councils
were recognized as heretics... The Constantinople patriarch is not the voice of Orthodoxy
and cannot set the standards in Orthodoxy.[6]

Disagreement with Patriarch Bartholomew’s actions, which contradict the holy canons and sow
temptations and schisms, was expressed in a Statement by Metropolitan Seraphim of Kithyra and
Antikythera of the Greek Orthodox Church.[7]

More commentary could easily be cited here, including by representatives of other Local
Churches. But non-acceptance of the Constantinople Patriarchate’s false teaching is not limited
to the words of various hierarchs and priests—there has also been a conciliar condemnation of it.
This took place in 2008 at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. In this
special resolution is stated:

The Council expresses its deep concern regarding the tendencies... appearing in the
statements of certain representatives of the Holy Constantinople Church.

Based upon the understanding of canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council by the
indivisible fullness of the Orthodox Church, these hierarchs and theologians are
developing a new ecclesiological concept that is becoming a challenge for all-Orthodox
unity. According to this concept: a) Only the Local Church that is in communion with the
Constantinople See is considered as belonging to world Orthodoxy; b) The
Constantinople Patriarchate has the exclusive right of church jurisdiction in all the
countries of the Orthodox diaspora; c) In these countries the Constantinople Patriarchate

227
 alone represents the opinion and interests of all the Local Churches before the
government authorities; d) Any bishop or clergyman who serves outside the canonical
territory of its Local Church is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople,
even if he doesn’t recognize this himself... e) The Constantinople Patriarchate determines
the geographical boundaries of the Churches, and if his opinion does not correspond to
the opinion of one or another Church on this matter, it can institute its own jurisdiction on
the territory of that Church...

This view by the Constantinople Patriarchate of its own rights and powers enter into
insurmountable contradiction with many-centuries-old canonical traditions upon which
the existence of the Russian Orthodox Church and other Local Churches are built.”[8]

Although in this council resolution, out of economia the word “heresy” is not stated, the rejected
and condemned teaching is defined as a “new ecclesiological concept,” which marks the problem
as being in the sphere of dogma and not only canons—for ecclesiology (the teaching about the
Church) is a part of dogmatics. In 2013 the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church accepted the
document, “On the question of primacy in the Universal Church”, in which it explains why it
does not accept the Constantinople Patriarchate’s new teaching:

“In the Holy Church of Christ, primacy belongs in all things to its Head—our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ... Various forms of primacy in the Church are secondary in relation to
the eternal primacy of Christ as the Head of the Church... On the level of the Universal
Church as a community of autocephalous Local Churches, united in one family by the
common confession of faith and abiding in sacramental communion with each other,
primacy is determined in accordance with the tradition of the holy diptychs and is a
primacy of honor... The order of the diptychs has historically changed... Canon law, upon
which the holy diptychs are based, does not grant to the one in the first position any
privilege of power on the Church-wide scale... The ecclesiological distortions that ascribe
the function of rule to the hierarch in the first position... have received the name
“papism.”[9]

Also in a more recent statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church dated
September 14, 2018 are comments on the above-mentioned words from the Constantinople
patriarch: “These statements are difficult to assess in any other way than an attempt to remake
Orthodox ecclesiology according to the Roman Catholic model... in attempts to assert its power,
which does not exist and never has, over the Orthodox Church.”

All these cited quotes prove that the appearance of a new false teaching that distorts the dogma
of the Church has not gone unnoticed—individual authors as well as councils have raised their
voices to expose it.

It is very sad to admit that the ancient Constantinople See is again infected with a heresy, but this
is no longer just a suspicion—it is a committed fact that has been witnessed many times. It is this
very heresy, as we have already noted, that is motivating the Constantinople patriarchs to commit
their lawless acts aimed at solidifying their self-ascribed power over the Orthodox Church. And

228
this process will not end in Ukraine or Macedonia—after all, not every Church has given
Constantinople its diaspora parishes and agreed with its claims.

This problem cannot be solved by any diplomatic maneuvers, compromises, or attempts to come
to an agreement. All of this has been done, to no positive effect. According to the words of St.
Mark of Ephesus, “Nothing that has to do with the Church can be corrected through
compromises. There is no middle ground between Truth and falsehood.”[10]

A Pan-Orthodox Council is needed

As always in the Church, dogmatic problems are healed only by condemning heresy and heretics,
deposing them and placing Orthodox bishops on the cathedrae that had been held captive to
heretics. This path is of course painful, but it is the only way to heal the Body of the Church. But
modern events show that putting off a church decision on this problem is also by no means
painless. It is already painful for the faithful of the canonical Church in Ukraine. But they could
become the final victims if only all the Local Churches would find the will to gather for a
common conciliar condemnation of neopapism. Furthermore, any attempt at papism needs to be
condemned once and for all, so that no other Church would be tempted to fall into it in the
future; so that no one would follow in the footsteps of the first and second Rome.

A Pan-Orthodox Council should be called, which would make a sober assessment of the new
teaching, as well as its practical expression in the form of lawless intrusions upon the territory of
other Churches. Of course, Patriarch Bartholomew is not likely to visit such a Council—after all,
within the framework of his false teaching he is pushing the idea that only he can call a Pan-
Orthodox Council. Then he won’t have to face anyone’s judgment, because it’s obvious that
Patriarch Bartholomew himself will never call a Council to judge his own speeches and actions.

History contradicts this idea—not one Ecumenical Council has ever been called by the
Constantinople Patriarch; moreover, some of the Councils deposed and anathematized the
heretical bishops of that cathedra. And after the epoch of the Ecumenical Councils, the Church
also enacted its judicial power over Constantinople patriarchs. Thus, for example, after the
Ferrara-Florentine Unia in 1443 a Council was held in Jerusalem of three Eastern patriarchs, who
deposed the heretical Constantinople Patriarch Mitrophan. In those days, for many years the first
in honor in the Orthodox Church was the patriarch of Alexandria, until an Orthodox patriarch
was placed in the Constantinople cathedra.

In 2005, Patriarch Bartholomew called a Pan-Orthodox Council, at which he succeeded in

deposing Patriarch Ireneus of Jerusalem, although the accusations against him were not about
canonical violations that would have merited deposition, never mind the subsequent defrocking.
The actions and assertions of Patriarch Bartholomew himself are much more deserving of a
dispassionate review at a Pan-Orthodox Council.

And with such dispassionate review, of course it should be considered that the false teaching
propagated by the Constantinople patriarchs beginning in 1922 directly contradict the faith that
their ancient predecessors confessed on that cathedra.

229
For example, Patriarch Germanos II (1222–1240) said, “There are five patriarchates with specific
borders for each, and in recent times a schism has arisen amongst them, the beginning of which
was placed by a brazen hand having predominance and lordship in the Church. The head of the
Church is Christ, and any demand of headship is against His teaching.”[11] Unfortunately, his
modern successors have themselves decided to demand headship of the Church, apparently
considering that being under the headship of Christ is not enough for the Orthodox.

In antiquity the Constantinople patriarchs said straightforwardly that they are counteracting the
primacy of the Roman pope not because of any desire to assert their own primacy. In part,
Patriarch Nilos Kerameus (1380–1388) wrote to Pope Urban VI: “It is not fair what some are
saying of us that we desire to have primacy.”[12] The current patriarch has shamed his
predecessors, inasmuch as he has, alas, made these accusations entirely fair.

These words are from an Encyclical of four patriarchs in 1848: “The dignity [of the Roman See]
consists not in lordship and not in headship, which Peter himself never received, but in the
fraternal seniority in the universal Church and advantage given the popes for the sake of the
renown and antiquity of their city... we Orthodox have preserved the catholic [universal] Church
as the unspotted bride of her Bridegroom, although we have no secular oversight or “sacred
rule”, but are only united by the bonds of love and zeal for our common Mother, in unity of faith,
sealed with seven seals of the Spirit (Rev. 5:1); that is, the seven Ecumenical Councils, and in
obedience to the truth.”

Beneath these words is the signature of Constantinople patriarch Anthimos, who, like his ancient
predecessors, shared the same view on the question of primacy in the Church that the Russian
Orthodox Church is now expressing. And the current Constantinople Patriarchate has departed
from this faith, in fact so obviously that it openly criticizes and even calls it a heresy, as we can
see from the words of the former secretary of the Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate
Archimandrite Elipidoros (Lambriniadis), now Metropolitian of Prussia. He stated that “refusal
to accept primacy in the Orthodox Church—primacy that can only be embodied by the first
[hierarch]—is no less of a heresy.”

Even the Roman Church needed more time than this to dogmatize its teaching on the primacy of
the pope.

It is sad to acknowledge that even in the Greek Churches we have seen the rising of this heresy.
There was some opposition in the Alexandria Patriarchate in the mid twentieth century, but then
it ended. Although it would be hard to call Patriarch Bartholomew a popular figure, and in the
Greek language one can find quite a lot of criticism against him. He is accused of canonical
crimes, and of various heresies; but in the Greek language we don’t find anything accusing him
of neopapsim.

Papism in the documents of the ill-famed Council of Crete

230
    

Let’s take also the ill-famed Council of Crete, which was the cause of so many temptations and
divisions. How much criticism extremely intelligent people have aimed at it! There have even
been accusations voiced of dogmatic mistakes in it documents; but at the same time, no one
noticed the multiple metastases of the heresy of Constantinople papism that had crept into
various council documents. Although, as we are convinced, that council was called precisely in
order to have those self-ascribed privileges of the Constantinople Patriarchate recognized on the
pan-Orthodox level. Its documents are of no value for any other Local Orthodox Church, and
they did not resolve any relevant pan-Orthodox problems. However, there is much written in the
documents in favor of the Constantinople Patriarchate, and we will cite a few examples of this
below.

It is worth stipulating here that the Constantinople version of papism does not correspond one
hundred percent with the Roman version. There are some differences. For example, if in Roman
papism the figure of the pope is exalted but all other bishops are thought to be equal to each
other, then in the Constantinople version of papism, special rights and privileges extend to some
degree to the bishops of the Constantinople Church. This is written in the document accepted at
the Crete Council called, “The Orthodox Diaspora”. In section 2b is outlined the order of
procedure of bishops’ councils in non-Orthodox countries of the world, and in part it is

231
determined that “the assembly shall consist of all the bishops of every region and will proceed
under the chairmanship of the senior bishop in submission to the Constantinople Church.”

As we can see, not only the Constantinople patriarch, but also all bishops in submission to him
possess the right of primacy in relation to all the other bishops of all other Local Churches,
inasmuch as they should preside at local assemblies of Orthodox bishops of various jurisdictions.

Even the Latins didn’t think of that.

In many places in the Crete documents, the Constantinople patriarch is given power over all the
Orthodox Churches, including judicial. In part:

 “In matters of common interests and demanding... pan-Orthodox review, the chairman [of
the bishops’ assembly] shall address the Ecumenical Patriarch for further actions”
(Orthodox diaspora, 6).
 “In the course of the following pan-Orthodox discussion the Ecumenical patriarch shall
determine the unanimous consensus of Orthodox Churches” (Relationship of the
Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world, 10).
 On the territory of the Orthodox diaspora, autonomous Churches shall not be established
except in cases of pan-Orthodox agreement provided by the Ecumenical patriarch”
(Autonomy and the method of proclaiming it, 2d).
 “In case differences of opinion arise... the participating sides shall jointly or separately
address the Ecumenical patriarch, so that the latter would find a canonical solution to the
problem” (Autonomy and the method of pronouncing it, 2e).

In the Missive of the Council of Crete, it is proposed that a Holy and Great Council be instituted
as a regular institution, the Constantinople patriarch for some reason having the only right to call
it, which is something that has no basis in either the history or theology of the Orthodox Church.

However, the right to call a Pan-Orthodox Council should belong not only to the first primate in
the diptychs, but to any primate of a Local Church. Limiting this right only to the Constantinople
patriarch makes it impossible to call a council in the case of a Local Church’s claim against the
Constantinople patriarch, and in fact makes the patriarch of that Church not subject to any
judicial proceedings, which contradicts the canonical order of Orthodoxy, according to which
any bishop is subject to the judgment of a court of bishops.

Why have Greek authors passed over all of this, as well as other more outrageous expressions of
the heresy of Constantinople papism that we have cited above? Could it really be that they share
in that heresy? Or are they ready to make peace with it simply for the sake of national solidarity?
This is hard to believe; after all, the glory of the Orthodox Greek people always consisted in its
dedication to the truth, for the sake of which its best representatives were not afraid to expose the
Constantinople patriarchs who fell into heresy. Thus it was for St. Maximos the Confessor at the
time of the monothelyte patriarchs, thus it was for St. Mark of Ephesus at the time of the Ferrara-
Florentine Unia, thus is was for St. Meletius the Confessor at the time of the Lyon Unia... We
could go on. For all of these holy Greeks, faithfulness to the truth always took first place. What
has changed?

232
After all, we are not talking about “taking the side of the Russians” or the “Slavs”, but about
standing on the side of the truth. How many confessors and martyrs from among the Greek
people have suffered in order not to accept Western papism? Could it really only all have been
for their descendants to submissively accept the very same heresy, only this time wrapped in an
Eastern, Greek wrapper? May it never be!

We must talk briefly about the claims of the Constantinople patriarch to judicial authority and
arbitrage throughout the entire Orthodox Church, inasmuch as these claims are part of that same
wrapper. Of course, this article is dedicated to the dogmatic issue, and therefore we are not
discussing canonical matters, which have been sufficiently covered in other articles. In view of
the systematic violations and infringements of many canons by the Constantinople Patriarchate
we are simply taken aback when at the same time we hear the announcement that the
“Ecumenical Patriarchate bears responsibility for bringing matters into ecclesiastical an
canonical order.” And these statements are being voiced at the same time that this Patriarchate is
revoking canons altogether—for example the apostolic canon that forbids clergy from marrying
twice.

But does Constantinople have the right of appeal?

Although we can discuss many things in this regard, it would drag this article out longer than
necessary. But nevertheless, it is worth discussing one example of specific claims on judicial
powers over the whole Church. In his already mentioned recent speeches, Patriarch Bartholomew
spoke of the “unique privileges of the Constantinople Church to accept appeals from hierarchs
and clergy seeking refuge from all the Local Orthodox Churches.” And these statements are
made with reference to the ninth and seventeenth canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, as if
they bestowed that privilege on the Constantinople Patriarchate. And by this he justifies, in part,
his intrusion into Ukrainian affairs and the acceptance into communion of defrocked schismatics.

We can understand just to what extent this interpretation of the canons agrees with Church
Tradition by comparing it with the explanation of St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite in his famous
“Pedalion” (“Rudder”):

The Constantinople [Patriarchate] does not have the authority to act in dioceses and
within the boundaries of other patriarchs, and the given canon does not grant him the
right of appellate instance throughout the whole Church... Therefore, Zonara in his
explanation of the 17th canon of this Council says that Constantinople is not placed as
judge over all metropolitans in general, but only over those in submission to him.

The Constantinople [Patriarchate] is the only first and last judge for metropolitans in
submission to him, but not for those in submission to other patriarchs, because the unity
of the Ecumenical Council is the final and all-encompassing judge of all patriarchs, and
no one else.

As we see, the false teaching on the dogmas is based upon a false interpretation of canons,
which, of course unsurprisingly, inasmuch as we are talking about teachings, is alien to the
Orthodox Church. Of course, adherents of this teaching, like any other heretics, can seek out

233
various separate citations from old texts that are amenable to them, especially ones coming out of
Constantinople; they can recall also the engulfment by Constantinople of the Bulgarian and
Serbian Churches during the time of the Ottoman Empire—quite dubious and contentious
actions, which Constantinople later had to correct. But all of this cannot change the fact that any
papism is alien to Orthodox teaching, be it Western or Eastern. As the holy hieromartyr Gorazd
of Czechia wrote, “The Eastern Church accepted only Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church and
rejected the very idea of accepting an [ordinary] man as the head... because it saw this idea as the
consequence of a lack of faith in the invisible Head—Jesus Christ—and His living rule over the
Body of the Universal Church... as well as incompatible with the apostolic principle of conciliar
decision of Church matters, which was expressed in its highest form at the Ecumenical
Councils.”[13]

The Constantinople Patriarch, and not the “Ecumenical” Patriarch

It is also worth talking about how the Constantinople Patriarchate uses its various titles of honor
as the basis for promoting his papism—first of all the title, “Ecumenical (Universal) Patriarch”.
If earlier this title was one of his titles of honor, like for example the Alexandria patriarch’s title
of “Ecumenical Judge (Judge of the Universe)”, then in recent times it has become in fact the
Constantinople primate’s official and main self-name. They have called themselves exclusively
by this name for a long time, with their own understanding that their ecclesiastical jurisdiction
extends literally over the whole universe.

As an example of this term’s use, we can cite the words of Metropolitan Elipodoros
(Lambriniadis):

The primacy of the archbishop of Constantinople has nothing in common with the
dyptichs, which only express hierarchical order... If we talk about the source of primacy,
then the source is the very person of the archbishop of Constantinople himself, who as a
bishop is the “first among equals”, but as the archbishop of Constantinople, and
correspondingly, Ecumenical (Universal) patriarch he is the first without equal.[14]

Such an understanding of his “ecumenical (as in “universal”) jurisdiction” was also expressed in
that during the twentieth century the hierarchs of the Constantinople Church have divided
amongst themselves all countries of the world with the exception of those which they themselves
recognize as belonging to other autocephalous Churches. So, even the countries in which there is
not a single Orthodox Christian have found themselves written into the canonical territory of one
or another bishop of the Constantinople Church. And that bishop can get angry and even
furiously protest if some other Church opens its mission in a country wherein he has never even
stepped foot and where he doesn’t have a single believer—simply by force of the above-
mentioned allocation. That this allocation of the world, which originated only within the
twentieth century, again exposes this teaching as new and previously unknown in the Church—
because had it been ancient, the Constantinople bishops would have introduced that allocation
much earlier.

234
It is sufficiently well known that even when the title “Ecumenical” began to be used by the
Constantinople bishops, the holy Pope Gregory the Dialogist categorically denounced it. He
wrote in part to Patriarch John of Constantinople:

As a result of your criminal and pride-filled title, the Church is divided and the hearts of
your brothers are led into temptation... If the apostle Paul avoided submitting the
members of Christ in their parts to a certain head, as if going around Christ, though these
heads were the apostles themselves, then what will you say to Christ, Who is the Head of
the Universal Church, when tried at the Last Judgment—you, who with your title of
“ecumenical” are trying to subject all His members to yourself?”

And here are his words from a letter to Patriarchs Eulogios of Alexandria and Anastasios of
Antioch:

None of my predecessors agreed to use this dishonorable title (ecumenical) because, in

fact, if any patriarch will call himself ecumenical, then by this he takes away the
patriarchal title from others.

Nevertheless, the Constantinople patriarchs did not heed the words of the Orthodox pope, St.
Gregory the Dialogist, who was at that time first in honor. And this title continued to be used.
Some try to defend its use by saying that it supposedly is not used in the sense that St. Gregory
wrote about, that it was no more than an elegant title, something like “Ecumenical Teacher” and
“Ecumenical Librarian”, which they also had in the imperial capital. Perhaps that is how it was at
the beginning, but if we look at how this title has finally come to be used, then we can count St.
Gregory’s words as prophetic.

St. Gregory was not the only pope who came out against the use of the title “ecumenical”. In the
second act of the Seventh Ecumenical Council we read that the epistle that Pope Adrian of Rome
wrote to the emperor was read aloud. In the original text of this epistle, besides a condemnation
of iconoclasm, were these words:

We were very surprised when we found that in your imperial edicts published about the
patriarch of the ruling city, that is, about Tarasius, he is also called ecumenical. We do
not know whether this was written was out of ignorance or at the suggestion of impious
schismatics and heretics; but we strongly ask your most merciful imperial power that he
never, not in a single of his writings sign as “ecumenical”; because it is clear that this is
against the establishment of the holy canons and traditions of the holy fathers...
Therefore, if anyone should call him ecumenical or give consent to this, then let them
know that it is alien to the Orthodox faith.

Although there is a great probability that these places in the epistle were not translated into
Greek during its reading at the Council, nevertheless we see for the second time that the first
primate of that time directly criticized and forbade the use of the title “ecumenical” by
Constantinople patriarchs. These testimonies give us grounds to talk about the unlawfulness of
using this title. Therefore, Orthodox writers should not use the name, “Ecumenical Patriarch”,

235
but call him the “Constantinople Patriarch”, in order not to support the very use of this title and
the spreading of the heresy of new papism.

The Mother Church?

Another title actively being used by Constantinople as a basis for its ambitions is “Mother
Church”, although this title, like those before it, was never given to the Constantinople throne by
any Ecumenical Council, but was in fact self-willfully assumed.

It is fully justified only in the historical context and only in relation to Churches that received
their autocephaly from the Constantinople Church. However, it is being used in a much broader
sense. For example, in the above-mentioned speech, Patriarch Bartholomew talks about his
Patriarchate as a “caring Mother and parent of the Church” in his claims on a special place in the
pan-Orthodox communion. But this understanding of the Constantinople Church as the Mother
of all Churches is obviously absurd, because many ancient Patriarchates historically preceded the
appearance of Constantinople. Then how could it be their mother? If any Church could lay claim
to this title it would be the Jerusalem Church. All the Churches have always recognized its
special historical contribution, but it was never understood as a right to lordship and power.

But Constantinople uses the self-ascribed title of “Mother Church” as grounds for its striving to
subject to its authority all the other autocephalous Churches, which are supposed to be
submissive and obedient like daughters to their mother. Although as Archimandrite Sophrony
(Sakharov) noted, even if we were to allow that Constantinople

can truly call itself the Mother of all Churches... in any case, extrapolating submission
from the fact of historical motherhood would be a departure from Orthodox triadology,
according to which Fatherhood or Sonship does not remove the fullness of equality. The
One Who is born from a being is equal to the One from Whom He was born. That is how
the holy fathers thought.[15]

And the words “caring mother” sound especially cynical from the lips of Patriarch Bartholomew.
No caring mother would ever do to her children what Constantinople is doing to the Russian
Church, and not much earlier than that to the Greek Church. If we had to apply the word
“mother” to the Constantinople Patriarchate, then its actions more closely illustrate the sickening
pagan image of a mother who devours her own children. And who can blame the children who
decide to leave such a “mother”?

That the Russian Church has broken Eucharistic communion with Constantinople would be
justified even if this matter were limited only to its desire to protest this evildoing on the scale of
the entire Church, and to protect its children from communion with those who have entered into
communion with schismatics. But in fact it is all much more serious than that. The Russian
Orthodox Church has become the first to refuse to submit to the heresy of papism that is being
imposed on all the Churches by the Constantinople Patriarchate.

And all the other Local Churches will sooner or later have to make the same choice—not
between the “Russians” and the “Greeks”, but between Orthodoxy and heresy.

236
Priest George Maximov
Translation by OrthoChristian.com

Pravoslavie.ru

1/30/2019

The Secret Political History of the

Ecumenical Patriarchate
President Truman viewed the Ecumenical Patriarchate as
“vital to American Foreign Policy”
Matfey Shaheen

    

There was a time, when the Patriarchate of Constantinople was in its prime…it’s former glory
has passed into pale memory, and this schismatic crime which it has championed in Ukraine, has
become among the greatest issues for Orthodoxy in the twenty-first century.

237
Since the Ecumenical Patriarchate anti-canonically invaded the territory of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church—an autonomous and native part of the Russian Church, many have asked:

Is this the rise of some peculiar form of “Eastern Papism”, or is the Ecumenical Patriarchate not
truly sovereign in its actions, but under the influence of foreign political powers, including the
United States?

This article is not written to examine the spiritual or canonical issues of Constantinople’s errors,
as this has already been done by experts across the Orthodox world.

This article is put forth to demonstrate the political captivity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to
foreign powers throughout history, especially the United States. We will examine how
Constantinople may have been blackmailed into causing this crisis to cover up a multi-
million-dollar embezzlement scandal in their GOARCH—the main source of their funding
and their economic lifeline.

We will in particular examine a very shocking article from a pro-Ecumenical Patriarchate source,
which declares, among many things:

“President Truman often emphasized the pro-American convictions of Patriarch

Athenagoras and the importance and influence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
along with the Greek Orthodox community in the US, as vital to American foreign
policy objectives.”1

How did we get here?

In order to understand the origins of this Ukrainian Church crisis, and the liberal and apparently
anti-Russian trend in Constantinople, we must look at history. For those unaware of the History
of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, I highly recommend this wonderful series.

To simplify, Kievan Rus’ was the ancestor to modern Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. It was
divided by both Mongol and Polish-Lithuanian conquest into eastern (Russia) and western
(Ukraine and Belarus) portions. In the East, the Rus’ Church was freer, because non-Christian
Mongols were less interested in the intricate details of Orthodoxy than the Catholic Poles,
Lithuanians, and later Austrians who would rule the West.

The First Western Pivot of Constantinople

In the mid-fifteenth century, two catastrophic events occurred for the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, which succeeded in destroying their political independence, and almost
destroyed their religious independence as well.

The First was the Florentine Union, in which, Hierarchs of Constantinople, hoping to save the
city from Ottoman destruction, signed a union with the Roman Catholic Church, agreeing to
recognize the primacy of the Pope.

238
This was a cataclysmic event, as this, in many ways, was the beginning of the liberal and
Western-political leaning of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The choice of Constantinople was the polar opposite of the Russian Saint Alexander Nevsky,
Grand Prince of Vladimir and Kiev, who in short, would rather be a political subject to Tatars
than a spiritual subject to Catholics. Constantinople thinks to use the political-military power of
the fallen West to save themselves and the true Faith, but in doing that, they already lost
everything! They forgot the lesson of Alexander Nevsky, who said, “God is not found in power,
but in Truth!” This has always been the position of the Russian Church, as Patriarch Kirill of
Moscow said in his sermon on Mark of Ephesus, who opposed the Union of Florence:

“There can be no union under threat of schism!”2

And so, at that time, the Church of Eastern Rus’—of Moscow, together with Grand Prince Vasily
were horrified by the idea of union with the schismatic Rome, so they declared autocephaly from
Constantinople. The Russian Church rose to autocephaly to flee from the heretical-schismatic
errors of Constantinople!

The Fall of Constantinople

Constantinople, narrowly avoiding union with Rome, (thanks in no small part to Saint Mark of
Ephesus) fell in 1453. Constantinople’s days as an Imperial City and Church ended, they were
now desperate for survival, and at times, willing to sell out.

The Kievan Metropolia

“Catholic priests are going about through Ukraine in carts pulled by simple Orthodox
Christians! This is what is happening in Ukraine, while you sit here feasting, having
neither eyes nor ears concerning what is happening in the world!” ~ Taras Bulba, N.V.
Gogol3

The Catholic Polish-Lithuanians would not allow their subjects in the Western Rus’ Church—the
Kievan Metropolia—to unite with the Eastern Rus’ Church in Moscow, so Kiev was forced to
look to Constantinople.

Impoverished Constantinople, however, was in survival mode, and more concerned with
acquiring material support, than with the complex spiritual issues of the Kievan Metropolia.

For example, shortly before the Union of Brest, Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople visited
Western Rus’; at that time, certain clerics who would later become schismatics, behaved like
Borgias—violent warlords, and were afraid of being deposed when they heard he was coming.4
Those Bishop-Warlords had nothing to fear, however, as it turned out Jeremias was just passing
through on his way to Moscow, to among other things, beg for alms from the rich and free
Russian Church. When he returned to Kiev, he also seemed more concerned with collecting
money than dealing with the huge issues the church there was facing.

239
Still, certain hierarchs in Right Bank Ukraine were integrated into the Polish nobility, and feared
being deposed for their various crimes, opened up to the idea of the Union of Brest with Rome.
The Polish rulers of course, politically favored those who joined the Union, as it divided the Rus’
peoples—their rivals.

This politically motivated land grab seems similar to what Constantinople is doing today in
Ukraine. They’re less concerned with legalizing Uniate-supporting schismatics, who possess
alarming Nazi tendencies, and perhaps more interested in collecting money from those 20
metochi the Ukrainian President promised them.

It was during the disastrous period of their stewardship of the Kievan Metropolia, that the Union
emerged, and by their apathetic and anemic leadership, they did nothing to prevent it.

Ironically, one of the biggest supporters of the Uniate Movement in previous centuries was
Gregory (“the Bulgarian”), who was installed briefly as Metropolitan of Kiev by the former
Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople… who himself became a Uniate!

The people who would eventually be called Ukrainians rose up under Cossack Hetman Bogdan
Khmelnitsky and rejoined Ukraine with Russia in 1654. The Kievan Metropolia soon followed,
leaving Constantinople, and joined the Patriarchate of Moscow. From the 1680s until now,
Constantinople never indicated once that it felt Ukraine was its territory, and even during the
very small period [in relation to its whole history] that Ukraine was under Constantinople, the
Phanar showed essentially zero interest in its internal spiritual affairs, becoming involved only
when political or financially convenient.

The Rus’ peoples who were baptized in 988 as one, were divided by the 1360s, and reunited by
the 1680s, having remained together until 1991.

240
    

Once united, nearly all these troubles melted away like dew before the sun. The Kiev-Mohyla
Theological Academy founded in Kiev Caves Lavra by the Holy Hierarch Petro Mohyla was
hailed by Peter the Great, and became the prototype for all Orthodox seminaries. Little Russian
(i.e. Ukrainian) Bishops, favored by Peter the Great, practically speaking, occupied the
Primatial Throne of the Russian Church exclusively from between 1700 to 1757.

Generally speaking, there were no earth-shattering conflicts for the Rus’ Church until the
twentieth century.

The Mystery of the twentieth Century

241
“The Mystery of the Twentieth Century”. Artist: Ilya Glazunov. Glazunov.ru.
    

Perhaps no other time in human history has ever brought so much ruin, and changed the course
of civilization than the twentieth century. It was also then, when the Ecumenical Patriarchate
made its strongest pivot to the west, both theologically, with regards to ecumenism and the
calendar issue, and politically.

The First World War swept away the spirit of Old Europe—ancient empires based on the idea of
“Christendom” or some form of faith, and we saw in Europe the rise of a cold, secular
nationalism.

Those who feel Christianity or religion is the source of war need only look to the twentieth
century, when the worst atrocities in human history were committed by brutal, godless powers.

Pseudo-religion was only used as a tool for the political goals, and as we have seen in Modern
Ukraine, among some schismatics, with their Nazi murals, sometimes their politics becomes
their religion.

After the demonic assassination of the Holy Romanov family; there was a war launched against
Holy Rus’, and the Russian Church began her podvig of Confession, among the largest in
history. The Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia was taken outside Kiev Caves Lavra and shot,
Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow was imprisoned, countless millions suffered in the civil war…and
where was Constantinople?

Constantinople was actively supporting the Bolsheviks…

The Renovationist Schism

242
A little-known fact by many, is that while Saint Tikhon Patriarch of Moscow was in jail, and the
Church in Russia brutally persecuted, the Bolsheviks created a schismatic church.

Constantinople actually recognized this schism as legitimate, calling for Saint Tikhon to
resign, slandering him, while his canonical Church was persecuted, and believers were even
executed for refusing to support the “Renovationist Church”.

That situation strongly resembles this one with modern Ukrainian schismatics, complete with
Phanar support.

Today, Saint Tikhon is commemorated universally as a Saint, who is very popular in America as
well, having consecrated Saint Raphael of Brooklyn—a Syrian who considered himself as
having a “Russian soul”—as the first hierarch on American soil.

Patriarch
Tikhon.
    

Saint Tikhon is a Saint… and the renovationists… Where are they? They passed like the
previous schismatics into ill memory, there is nothing left of them.

So, this leaves us with a question. Why would Constantinople do this, and why are they again
supporting schismatics in Ukraine? The answer may be more politically based than people
realize.

Interwar Chaos and the Population Exchange

243
WW1 ended not only the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires, but also the Ottoman Empire.
A great population exchange took place between the newly formed secular Turkish
republic, and Greece, and as a result of which, the Ecumenical Patriarchate lost almost his
entire flock.5

Turkey no longer ruled a multi-ethnic Empire, in which the Ecumenical Patriarch could be used
as a figure to unite the Christian subjects around; Turkey was now interested only in Turkish
nation-building.

This brings the Ecumenical Patriarchate to its current state—as journalist Kirill Alexandrov
noted, “the Phanar urgently had to seek a rationale for its own existence… That’s when the first
claims to rule over the entire Orthodox world appear.”6

Taking advantage of the fall of the Russian Empire, and the persecution of the Russian Church as
discussed above, Constantinople encroached on the territory of the Moscow Patriarchate like a
black raven to the body of a still living Cossack.7

This all began from around the 1920s; while the Russian Church was defenseless in the arena of
martyrdom, we saw the rise of this “Eastern Papism”. Throughout the mess that was the
twentieth century, almost all the “liberal trends” in Orthodoxy, were promoted by
Constantinople, for example, the scandalous switch to the new calendar, and ecumenism,
especially with the Catholic Church.

244
    

Let’s not forget that it was Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople who first met the Pope and
“lifted” the anathemas against Rome. And this is what brings us to perhaps the most important
aspect of all of this, in this analysis of the Phanar’s politics—their relationship with the US
Government, in particular, beginning with Patriarch Athenagoras and President Truman.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the US Government

245
 Photo: Orthodox
History.
    

Patriarch Athenagoras and President Truman

There is a very interesting article on a GOARCH blog, which essentially exposes in their own
words, the relationships between the Greek Diaspora, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the
highest echelons of western power in the form of the US President and Government.

The article by Dr. Alexandros K. Kyrou details the close relations, and perhaps collusion of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate with the U.S. Government in the political arena. Look at the first
sentences:

246
 Not that long ago, American presidents understood that Washington’s active support
and defense of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was not only
consistent with the principle of religious freedom but was also an important, global
resource for highlighting and communicating American values in the twin arenas of
international relations and Great Power diplomacy. The history surrounding this
official view of the Patriarchate as a unique partner for emphasizing democratic
ideas abroad and for advancing humanitarian objectives throughout the world has,
however, largely eluded public awareness while being steadily eroded from the
institutional memory of this country’s foreign policy elite.

Recently declassified State Department documents reveal a fascinating story, an

alternative narrative, of American interest in, and engagement with, the Ecumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople during perhaps the most critical period in US foreign
policy history.8

At first, it may seem benign, after all, who does not agree with religious freedom or
humanitarianism; but when you realize that Truman was the first and only person to use nuclear
weapons on other human beings, and that Great Powers are rarely concerned with anything more
than… well… power, you start to see these pleasant words are just euphemisms.

Ask Christians in the Middle East, or in Serbia for that matter, how Western “Democracy
promotion” helped them, when it came in the form of “carpet bombings for world peace”. These
are all just excuses for war, pretexts to justify political games.

With regards to the Patriarchate “emphasizing democratic ideas”, one wonders where the
Christianity is in this, when for most of history, Christianity went hand in hand with monarchy,
as monarchs were anointed by God and installed to rule by Him since biblical times.

In the text of the church service of the Triumph of Orthodoxy,9 there is even an anathema10
against “those who do not believe that Orthodox monarchs are put on the throne (anointed) by
God”.

This is not to argue for or against monarchism; but suffice it to say, for the majority of history,
the Church blessed and supported monarchy.

Since when has “emphasizing democratic ideas”, been a mission of an Orthodox Patriarchate?
Why not instead, “preserving the fullness of Orthodoxy”, or “seeking first the Kingdom of
Heaven”? Supporting schism is not a good way to do that…

What is all this interest in political ideologies and goals? This seems dangerously close to the
liberation theology the Catholic Church adopted in the 1960s, which essentially meant the
Church was more focused on fixing the human condition on (a fallen) earth, than achieving the
Kingdom of Heaven.

247
The article goes on to explain how President Truman would enlist the Ecumenical Patriarchate
because he saw “religion as a powerful tool to undermine faith in the Soviet system and to bring
about its eventual downfall.”

Once again, a key word here is tool; religion was to be used as a tool. He saw the Phanar as a
useful ally, a pawn, in his own earthly battle with the Soviet Union—not a battle for the salvation
of souls, but for the victory of his own political goals.

Truman’s “pan-religious collation”, which would also include the Vatican, had a key goal:
placing an American citizen on the throne of Constantinople—Patriarch Athenagoras (Spyrou)—
the very same who would “lift the anathemas” against Rome… All this ecumenism is beginning
to have a clear origin and goal now. As it was with the Florentine Union before, this was yet
another time Constantinople thought it could save itself by politicking with the West.

Patriarch Athenagoras was previously the Greek Archbishop of North and South America.

    

Athenagoras adjusted comfortably to life in America, and apparently even attempted to enlist in
the US Military11—a bit of an odd a choice for an Orthodox hierarch.

Truman’s “Sacred Cow”—Did Truman propagate the idea of Constantinople’s Primacy?

248
Truman was so invested in putting an American on the throne, he not only sent Athenagoras with
his “blessing”, but he literally sent him to Istanbul on his own presidential plane, “The Sacred
Cow”12. Dr. Kyrou says that this was not simply a gesture of respect, but what he called “a
measured action” by a President who “viewed Athenagoras and the Patriarchate as influential
and crucial partners in the furtherance of US international interests”.

Dr. Kyrou’s article even asserts the election of Athenagoras as Ecumenical Patriarch not only
had the support of Truman, but according to new evidence, the “possible involvement, of the
Truman administration”.13 Other articles note the influence and meddling of the US in the
affairs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, including the election of Athenagoras.14

Kyrou’s article directly admits that this meant Truman saw the Ecumenical Patriarchate as a
valuable asset in direct conflict with the Russian Church for the political benefit of the West. The
article reads:

“[Truman] … deliberately emphasized the ecumenical status of the Patriarchate of

Constantinople—as the first Patriarchal See among equals, enjoying spiritual aegis over
all Orthodox Churches—as a means to foil Moscow’s politically-driven efforts to
project the Church of Russia as a global rival to Constantinople…”

The Western powers were apparently concerned that Russia could exert influence on the Middle
East, including Turkey, via the Orthodox populations therein. Historically, the West saw the
Ottoman Empire as a check against Russia.

Take the Crimean War in the nineteenth century, when France and England were concerned that
Russia would overcome the Ottomans who were torturing Orthodox Christians for centuries, and
the Middle East would revive under Russian protection.

So what did the West do? They supported the Ottoman Empire in a war on Russian soil, killing
Christian Russians in support of a Muslim Empire. Once again, the West sees Islamic Istanbul as
a check against Christian Russia.

Athenagoras went on to meet with the pope and lift the Anathemas against him, and it seems
from this time onward, the Ecumenical Patriarchate would remain firmly tied not only to the US
Diaspora and Government, but to pro-Vatican ecumenism.

249
Photo: The Pappas Post.
    

The Western Occupation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

In today’s world, it is undeniable that the majority of the E.P.’s funding and population comes
from the lucrative North American holdings. For all these reasons, there have been many articles
asserting that the Ecumenical Patriarch is essentially a pawn to those powerful interests and
“sponsors”. So just who are the sponsors of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

A very clear picture can be seen from looking at just one of them: Michael Huffington, the
founder of the famous Huffington Post. In short, Michael Huffington is an openly bisexual15
media tycoon, who supports gay marriage, as well as ecumenism and specifically union with the
Catholic Church, via his foundation at a Jesuit university16.

250
    

Openly Homosexual Michael Huffington (third from left) with Greek Hierarchs Methodios and
Primate Archbishop Demetrios, as well as Catholic Cardinal Sean O’Malley at Met. Methodios’s
anniversary of his enthronement celebration. Photo: boston.goarch.org.

Another powerful associated figure is John Podesta, loyal servant to the Clinton family, who may
identify as Catholic,17 but his mother was Greek Orthodox.18 In general, the relation of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate with the US Government and the Ecumenical movement has always
been an elephant in the room.

251
    

A jarring example is Geoffrey Pyatt, former US ambassador to Ukraine, who stood with Victoria
Nuland on the Maidan, supporting the violent Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, who after a trip to
Mount Athos wrote on twitter19:

“Had the honor of meeting Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos at Vatopedi. We had an

important discussion on Orthodoxy worldwide, and U.S. support for the Ecumenical
Patriarchate.”

Let’s not forget Pyatt was US Ambassador during the US-brokered20 Maidan coup.

252
Victoria Nuland at Maidan. Photo: Sputnik international.
    

In case anyone needs a reminder, the Maidan Coup is what transformed Kiev and Ukraine from a
happy normal European place to…well…this…

253
 The
Maidan (Square) of Independence before and after the western-backed Coup. Photo: Twitter.
    

That is essentially the microcosm of who funds and supports the Ecumenical Patriarchate (i.e. on
whom they are completely dependent for their very survival), and with that in mind, its not hard
to figure out what agendas they secretly support, and why.

Did a New York Embezzlement Scandal spark this entire conflict?

It’s an open secret that there was a massive scandal, regarding the apparent disappearance of
massive sums of money, around $10 million21 of the 37 raised for the building of a Greek
Cathedral in New York.

Michael Huffington even called for the resignation of Archbishop Demetrios over all this.

The response of Archbishop Demetrios was incredible; he said that the donors “don’t have the
right to ask what happened to the money, just as he does not ask them how they made their
money”. This all seems indicative of just how cynical and politically minded people behave in
GOARCH hierarchy and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

In this excellent article by James George Jatras, a former U.S. diplomat, last July, the US State
Department became aware of the mysterious disappearance of these funds.

While authorities are currently investigating the situation, it is alleged, and quite plausible that
someone from the highest echelons of U.S. power gave the Ecumenical Patriarchate a secret deal

254
in this scandalous case—“We’ll leave your primary source of income safe—but you must in
return create a crisis for the Russian Church by supporting the Ukrainian schismatics.”

As with all of this, one has to read in between the lines, and connect the dots, but looking at the
history of the captivity of Constantinople to the political whims of foreign powers, and especially
its relationship with the US in the twentieth century, this is not only possible, its plausible.

Father Seraphim Gan noted that it appears Constantinople is not free in his actions, but under the
influence of un-Christian powers.

Metropolitan Jonah, a ROCOR Hierarch and former Primate of the Orthodox Church in America
wrote in this amazing article [lightly edited for context]:

“And so the United States State Department and agencies support a disgraced and
legitimately defrocked charlatan who is all dressed up [Philaret], and who is himself
manipulating the pathetic [Ukrainian President] Poroshenko, for his own ambition. They
have blackmailed the elderly Ecumenical Patriarch [Bartholomew], in regards to
the disappearance of funds from the [Greek American] American Archdiocese, and
then bribed him. To justify himself he asserted an interpretation of his own jurisdiction
that is rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Churches.”

Conclusion: Constantinople has become a tool for Western politics

A simple historical picture becomes obvious:

 Constantinople was a city of great Patriarchs, but also of great heretics like Nestor
himself.
 Shortly before the fall of Constantinople, they almost entered into union with Rome.
 After the fall in 1453, the Patriarchate was completely at the mercy of the Turks.
 After WW1, Constantinople lost almost all of its flock; at this time it caused the
calendar conflict and supported the Bolshevik renovationist schism. A liberal trend
emerged in the twentieth century.
 In the 1950s, Athenagoras, a strong ally of US President Truman becomes
Patriarch. Athenagoras becomes the first Patriarch to meet with the Pope.
Athenagoras leads the Ecumenical Patriarchate to play a major role in promoting
U.S. Foreign policy in Orthodox countries and against Moscow.
 In 1971, Halki Seminary was closed; the future of the Patriarchate is called into question.
 By 2018, The Patriarch of Constantinople has met and prayed with the Pope numerous
times, and broke tradition allowing Priests to be remarried. The Patriarchate is at its
weakest and smallest state yet.
 In July of 2018, the US Government allegedly pressured the Patriarchate via their
primary source of funding in relation to the GOARCH scandal.
 In September of 2018, Constantinople invades the canonical territory of the UOC
and the Moscow Patriarchate.

255
Note the trend: the closer Constantinople grew to foreign political powers, for example, the
Ottoman Empire or the USA, the farther their practice came from Orthodoxy. The more
Constantinople weakened throughout history, the more it strongly tilted to Western influence.

Constantinople has become a tool for Western powers, which most likely started this mess in
Ukraine at their behest. One must only look at the illogical way this autocephaly movement was
planned. Patriarch Bartholomew is not an unintelligent man; even if he is blinded by papal
delusions, he had to know this would not work.

Already, so far, not a single Local Church has supported Constantinople or the schismatics,
many churches and hierarchs have spoken out against Constantinople’s actions. One of the most
famous English-speaking Bishops, the most esteemed Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware), a bishop
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate himself, said:

“With all due respect to my Patriarch, I am bound to say that I agree with the view
expressed by the Patriarchate of Moscow that Ukraine belongs to the Russian
Church.”

Constantinople a few months before supports the canonical church, and then makes a total 180
turnaround, begins propagating papal grandeur, invading the canonical territory of the largest
Orthodox Patriarchate in the world, and declaring they can grant and revoke autocephaly.

This was all as if planned by people who don’t understand how the Orthodox Church even
works, or what is within the Ecumenical Patriarchs powers, but simply wish to create problems
for Orthodoxy and Russia specifically…

It seems while being occupied and at the mercy of foreign political powers, it’s impossible for
Constantinople to make rulings for the good of the rest of the Orthodox world. While Orthodoxy
will not have any supreme papal figure—only Christ is the head of the Church—if there is going
to be a first among equals—perhaps he should dwell in an Orthodox power strong enough to
preserve its own sovereignty.

Matfey Shaheen

1/28/2019

On the Future of Orthodoxy in Ukraine and

in the World
A Conversation with Archbishop Theodosy (Snigirev)
Sergei Geruk, Archbishop Theodosy (Snigiryov) of Boyarka

256
The last month has been especially alarming for the Orthodox faithful in Ukraine. The
“unification council” in Kiev, the adoption of the first anti-Church law by the Verkhovna Rada,
and the defamation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the media. What are the prospects for
Church life in Ukraine? Will the Local Churches recognize the legalization of the schismatics?
Is there grace active in the Sacraments celebrated in the Patriarchate of Constantinople? Our
conversation with Archbishop Theodosy (Snigirev) of Boyarka, Vicar of the Kiev Metropolia and
Chairman of the Church Court of the Kiev Diocese, will discuss these themes.

Archbishop Theodosy (Snigirev)

    

—Vladyka, bless. What, in your view, changed after the legalization of the Ukrainian
schismatics by Patriarch Bartholomew and the rupture in Eucharistic communion with
Constantinople; what’s the attitude of the UOC faithful to the so-called “tomos?”

—Lord help us. What changed is that the state began to gradually move from intimidating the
faithful to repression against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. They moved from searches and
interrogations to concrete actions. The first anti-Church law, No. 5309, was adopted, which the
president signed, meaning it entered into force; the serial seizure of churches has begun.
Churches are seized according to a completely raider scheme: They bring their people to a
village on buses, they hold a “meeting of the religious community” with their participation and

257
under the supervision of government authorities, and everything is good to go. The people are
driven out onto the street and the legal authority of the parish and the church building are now in
the “OCU.”1 They also wanted to adopt another special raider law especially for this—No. 4128,
but it seems they’re managing so far.2 Who will impede them? The Church belongs to whoever is
in power. But then this is Europe!—medieval Europe... Information appeared in the media that
an order came down form above for how many churches must be demonstratively “squeezed”
from the faithful for the “Tomos.” Moreover, the reserves, on whose balance the complexes of
the Kiev Caves and Pochaev Lavras exist, were obliged to apply to the court and through the
court to cancel their long-term lease agreements with the monastic communities of these Lavras.
Only, it had to be done quietly so as not to frighten Istanbul ahead of time.

Moleben of the Orthodox faithful of the canonical Church at the Verkhovna Rada on the day that
the anti-Church law No. 5309 on the renaming of the UOC was adopted.
    

—It’s all like under the atheistic government of the last century…

—Exactly. The most interesting thing is that they don’t even hesitate to flaunt that our Lavras
and other holy sites “belong to the state,” or, as they love to say, “the people!” Therefore, they
say, you, monks and clergy, have no legal grounds here. And how they wound up as the property
of the state, they don’t want to remember.3 These are unpleasant and dangerous memories for
them. The Church created the Orthodox sacred sites of our land over the centuries, for a thousand
years. And even in those cases when specific people, patrons and emperors, allocated funds to
build this or that church, they gave them as property to the Church, as an eternal gift. Then the

258
Bolsheviks came in the twentieth century and took and stole everything from the Church by
force. Now a question for the modern authorities: If what you have in your hands turns out to be
stolen, and you knew that perfectly well, then what should you do with it? Return it to its rightful
owner? Or sell the stolen item as your own, not being ashamed of it, and even mocking the legal
owner? Let them inquire how the question of restitution is resolved in modern Europe. And if we
ever get European laws, then whether you want to or not, you’ll have to return everything to the
rightful owner—the historical Church, including what was previously transferred to the UOC-
KP, the UAOC, and the OCU, and they well know it.

—What is the mood of the flock and clergy in Kiev now?

—I can say that in the first days after Istanbul’s decisions, our flock was simply taken aback. No
one expected anything like that. After all, despite the, so to speak, dubious authority of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople among the faithful, completely justifiable by the way, we have
still always tried to support the good name of Constantinople for outsiders. But the decisions
made by the Phanar in Istanbul proved to be a betrayal of our millions of faithful. An unexpected
and treacherous betrayal. They don’t just contradict canonical logic, they are overtly harmful and
dangerous for Orthodoxy in Ukraine. It’s absolutely clear to any of our parishioners, even the
most unlearned. But for some reason it’s not obvious to Patriarch Bartholomew. What’s more,
for the clergy and laity of Ukraine, it’s almost an inevitable condemnation to confession, and
perhaps, to martyrdom. But what has happened has happened.

At first, many were worried. After all, it was unclear what the schismatics and the authorities
would do under the cover of the Phanar’s “Tomos.” What can stop them? The constitution? The
law? The police? First blood? It’s unclear.

And now, after the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has firmly expressed its canonical position, the
hierarchs and priests have bravely spoken up, the tares have begun to separate from the wheat,
and the faithful are sighing with relief. We are together, shoulder to shoulder. We will stand for
Truth.

—You spoke about the low authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople among our
faithful. What did you mean?

—Our Church, like a number of other Churches, has closed its eyes for many decades to the
spiritual infection that has ripened over a long period of time in the soil of the Phanar. The
faithful have forgotten such Phanar betrayals, like the “legalization” of the Renovationists and
the condemnation of the holy Patriarch Tikhon by the Church of Istanbul in the 1920s. And that
was a time that was especially difficult for the confessing Russian Church: Priests and laity were
shot by the thousands and bishops were imprisoned. Of course, this didn’t limit the Phanar’s
deeds. History knows a whole number of such facts. But we were silent, not wanting to air their
dirty laundry. We tried to act according to the Gospel: save the face and reputation of our
brothers in Christ before the outside world. Especially since it’s not sweet for them there either.
We could only talk about these things in personal communication between ourselves. Thus, in
1939, the greatest modern saint—the Holy Hierarch John of Shanghai and San Francisco—wrote
with great pain: “The Patriarchate of Constantinople… having lost its significance as a pillar of

259
truth and having itself become a source of division, and at the same time being possessed by an
exorbitant love of power—represents a pitiful spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the
history of the See of Constantinople.” This problem didn’t appear yesterday; the faithful are well
aware of it. Therefore now, when the history of the twentieth century is repeating itself, when the
Phanar is again trying to use the secular state for its purposes to the detriment of our Church, the
remainder of its authority in the eyes of our faithful has simply collapsed.

—You spoke about repressions against the UOC. Indeed, over the course of the past year,
the president has said things that plunge the Orthodox faithful of Ukraine into
bewilderment—that our Church has no place in the country, that we are a “fifth column,”
and so on and so forth—each thing more offensive and biased than the last. What is your
personal attitude about this position of our authorities towards the UOC?

—To our great regret, all these attacks are the natural consequences of the policy of
discrimination against the UOC being intentionally carried out in recent years. There’s a feeling
that officials and politicians are competing with one another for who can outdo the other in
vilifying and insulting the long-suffering Church of Ukraine. Everyone is involved—the
Ministers and their advisors, the local authorities, deputies of various levels, diplomats, the
media. They fear neither God nor man, nor the constitution, nor the criminal code of Ukraine. It
all reminds me more and more of Khrushchev’s promise in 1961 that he would soon “show the
last priest on television.” And where is Khrushchev? And what place does he have in history?

—Where is this hatred for the canonical and largest Church in Ukraine coming from?

—I think it’s because our Church is the last significant public institution in Ukraine that
fundamentally does not lie. The Church can remain silent. It can simply not say anything. But it
will not lie, and the powers that be cannot reconcile themselves to that. They need a “church”
that will approve everything, justify everything, explain any outrage with highfalutin words,
bewilder the people. After all, when you live in a kingdom of curved mirrors, where the mirrors
deceive and flatter those who look in them, where everything is in a pink light, and black is
reflected in white, beasts are seen as handsome, and frogs as princesses—such a kingdom has no
place for a simple, true mirror. After all, it could display the unpleasant truth—everything as it is.
And if a true mirror is suddenly discovered somewhere, they’ll either try to hide it or simply
break it. That’s what we’re experiencing now.

—A question about Constantinople: After the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s

interference in the Church affairs of Ukraine, the situation has only worsened. The schism
is not healed, Eucharistic communion has been severed between Churches, and the UOC is
under the threat of full-scale persecution. Could such an experienced hierarch as Patriarch
Bartholomew really not foresee all these consequences? What, in your view, caused these
actions?

—Well, first of all, Patriarch Bartholomew is also a man, and anyone can make mistakes. And
the higher the post someone has, the more extensive and tragic can be the consequences of their
mistakes. That’s first. Moreover, everyone tends not to notice their own mistakes or to diminish
their importance. It’s a common trait of human nature, damaged by sin. It’s very dangerous when

260
someone loses the ability to critically evaluate his actions, unable to recognize his mistakes, and
in spite of everything, to see them through to the end…

Second, many experts have already spoken about Patriarch Bartholomew’s resentment against
the primates of the Churches that didn’t take part in the Crete Council, against the primate of the
Russian Church. For the people of the East, offenses have much greater importance than we
Europeans attach to them. It was there at the Crete Council that they proposed to finally approve
the draft project on the granting of autocephalous status to the Churches. This draft, which was
preliminarily approved by everyone, proposes the order for granting autocephaly to anyone by
general consensus. That is, no one can do it unilaterally. A pan-Orthodox council did not occur
for objective reasons, and this document was never officially approved.4 And now Patriarch
Bartholomew considers himself entitled to do everything at his own discretion, individually.
Perhaps, the reason here is also in hidden resentment. And, no matter how sad it is, despite all
our calls to resolve the differences that have arisen in a brotherly way, in the spirit of Gospel
love and unity, they no longer have any effect on our brothers. The East is a delicate matter—
although they say a whole number of other levers of influence are involved in Constantinople’s
decision-making.

—The first “alarm bells” sounded out from the Phanar at last September’s Synaxis in
Istanbul: The statements about the primacy of power of the See of Constantinople, the
critical reports of the hierarchs on the history of the Western-Rus’ Metropolia on the
territory of modern Ukraine…

—I completely agree with you. The general tone of that Synaxis was very strange for an
Orthodox understanding. Constantinople’s papist pretensions were openly declared for the first
time at such a level. This has become today probably the greatest problem in world Orthodoxy. It
threatens a universal schism, like 1,000 years ago. The Ukrainian issue was but a catalyst here.

Additionally, during his speech to the Greek diaspora in Istanbul, a note of chauvisnim was
added to Patriarch Bartholomew’s papist tone. Here’s the quote: “…We are in no way simply a
piece of world-Romiosyne [the Greek Byzantine ethnicity]. We are, I would say, even if we are
speaking about ourselves, a select piece of world-Romiosyne, for here beats the heart of our
people. It is the womb of our people. It is our Ecumenical Patriarchate. From here extend the
ideals and values of our people, the glory of our people, the sufferings and martyrdom of our
people… Whether our Russian brothers like it or not, sooner or later they will follow the solution
that the Ecumenical Patriarchate will provide, because they have no other choice.”

261
The adoption by the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of the decision to remove the
sanctions and the recognition of the UOC-KP and the UAOC.
    

I thought that after the European tragedy of the twentieth century, the idea of ethnic superiority
was considered for us on the continent unacceptable, shameful, and even criminally punishable.
In a civilized society, of course, and even moreso in Church society. And here are the proud
speeches about racial superiority and religious exclusivity: “’O God, I thank Thee,’ and other
foolish words…” (Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, Ode 9). The Patriarch says such things so
openly and pretentiously that it’s even become frightful. Are we really so far apart already? It’s
only now becoming clear…

—But the Church in Ukraine is also under pressure right now on the basis of nationalist
ideas?

—Exactly, and neither the authorities nor the schismatics are hiding it. It’s precisely the premise
of insufficient “Ukrainiansm” that’s used as the basis for persecuting the Church in Ukraine. I
don’t want to believe that the Istanbul Church and our local persecutors have the same
ideological foundation. Moreover, it was at the Council of Constantinople in the nineteenth
century that ethnophyletism was condemned as a heresy.

262
—Is it possible to draw a dividing line between patriotism and chauvinism? In the Greek
world, for example?

—Greek patriotism is not just a positive phenomenon, but heroic. The history of the Greeks’
fight for the purity of their faith, for the Orthodoxy of their people, for their sacred objects and
the land of their great forebears, evokes respect and admiration. At the same time, Greek
patriotism is deeply Orthodox. It’s a wonderful example for our Ukrainian people. Our
patriotism, unfortunately, was Orthodox only in the era of the Cossacks, but now everything is
the exact opposite—although it sometimes masquerades under Orthodox symbols.

Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Dimitriou) of

Zakynthos
We have great respect and appreciation for the prophecies of the Greek saints of the twentieth
century on the future restoration of the glory of Agia Sophia in Constantinople and other holy
sites. At the same time, take note: The Greek ascetics of piety of the twentieth century, from the
Holy Mountain and other places, always had great respect and reverence for the Slavic Churches
—especially for the Russian Orthodox Church and its faithful, unlike some of their
contemporaries—ecclesiastical chauvinists. Compare the warm and heartfelt attitude for the
Slavic saints of last century, up to our contemporary, St. Paisios the Athonite, with the statement,
for example, of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Zakynthos in 1947:

The Greek Orthodox Church, made up of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchates and the
other autocephalous Greek Churches, has as its enemies not just papism and the Western
Catholic church, but also Slavdom, and the Slavic Orthodox Churches under the
protection of the Russian Patriarchate… And if the Slavic peoples forget that the Greeks
gave them culture and that they received the light of the Christian faith from the

263
 Christian lamp of Greek Byzantium, through Greek missionaries, and that they should
therefore give, out of gratitude, the due reverence and favor to the Greek race that
educated and enlightened them, and not show themselves as low and ungrateful
adversaries, then the pan-Orthodox consciousness will sweep away their dark and
treacherous plans… The Greek Orthodox Eastern Church is again called upon to wage a
gigantic Church struggle, on the one hand, against the Western Roman Catholic church
and its propaganda, and on the other—against the Slavic Churches. But, passing
between these Scylla and Charybdis, it will still come out strong and intact.

The situation hasn’t changed at all since then. The Greek world is very different. I, and many
other of the faithful, are fortunate to have regular communication with several spiritual fathers of
Athos and Greece and also with Greek clergy and hierarchs. What can I say? Those who serve
God in podvigs and prayer are patriots of their people, but remain “citizens of the Church,”
where there is neither Greek nor Jew… (Col. 3:11). Moreover, the more this or that clergyman
fits the definition of an “ascetic of piety,” the more warm and loving he is towards the Russian
Church. This is seen among both the elderly and the younger priests and monks. Why is that?
Therе’s reason to ponder. At the same time, there are regular religious chauvinists in the
Churches of the Greek tradition. But chauvinism and racism, although with a Church flavor, are
signs of neither great faith nor of a great mind.

—In that case, a question arises. Can the Greek Churches follow the example of the Phanar
and recognize the Ukrainian schismatics as the lawful Church of Ukraine?

—It can’t be completely ruled out. Some of them, perhaps, will temporarily recognize them. We
shouldn’t forget that the modern structure of world Orthodoxy is very complex. Several
Churches having an autocephalous status are nevertheless strongly dependent upon the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. The individual primates of the Greek Churches can’t even go
abroad without a blessing from Patriarch Bartholomew. It seems strange to us, but that’s how it
is. By the way, the “autocephaly” being created now in Ukraine will be built on exactly the same
principle: loudly called autocephaly but subject to the Phanar on a whole number of important
positions. It’s not a secret anymore, is it? So, with this arrangement, with incomplete
independence, it’s quite possible that several Churches will be forced to follow the Phanar and
recognize the legalization of the schismatics. They could even be forced to publicly concelebrate
with the schismatics.

—But that undermines the foundational principles, so to speak, the axioms of the Orthodox
worldview. We always believed that the fullness of the world Orthodox Churches is able to
separate the wheat from the chaff?

—They can. But we shouldn’t dramatize today’s situation, even if such events happen. Recall,
for example, that in the twentieth century, when the Phanar recognized the Renovationists under
the Soviet authority as the lawful Church and defamed the holy Patriarch Tikhon, it was not
alone in this transgression. Its example was then followed by the Jerusalem and Alexandrian
Patriarchates, dependent upon it. They also publicly acknowledged the Renovationists and even
served with them. But the truth of God and history set everything in its place. Therefore, I’m

264
deeply confident that if something like this happens, it will be for a short time. The truth will
prevail, as it did with the schismatics-Renovationists and the true Church.

St. Andrew’s Church in Kiev, 18th C., given to the Patriarchate of Constantinople by President
Poroshenko
    

I see two possible ways events can develop—optimistically and pessimistically.

—Let’s start with the pessimistic scenario.

—Alright. Although I don’t want to believe it, it could be something like this. Wide-scale
persecution against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church could begin in Ukraine, with confessors and
martyrs for the faith. All the same, Constantinople will not admit its mistakes, as in the twentieth
century; it will insist upon the rightness of its decisions and its primacy of authority—Eastern
“papism.” With this, representatives of the Ukrainian schismatics, not having the grace of the
priesthood, will be allowed for blasphemous services at all the world’s holy sites, including the
Holy Sepulcher and the Holy Mountain. In this situation, the Local Churches will gradually be
forced to determine whether they will remain with Orthodoxy or will be with the new “pope.” In
addition, the division could be not just on the borders of the Churches, that is, between the Local
Churches, but within the Churches also. Within—that is, between the podvizhniks of the faith,
those zealous for the canons of Orthodoxy on the one hand, and the ecumenists, religious
265
“liberals,” and ethnophyletists on the other. That is, the once-unified Orthodox world could split
again. It’s as if diverging towards two different spiritual poles, like in 1054, but divided now
between Orthodoxy and Phanarodoxy. With this, by the way, besides the purely religious
conflict, there’re a number of cases where a fight is beginning for church and monastery
buildings between the Orthodox and the “Phanarodox” in the once united Churches. It could
create civil tension in some states. What Europe experienced hundreds of years ago could begin
again in Orthodox countries in the twentieth century.

That’s the pessimistic scenario. Only one person can bring a bold and proud position to this
whole tragedy—the Patriarch of Constantinople, who considers himself entitled to decide for the
entire Church of Christ, for all of Orthodoxy. And, having erred, he did not find within himself
the strength to confess and correct his error. If this happens, then, undoubtedly, his descendants
will call him the new Herostratus. I think that if this all happens, then from this time on, for the
communities that are moving farther and farther from the truth of the Church of Christ, although
they outwardly preserve the look of Church structures, grace will begin to dry up in the
Sacraments. In the process of their moving away from Orthodoxy, the grace of the Holy Spirit
will dry up more and more, until it is depleted altogether. Where pride and heresy reign, there is
no grace. May it not be so with our brothers.

—Do you think the optimistic scenario in this situation is in principle possible?

—Of course it’s possible. The Church of Christ on earth is like an ocean: It is constantly self-
purifying. No matter how much sludge and dirt is dumped into the ocean, no matter how many
ships sink in it, no matter how many entire generations of fish, sharks, and whales are born and
die in it, the ocean is still clean. It cleans itself. The Church is this way.

The decisions of Patriarchs, Synods, and sometimes even whole “Councils” that are harmful for
the Church are not received by the Church over time, they depart into the inglorious past, and
they cease being valid for the Church. That’s how it was with the Phanar’s decisions about the
Renovationists, and with many other harmful decisions from various Church hierarchs. From the
outside, it might seem that if someone with false views has clambered to the very top and
conducts his policy there, then its irreparable for the Church and for history. After all, that’s how
it goes for earthly societies. But that’s not how it is for the Church of Christ. The Holy Spirit,
guiding the Church, corrects the situation later in ways known to Him alone, through other
people. And even a windbreak whipped up by such characters turns into good consequences, and
this person becomes a “dead branch” in the evolution of the Church. The all-wise and almighty
providence of God so often acts thusly, when it is necessary. If it wasn’t so, the Church of Christ
would have been lost and disappeared long ago in the vicissitudes of human history. Think of
how many stupid, strange, and terrible things there have been in the life of the Church
throughout the centuries. But the Church is alive and holy! The Church is an ocean of the Holy
Spirit; a self-cleansing ocean.

So for the current situation with Constantinople, it’s wholly possible to see the optimistic
scenario. But for that, we the faithful have to make an effort. And, above all, this effort needs to
be made by the faithful, clergy, and hierarchs of the Greek world. Constantinople’s canonical

266
mistakes should be acknowledged and amended and “papism” in Orthodoxy should be
condemned as a heresy. It’s not easy, but it’s possible.

Cross procession of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Kiev, July 27, 2018
    

—What you would you advise the faithful, priests, and bishops upon whom the fate of the
Church in Ukraine rests today? What must be done to not fall into despondency, to survive
what is happening? Where can we find the strength to bear it?

—Above all, we must firmly understand that the fate of the Orthodox Church is in the hands of
its Creator and Head—our Lord Jesus Christ. And only in His hands, not in the hands of
politicians or the powers of this world, and not in our hands. People can only be tools,
instruments in the implementation of God’s providence for the Church. That which He wants
will come to pass. That which He doesn’t want will not happen. And our task, the task of the
faithful, is to become obedient tools in the hands of God. We have to seek His will and live
according to it, even if it seems difficult or dangerous. We must remember that if we serve God,
then not a single hair falls from our head without His will and His attention to this hair.

The Lord knows every one of us personally. The thoughts and heart of every man are in His
palm. Therefore, if any of us are to be tested in our faith, then it’s to the exact measure that the
Lord sends us: the measure of strength and talents of each man. If the Lord sees in someone the
strength to endure prison, He can send it for a great crown in eternity. And if someone has barely
enough strength to even watch what they are trying to do with the Church—this podvig of sorrow

267
will be enough for him. And for it, the believer will receive a crown of faithfulness and glory in
due time. The Lord is love and wisdom. If He is for us, then who is against us?

Sergei Geruk
spoke with Archbishop Theodosy (Snigiryov) of Boyarka
Translated by Jesse Dominick

Pravoslavie.ru

1/25/2019

Is Repentance Needed for Healing Schism?

Anna Stickles

Photo: V.Khodakov / expo.pravoslavie.ru

    

Recently, in defense of Constantinople’s actions in Ukraine, some have commented that while
repentance is nice as an ideal, “the healing of schisms has rarely involved repentance.”1 The

268
implication is that repentance is optional, not necessary. In this vision of Church life repentance
is no longer the only proper position of the Christian before Christ and a foundational
prerequisite of Eucharistic communion, now repentance is merely a nice option. The examples
offered to support this view are false as is the general premise. The ancient Church didn’t have
any “no-fault” schism, any more than they had no-fault divorce.

The application of economy to bring about healing varies greatly, but repentance is never
optional. The application of economy itself is geared toward helping those who are weak start the
process of repentance. It is not a substitute for repentance. The teaching of the Church is that all
the divisions of man are a result of sin and the only way to heal these divisions is repentance.
Academic commissions, change in institutional structures, even canonical discipline or
accommodation—none of these can heal division—only repentance. Possibly these things used
rightly can help bring about repentance, but if they are not part of a process of repentance they
are useless.

This idea of a no-fault healing of schism is part of a larger idea that the Church should be
accommodating to everyone and this is love. Tradition teaches that love works to support
everyone who has even the smallest desire to repent. However heaven is closed to those who
justify themselves and do not do the work of repentance. God did not come to accommodate us
in our sinful and fallen and divided state. This would not be love at all. He came to give us what
is needed for repentance. In this effort to accommodate ourselves to Him we find ourselves
transformed into His likeness.

The example put forward in support of the fact that schisms have been healed without repentance
is the reunion of ROCOR with Moscow. Anyone familiar with the history of this process can see
that this is false. The ROCOR clergy that I know who are willing to admit that during its time of
separation from Moscow there was a tendency to become radicalized. This had to be repented of
in the reunion and those who were not willing to repent schismed from ROCOR when the
reunion with Moscow took place.

The repentance though did not begin with ROCOR. It started with the Moscow Patriarchate. As
the Moscow Patriarchate engaged in a process of repenting of the renovationism and
politicization of their church life, this positively effected things even before official efforts were
made to heal the schism with the Russian Church Abroad. Moscow’s first action was not
oriented toward the healing of schism, but toward healing itself and putting right its own life. We
see Patriarch Alexiy in 1991 (ten years before any attempt to reach out to ROCOR) saying:

"Being a person of the Church, I must take on myself responsibility for all that occurred in the
life of my Church: not only for the good, but also for the difficult, the sorrowful, the
erroneous….

Today we can say that falsehood is interspersed in his (Met. Sergius) Declaration, which stated
as its goal 'placing the Church into proper relations with the Soviet government. But these
relations—and in the Declaration they are clearly defined as the submission of the Church to the
interests of governmental politics—are exactly those which are incorrect from the point of view
of the Church."

269
"Of people, then, to whom these compromises, silence, forced passivity or expressions of loyalty
that were permitted by the Church leadership in those days, have caused pain—of these people,
not only before God, but also before them, I ask forgiveness, understanding, and prayers."2

As Moscow put into practice what it was preaching, and as those in ROCOR made the effort to
overcome fear and prejudice and trust that what they were seeing was genuine, this opened doors
to start the process of repentance for them also. This repentance is recorded in an address by
Abp. Mark of Berlin, Germany and Great Britain given at the Fourth All-Emigration Council in
San Francisco in 2006.3

This address is a list of things that those in ROCOR repent of. They admit of a worldly and
misdirected love for the Russian people that led them to a series of uncanonical acts that ended
up wounding the Body of Christ. They confessed not only their uncanonical acts, but the
underlying sin:

“Gradually, alas, we began to relate to the Moscow Patriarchate as we had to the Soviet regime,
to some extent using the same terminology and the same mental constructs as we had in relation
to the Soviet regime—in our perception we began to regard them as one and the same... Instead
of thinking of how we could help the Church in Russia, we began to think in terms of a narrow
party line, in a spirit which in many ways corresponded to that of the Greek Old-Calendarists.”

The confession goes on admitting that as Church life was restored to normal in Russia, and as it
became more obvious that the Church there was reviving, ROCOR did not want to admit it.
“Many of us did not want to listen to these voices or offer them support. Instead, we intensified
our confrontation, while many of us forgot, or tried to forget, that we ourselves had not lived
through any concentration camps, or pressure from the government, and that a particular part
of our Church had not come out of its short period of coexistence with another dictatorship—
that of Hitler—in altogether pristine condition.”4

Thus we can see how this repentance involved a frank admission not only of canonical sins, but
also of where they themselves had strayed from a genuine Christian life and vision. It involved a
conscious effort to quit blaming Moscow hierarchs for the past sins of caving to political
pressure and recognize their own failings in this regard.

One instructive note is that Serbia had remained in communion with ROCOR throughout the
time of their exile and it was Serbia who also encouraged them to wake up and see the changes
in Russia. This relationship of ROCOR with a church that remained canonical but which was not
immediately involved in the tensions between ROCOR and Moscow was helpful. In the current
situation, Constantinople and Moscow both have those who are closer to them in culture and
outlook and yet who are not immediately involved in the tensions, and by God’s grace may this
be something saving. Sometimes I hear people who want to totally isolate either Constantinople
or Moscow and I can only think to myself, “God save us.”5

An important insight of Abp. Mark is that “if there are no fundamental disagreements, we can
easily live together in the one body of the Church with those specific individual features which
distinguish a given individual or a given society”

270
It was a genuine Christian repentance of those things alien to Church life that brought the two
churches (who had two very different starting places and errors and weaknesses) to the place
where there was an agreement on the fundamentals of the Christian way of life. Once this
fundamental sense of the other as truly engaged in the Orthodox struggle was present, then,
given goodwill and Christian charity, other issues could be harmonized as long as no one
demanded absolute fulfillment of all their conditions. There is a lot of room in the Church for
accommodating human error and weakness as long as the fundamental Way, Truth, and Life are
being honored.

Present in the current situation with Ukraine though is a question of these fundamentals.
Divisions between political entities arise because of sinful passions. Divisions in the Church
arise when someone is no longer willing to follow the Christian Truth or Way. Just looking at
this area of repentance—obviously any idea that we should simply accommodate anyone that
desires a church, and repentance is optional or not needed at all, is a denial of something
fundamental in the life of the Church. The story of our redemption starts with St John the Baptist
calling out, “Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand… Bear fruits worthy of repentance.”6
After overcoming Satan’s temptations in the desert, Jesus Christ starts his ministry on the same
basis.7 At Pentecost St. Peter again affirms that the basis of entrance into the Kingdom of
Heaven, the Church, is repentance.8 The saints universally testify that the height of holiness can
be achieved with nothing less than continual repentance. There is a very real sense in which we
can say that if there is no repentance then there is no Church. Repentance is as foundational to
our life in the Church as breathing is to our material life.

Only once there is admission of the need for repentance can positive spiritual movement start.
This involves a process of self-examination, willingness to admit faults, and the struggle to be
more truly Orthodox as a people and a local church. As we see in the example above, this
process over time will lead to a healing of the schism. If even one party is involved in a process
of repentance, this will positively effect all involved, and if the other party is moving in this
direction too, each will see the image of Christ in the other and complete healing will come. If
there is no spiritual movement, then likely the schism will remain despite whatever other
measures are taken.

There is no culture, nor local church, nor people nor individual who has nothing to repent of. If
we all do what we can in this area it will have far more effect on the overall good health of the
Church than any amount of institutional changes or pan-Orthodox commissions. It is only in the
presence of repentance that these other things can be effective. Archbishop Cyril in essence
admits this in the rest of this interview when he mentions how creating a new structure did not
change the basic attitudes or heal the conflicts. The old attitudes simply continued in the new
structure. What will change this? Repentance.

Whether the new structure will be an aid to repentance or not is yet to be seen. Radical
nationalism tends to die down and become a more healthy patriotism once a nation is more
firmly established and the people feel safe. But will the new body then bog down in the general
loss of Christian truth that is reflected in the position of those who support no-fault schisms and
universal accommodation, or will a genuine Christian way of life start to take hold? The new

271
structure is composed mostly of western leaning Ukrainians, and as we here in America can
testify it is difficult to keep the faith alive in the midst of such a society.

The other example brought up to support the view that repentance is not central to healing
schisms is the Novatian schism. In this schism, there were Christians who apostatized and
offered sacrifices to idols under pressure. In the interview, this schism is explained as the
Novatianists being very strict and not willing to accept the lapsers back, while the Orthodox were
more accommodating. In fact this completely misses the real issue. The schism was not caused
because of overly strict canonical penalties; rather, the Novatianists were denying the efficacy of
the Sacrament of Repentance in cases of mortal sin. They were teaching that God alone could
forgive these sins and that those who committed them should be barred completely from the
Sacrament of Repentance (which was the gateway back into communion with the faithful). Thus
the schism was not a matter of strictness vs. accommodation of certain sins, but a heresy that
undermined the validity and efficacy of the Mystery of Repentance.

In fact, the Orthodox fathers had at that time a far longer and stricter process of penance then can
be found almost anywhere today. That is because they and those willing to undertake this
penance understood that a mere intellectual change is only the beginning of repentance and that
considerable long laborious work is needed for the heart to genuinely feel repentant and open up
to the grace that brings about true spiritual change. The lightness of penances today is a
commentary on our weak spiritual state both as penitents and pastors. Anymore, the Church’s
pastors and faithful allow God to work mostly through involuntary circumstances rather than
voluntary penances, because men don’t have the humility needed to engage in the kind of work
the ancients did.

There has been a tendency, particularly among more ecumenically minded individuals, to
dismiss schism as merely a political and cultural phenomena that happens due to political
passions, ethnic prejudice, and linguistic misunderstandings. This misses the underlying spiritual
reality. Schism is a warning sign that fundamentals in the Christian Way of life are being
violated.

Anna Stickles

1/25/2019

“It is Not Too Late to Stop”

A Sorrowful Reply to Patriarch Bartholomew Concerning
His Anti-Canonical Actions in Ukraine
His Holiness Patriarch Kirill

272
spzh.news
    

In reply to a letter of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, in which he

informed of the “reinstatement” of the Ukrainian schismatics in their “rank,” of the
“annulment” of the document which is three hundred years old and indicates the transfer of the
Kievan Metropolia to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, of the organization in Kiev of
a “local council” of the non-canonical groups admitted to communion, and of the intention to
grant “autocephaly” in the next few days to the institution established at this gathering, His
Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia expressed his deep pain, astonishment and
indignation over the anti-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

HIS HOLINESS BARTHOLOMEW

PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Your Holiness,

It was with a feeling of great pain, astonishment and indignation that I read your letter in which
you informed me of the recent actions of the Church of Constantinople: of admitting to
communion the uncanonical communities in Ukraine; of “revoking” the Letter of Patriarch
Dionysius IV of Constantinople which had transferred the Kievan Metropolia to the jurisdiction
of the Moscow Patriarchate; of organizing in Kiev a “local council” of the uncanonical
communities admitted to communion by you; and of intending to give in the next few days the
status of an autocephalous Orthodox Church to the institution that you have established.

273
The reunification of the schismatics with the Church would have been a great joy both for
Orthodox Christians in Ukraine and for the whole Orthodox world had it occurred in compliance
with the rules of canon law, in the spirit of peace and love of Christ. However, the current
politicized process of coercive unification is far from the norms and spirit of the holy canons. A
great amount of lies has been piled up, and now violence is being inflicted on the true Ukrainian
Orthodox Church. This is the same Church of millions of the Ukrainian faithful that you
recognized as canonical all the years of your ministry, until very recently. And now you pretend
that it does not exist, that there are only some separate dioceses which have returned under your
omophorion.

Your advisers assured you that the episcopate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was ready to
endorse the political project of the Kievan authorities, that a considerable number, dozens of the
canonical bishops were only waiting for your blessing to secede from their Church. I repeatedly
warned you that you were being misled. Now you can see it for yourself.

Only two out of ninety bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church were present at the so-called
“local council” convened by you and chaired by a group of three people – your representative, a
self-styled “patriarch” (who now has the title “honorary”), and the secular head of the Ukrainian
state. What you call a “local council” was a gathering of schismatics who used the name of the
holy Church of Constantinople as a guise. If this is not a legalization of the Ukrainian schism that
you publicly promised to prevent, then what is it?

In your decisions you refer to the will of the Orthodox people of Ukraine who allegedly ask the
Church of Constantinople to interfere. Yet, it was the will of the overwhelming majority of the
clergy and laity, the true Church people of Ukraine, that impelled the episcopate of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church to not respond to your invitations and to refuse to participate in the so-called
“unification council” of the Ukrainian schism.

Out of the two bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church whom you received into your
jurisdiction in violation of the canons, only one was a diocesan hierarch. Yet, the clergy and the
flock of his diocese did not accept his actions. After Metropolitan Simeon had been lawfully
suspended from serving by the Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, all monasteries in the
Vinnitsa Diocese and the vast majority of parishes together with their clergy remained
subordinate to the new canonical hierarch, Archbishop Barsanuphius of Vinnitsa and Bar. Local
authorities are now exerting pressure on the diocesan clergy, threatening to punish them, but the
clerics, monastics, and laypeople do not want to be in communion with a bishop who betrayed
them and the Church.

Metropolitan Alexander, whom you mentioned and who was also suspended from serving by the
Synod in Kiev, had only one church. A conflict occurred in his community, and the majority of
this church’s clergy avoided concelebrating with the hierarch who had fallen away.

The principled decision of the hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to refuse to take part
in the false council convened by you was caused not by some mythical “pressure from Moscow,”
which would be impossible anyway in this political situation, but by the unity of the archpastors
with their clergy and faithful. This unity cannot be jeopardized either by the gross interference of

274
the Ukrainian authorities in the internal life of the Church or by the pressure on the Church
exerted by the state and greatly increased in recent months. This unity cannot be revoked with a
stroke of the pen.

In your letter you are trying to reinterpret the meaning of the complex of documents signed in
1686 by your predecessor Patriarch Dionysius IV and the Holy Synod of the Church of
Constantinople. The matter of these historical documents caused no disagreements between our
two Churches for hundreds of years. And now you say that you “revoke” the Patriarchal and
Synodal Letter, because “outward circumstances have changed.”

I suggested holding talks on this issue with the participation of authoritative historians,
theologians and experts in the ecclesiastical canon law. You refused, alleging lack of time. I can
only express my regret that your decisions, devastating for the unity of the Church, depend so
much on “outward,” that is political, circumstances, about which you have no scruples of openly
telling me.

In your letter you once again repeat rather the disputable assertions that the Church of
Constantinople has the “exceptional responsibility to grant autocephaly” and to consider appeals
from other Local Churches in accordance with the “spiritual meaning” of Canons 9 and 17 of the
Council of Chalcedon. Yet, your interpretation of your alleged rights has never had Church-wide
acceptance. A considerable number of objections stated by authoritative commentators on canon
law speak against your understanding of the rights of the Throne of Constantinople to consider
appeals. Thus, the outstanding Byzantine canonist, John Zonaras, writes, “The [Patriarch] of
Constantinople is recognized as judge not over all the metropolitans but only those who are
subordinate to him. For neither metropolitans of Syria, nor those of Palestine or Phoenicia or
Egypt are summoned to his judgement against their will, but those of Syria are to be judged by
the Patriarch of Antioch, those of Palestine by that of Jerusalem, while the Egyptian ones are
judged by that of Alexandria who ordains them and to whom they are subordinate.” Neither do
the present-day Local Orthodox Churches recognize that you have such a privilege.

However, unlawfully assuming such a right, in this case you did not even bother to conform to
the existing canonical norms defining the actions of a party that recieves an appeal.

It is widely known that Mikhail Denisenko continued to serve after Church punishments had
been administered to him and he had been excommunicated. Thus he deprived himself of the
right to appeal and, according to the basic norms of canon law, condemned himself. You
expressed your consent with Denisenko being defrocked, though by that time you had received
his first appeal. In your letter to Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow and All Russia of August 31,
1992 you wrote, “Our Holy Great Church of Christ, recognizing the fullness of the Russian
Orthodox Church’s exclusive competence on this issue, synodally accepts the decisions
regarding the one in question, not desiring to bring any trouble to Your Church.”

The Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople did not take into consideration the numerous
problems of canonical succession and moral character of the “hierarchs” admitted to
communion, despite the fact that earlier the Church of Constantinople had recognized the

275
importance of resolving these matters for healing the Ukrainian schism and had received all the
necessary information during negotiations between our Churches’ delegations.

The fact that by the decision of your Synod Makary Maletich was “restored” to the episcopal
rank shows with what haste and rashness the appeals of the Ukrainian schismatics were being
considered. In your official Patriarchal letters, you call him “former Metropolitan of Lvov” and
in this capacity he attended the so-called “unification council.”

Meanwhile, Makary Maletich lapsed into schism while being a priest of the canonical Church,
never having canonical episcopal consecration. His “consecration” as well as the “consecrations”
of the most part of “bishops” of the so-called “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church”
admitted to communion by the Church of Constantinople date back through his predecessors to
one defrocked bishop who had committed these acts together with the imposter Viktor Chekalin,
a former deacon of the Russian Orthodox Church who was never even ordained priest.

Reception of such persons into communion with the Church without consideration of the
mentioned circumstances undermines canonical succession of consecrations and will have hard
destructive consequences for the entirety of world Orthodoxy.

For centuries the Russian Church has been thankful to the holy Church of Constantinople for its
contribution to the formation of world Orthodoxy, for its role in the Christian enlightenment of
the heathen Rus’, and its help in developing the traditions of monasticism and religious
education. At present our faithful both in Ukraine and in other countries experience bitter
disappointment because the historical Mother Church does not hear their voices.

Hundreds of thousands of letters from the believers in Ukraine in support of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church and with requests not to undermine its unity have been brought to your
residence. The Ukrainian authorities tried to hinder the delivery, while you have ignored these
letters. And now you do not want to hear the voice of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which
stands on the verge of new ordeals.

Even now the archpastors and clerics in Ukraine are being summoned to questioning on far-
fetched pretexts and blackmailed, their near and dear are being threatened, searches are being
conducted in churches and homes, pressure is being brought to bear on families, including
children. Recently a law has come into force with the aim of depriving the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church of its name in order to carry out the violent seizure of its church buildings under the
guise of a “voluntary transfer of communities.” Is this the kind of unification of Orthodox
Christians in Ukraine you envisage?

I spoke with you about the Church of Constantinople's plans in private and in the presence of a
few witnesses. Now, when these plans have been largely realized I appeal to you before the
entire Orthodox Church maybe for the last time. Doing so, I am guided by the commandment of
our Lord Jesus Christ: If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between
thee and him alone… But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the
mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear

276
them, tell it unto the church: but is he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an
heathen man and a publican (Mt. 18:15-17).

The Diptych of Their Holinesses the Patriarchs of Constantinople includes dozens of names of
great theologians, zealots, and teachers of piety. Sts. Gregory the Theologian, Proclus, Flavian
the Confessor, John IV the Faster, Tarasius, Methodius, Photius, and many others have brought
glory to the holy Church of Constantinople by their ministry.

However, there were also those who dishonored it. Do not enter your as-yet respected name into
the same list as such infamous bishops of Constantinople as Nestorius, the iconoclasts
Anastasios, John VII and Theodotos, and the Uniates Joseph II, Metrophanes II Mitrofonos, and
Gregorios III Mammas. Retreat now from communion with the schismatics and refrain from
participating in the political gamble of their legalization. Then the genuine Orthodox Church of
Ukraine led by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine will bless you, and
history will keep your memory among those heads of the Throne of Constantinople who under
the most difficult political conditions had managed not to demean the Church but to preserve its
unity.

Yet, if you will act in keeping with the intentions enunciated in your letter, you will forever lose
the opportunity to serve for the unity of the holy Churches of God, will cease being the First in
the Orthodox world which numbers hundreds of millions of believers, and the sufferings that you
have inflicted upon Orthodox Ukrainians will follow you to the Last Judgment of our Lord Who
judges all people impartially and will testify against you before Him.

I pray with all my heart that this will not happen. It is not too late to stop.

+ KIRILL
PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA

DECR Communication Service

Lightly edited by OrthoChristian.com

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill

1/2/2019

Ukrainian Laws Against the UOC: Goals and

Consequences
Mikhail Shevchenko

277
Voting in the Verkhovna Rada
    

The vicissitudes in the relations between the Ukrainian state and the canonical Ukrainian
Orthodox Church are rapidly reaching their apogee. Just a few days after the creation of the so-
called “Orthodox Church of Ukraine,” consisting of representatives of two non-canonical
structures—the UAOC and the UOC-KP—the Ukrainian authorities began to fight with
canonical Orthodoxy at the legislative level.

On December 20, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted in the first reading bill No. 5309
which amended the basic law of the Ukrainian constitution “On freedom of conscience.” In and
of itself, the new law is aimed solely at discrediting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church headed by
His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine.

In the law was adopted the norm of renaming religious organizations, “the leading centers of
which are on the territory of aggressor states,” which the Russian Federation is considered to be.
Thus, according to the People’s Deputies, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church legally must change
its title to the “Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.”

In and of itself, the law is completely untenable and is subject to challenge in the appropriate
instances. Undoubtedly, the Parliament could not have been unaware of this. So why did they
adopt it? What are the objectives of this law, and what can we expect next? Let’s try to figure it
out.

278
 Law No. 5309: What’s what

Before the vote on bill No. 5309, it was, according to procedure, examined in the profile
committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Back in 2017, the main academic-expert
department of the Ukrainian Parliament recommended to reject the introduction of this bill.
According to the experts,

The innovations proposed in the bill, which, according to the view of the main
department look insufficiently motivated and reasoned, go beyond the limits established
in the relevant provisions of article 35 of the Constitution and Law of Ukraine “On the
Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations.”

In other words, law No. 5309 was deprived of the right to exist at the preliminary stage. Of the
main claims, it was specified that:

1. The exercise of the right to the freedom of worldview and religion can be limited by
law only in the interests of the protection of civil order, health, and the morals of the
population, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other people;

2. Church and religious organizations in Ukraine are separated from the state;

3. The state does not interfere in the activities of religious organizations that are carried
out within the framework of the law;

4. All religions, creeds, and religious organizations are equal before the law;

5. No advantage or restriction or one religion, creed, or religious organization with

respect to another shall be permitted.

Interestingly, although the deputies have regularly contended—both before and after the
adoption of the bill—that it is directed precisely against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in fact
it is not so.[1]

If we study the statutes of the UOC in detail, no one will find anywhere any mention that the
administrative center of the UOC is located in Russia. In this regard, the speaker of the UOC,
Archbishop Clement (Vecherya) said:

According to all available legal documents, which didn’t appear today but were
registered even before the Verkhovna Rada appeared in independent Ukraine, we have
no connection with the aggressor state in legal, administrative, or economic terms. We
received a tomos of independence already in 1990.

Moreover, a number of experts who cannot in any way be accused of sympathy for the UOC
noted a mass of violations both in the law itself and in the procedure of its voting. In particular,
the Ukrainian journalist Vladimir Boiko noted on his Facebook page:

279
 This law was adopted by gross falsification and interference in the Rada’s voting system.
In particular, the People’s Deputy of Ukraine Arkady Kornatsky published on his
Facebook page information about how he wasn’t in the Verkhovna Rada on December
20, 2018, that he didn’t vote for bill No. 5309, and that he hadn’t given anyone his voting
card. Meanwhile, he’s registered on the site of the Verkhovna Rada among the People’s
Deputies who supported this lawlessness.

Deputy Nestor Shufrich from the “For Life” opposition platform also spoke about the violations
in voting for the law:

We asked for something simple: To implement the regulatory norm, to revote on this
issue, to exclude this electoral fraud, and that such a fundamental question would be
voted on as provided for by the regulations.

In turn, the head of the UOC’s Synodal Legal Department Archpriest Alexander Bakhov finally
exposed the legal basis for the existence of law No. 5309, noting that:

The decision to change the name of the UOC is made by its governing body, the Synod of
the UOC, not the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Therefore, even if this law enters into
force, that doesn’t mean that the UOC and its parishes, monasteries, and dioceses are
automatically deprived of their names.

Despite the absurdity of the norm adopted by the officials, the President of Ukraine Petro
Poroshenko signed the law, declaring:

The specified changes in the law create better conditions for the realization of this right
for those who will be deciding which Orthodox jurisdiction to belong to… Either to the
newly-created autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, or to the Church that insists
on preserving its connection and dependence on the ROC.

Legislative populism and a reality check

If we combine everything enumerated above, the conclusion arises that such a dubious law as
No. 5309 will most likely be challenged. This will happen, if not within the framework of the
Ukrainian state, then at the international level. Hence the question: What was all this contrived
for in the first place?

At first glance, the situation looks like an attempt to discredit the UOC within the country against
the backdrop of the newly-formulated OCU, however, everything is much more complicated.
Firstly, with this law and the informational noise around it, the state again wanted to draw public
attention to the idea that the UOC is a “fifth column” on the territory of Ukraine. During the
Verkhovna Rada plenary session, the Radical Party Deputy Igor Mosiychuk said:

Now is the moment of truth. The future of the state depends on the vote of every deputy.
The OCU will be united, no matter how much the Russian world whimpers. You all

280
 should know that pushing the green button, you fire at the Russian world. Death to the
Russian world!

This opinion was presumably shared by 240 deputies who voted for the law.

Secondly, the adoption of law No. 5309 is also a test of the reaction of the UOC itself and its
readiness for self-defense. To the honor of the clergy and faithful of the UOC, it must be noted
that on the day of the vote, despite the difficult weather, several thousand people gathered
outside the Rada, protesting against the interference of the state in the life of the Church. The
Church had a similar reaction in the past when the Verkhovna Rada had already tried to vote for
the anti-Church bills.

This all suggests that they’ll continue to test the Church in precisely this “legislative” way. Why
are they trying to fit this lawlessness within the framework of the law?

Calling white black:

What is truly lurking behind the legislative lawlessness in Ukraine?

Of course, any burst of negative emotions in regard to the canonical UOC today and in the
following months will be closely connected with the creation of the new “OCU” quasi-church.
Over the past four years, all interested parties have been assured that it’s impossible to “trample
upon” the more than 12,000 parishes and monasteries of the UOC by direct raider seizures.

Firstly, because it causes too sharp of a reaction in the West. In just the past year, Ukraine
became the leader in violations of Orthodox Christians’ rights in Europe.

“According to the results of the monitoring of the forty-seven member countries of the European
Union, 165 violations of the freedoms and rights of Orthodox Christians were collected in 2017.
About 66% of the cases collected occurred in Ukraine, 17% in southeastern Europe (Albania,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey), and 15% in
Russia. Additionally, one violation was recorded in Poland and one case in Germany and
Belgium,” said Igumen Philip (Ryabikh), the ROC’s representative to the European Union.

Of course, this statistic doesn’t add any credibility to the current Ukrainian government.
Accordingly, the following thesis was quickly inscribed in the vector of state politics:

“For an independent state—an independent Church.” If we recall the beginning of

Poroshenko’s and his government’s rule, nothing was said about this in 2014. The OCU,
as an anti-canonical and purely political project, was immediately rejected by the faithful
of the UOC. The expected unification did not happen. Instead, society received a kind of
mutated pseudo-church organism—a viper’s nest.

281
flickr.com
    

However, the newly-created “church” has become quite useful as an instrument of pressure on
the UOC. That is, effectively, the OCU is replacing the UOC with itself. Of course, all of this is
accompanied by administrative pressure and blackmail. Moreover, any new law can now be
written under the new “state” church that will be unambiguously received with a hurrah in
marginalized Ukrainian society.

Law No. 5309 was adopted supposedly out of humane motives, “so the faithful wouldn’t confuse
the ‘occupant’s Church’ with the true Ukrainian Church.” At the same time, several other anti-
Church bills are waiting in the Verkhovna Rada’s dock, aimed at serious complications in the life
of the UOC itself. For example,

 bills on the “self-determination” of the faithful to change their religious affiliation;

 bills on the expropriation of churches of the UOC that are architectural monuments and
are on the state’s balance. The encroachments on the Pochaev and Kiev Lavras can be
attributed to these latter bills.

282
But the most terrible thing, that I absolutely don’t want to believe, is the exacerbation of the
religious situation with the goal of prolonging the political power of the President and the
bureaucratic elite. As we know, martial law was introduced in Ukraine in early December,
covering only certain regions of the country. According to many political analysts, Poroshenko
would have liked to introduce martial law in the whole country to cancel the upcoming
presidential elections. But although by pointing at the Azov conflict he didn’t manage to do so,
it’s not ruled out that this plan will be realized playing the religious card.

If the Verkhovna Rada adopts any bill aimed at expropriating churches and monasteries from the
UOC, it could lead to inevitable confrontations. The faithful will protect their holy sites. That’s
precisely what Poroshenko is expecting, so as to “nail” the omnipresent “hand of the Kremlin” to
the canonical Church, accusing the UOC of fulfilling the orders of the FSB, the KGB, the Chief
Intelligence Directorate, the Mi-6,[2] or whoever else in order to destabilize the situation in the
country. Thus, Poroshenko will be totally free to introduce martial law throughout all of Ukraine,
which is practically his only chance to remain seated on the presidential chair.

Moreover, any act of disobedience to the authorities, even in the process of the required
renaming, will be regarded as cause for completely forbidding the activity of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church in the country.

A recipe for confrontation

Based on the possible scenarios for the development of the situation, we should draw the
attention of the entire UOC—both the clergy and laity—to ensure that any action coming from
the Church would always be thought out on the canonical and legal level. As you can see, any
careless step could lead to serious consequences and aggravate the already difficult situation in
Ukraine.

The history of the Church gives us many examples of how we can defend ourselves and that
which we hold dear. Above all is prayer and fasting, especially relevant in these pre-Nativity
days. And further, as says the holy Psalmist and Prophet David: Cast thy burden upon the LORD
(Ps. 54:22).

Mikhail Shevchenko
Translated by Jesse Dominick

Pravoslavie.ru

12/31/2018

Ecclesiology of the Schism: Historical

Reflections
Priest Mikhail Ulanov

283
    

The jurisdictional pretentions of the See of Constantinople have a long history. Being politically
driven, they at the same time possess a strong ideological basis. Researchers have so far
examined the imperial ideology of Byzantium only in the context of socio-political processes;
however, recent publications and declarations from the hierarchs of Constantinople present this
ideology as a very strange deviation in the form of a new teaching in Orthodox ecclesiastical
hierarchy.

The danger of the emergence of a new, corrupted doctrine concerning the Church is obvious—
it’s now already contributing to separation between Churches, and the main position of the new
[ecclesiastical] structure of the Ecumenical Church receives theological grounding.

The latter directly leads to the emergence of doctrinal corruptions of Orthodox ecclesiology.
What precipitated the rise of this problem?

A Fountain of “Bitter Water”1

284
The sacral2 character of Imperial authority was an indispensable component of the beliefs of
Greeks at the time of the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Gratian in 375 A.D. renounced the title of
Pontifex Maximus3 (high/greatest priest), but the tradition to connect the Imperial power and the
sacred did not disappear. Emperors participated in all spheres of ecclesiastical life: they elected
and dismissed Patriarchs, wrote religious texts, transferred bishops, were censed at the Divine
services, and under Emperor Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195, 1203–1204) successively dismissed
and appointed five Patriarchs in a row. From Theodore Balsamon we find the following remark:

Orthodox Emperors, without restriction, and whenever they choose can enter the
Holy Altar, burn incense, make the sign of the cross with trikiri [three-branched
candlestick] just like hierarchs. They offer catechism to the people, which is a
privilege normally permitted only to local hierarchs … and since the reigngin
emperor is the anointed of the Lord, by way of his anointing to rule the Empire,
and Christ our God is a High Priest, thus the Emperor is also adorned with high
priestly gifts.4

Without engaging in a struggle with the cult of the Emperor, Greek thought adapted, drawing the
connection between the field of the sacred in the Church and the state. The historical and
political expedience of the decisions concerning the elevation of the capital See, and changing
the status of the capital city bishop became the Emperor’s “imitation” of the Bishop of
Constantinople, during which the bishop accepted the “sacred” authority of governing the
Church.

The power of the Emperor, its universal and sacred character, was transferred to the throne of
Constantinople. In the testimony of Anastasias the Librarian (the Apocrisiarius of the Pope of
Rome) of the ninth century, we find confirmation that the “Ecumenical” title of the Patriarch of
Constantinople was already understood by the Greeks as a sign of his all-Byzantine authority:

When I was in Constantinople, and often criticized the Greeks for the word
“Ecumenical”, and reproached them for vanity and pride, they objected, saying that they
did not call the Patriarch “Ecumenical” (Oikumenikos, which can be translated as
“universalis”) because he is the bishop over the entire world, but because he has the
authority over one part of the world in which Christians live. That which the Greeks call
the universe – oikumene – does not only mean “The World” like in Latin (orbis
terrarium), [but the Greek word Oikumene] from which comes the title Ecumenical
[Oikumenikos] also means “every dwelling or habitable place.”5

V. Kartashev clarifies the words of Anastasius, translating “Oikumenikos” as meaning “of the
Eastern Empire”, Pan-Hellenic6, All-Byzantine.”7 This meaning of the title of the Patriarchs of
Constantinople soon took on an immediate sense. During the seventh and eighth centuries, the
Byzantine Empire experienced a series of upheavals, as a result of which, significant parts of its
territories were seized, first by the Arabs and Persians, and then by the Turks.

As a result, the cathedrae of the three Patriarchs (of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) found
themselves outside the borders of a Christian state. Naturally, Constantinople began to be
perceived not only as the capital of the state, but also as the capital of the Church, the main

285
bishops of which (the Patriarchs) de facto dwelled in. With time, this historical fact became
reflected in the works of thinkers of that epoch, and also in the normative texts.

In the Epanagoge, a collection of laws of the ninth century, we find very radical ideas
concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople. Title III begins with the definition:

The Patriarch is a living and animated image (icon) of Christ, witnessing the truth in
word and deed.8

In the fifth and sixth chapters of the third Title, the Patriarch is attributed special powers in the
field of the interpretation and enforcement of the norms of Orthodox canons, which read
respectively:

The Patriarch alone must interpret the rules of the ancient Patriarchs, and the definitions
declared by the Holy Fathers, and the positions of the Holy Synods.

The actions arranged by the ancient Fathers in the Councils and in diocese, especially in
councils, the Patriarch must treat, employ, and refine.9

The expressions of the Epanagoge clearly testify to the transfer of the sacred character of the
power of the emperor10 to the power of the first eastern throne. Moreover, the possession of
truth also “becomes” an attribute of the primate of Constantinople, which allows drawing
parallels with similar trends in the Roman Church.

This new position of Constantinople as being the “Church capital” was articulated by the
Patriarch of Antioch Theodore Balsamon, and the Bulgarian Archbishop Dmitri Khomatin.
Balsamon’s ornate rhetorical expressions, which provided Emperors with extraordinary
opportunities in the Church, are traditionally perceived by many researchers as eastern flattery,
but this “flattery” is not without real meaning. A. Lebedev cites the famous words of Dmitri
Khomatin:

The Emperor, who is, and thus is called, the general supreme governor of Churches,
stands above the declarations of the Councils, and he constitutes the proper enforcement
of these declarations. He is the very standard with regards to ecclesiastical hierarchy,
the law-giver for the life and conduct of priests … in a word, with the sole exception
being the conducting of Divine services, the Emperor is granted all other episcopal
privileges … as the ancient Roman Emperors were ascribed: Pontifex Maximus, the
current Emperors should be regarded as the same, for the sake of [their] Imperial
anointing.11

With time, these honorary titles were attached to the Patriarchal authority of Constantinople.

In 1397, the Patriarch of Constantinople Anthony IV would send the Prince of Moscow, Basil II
Dmitrievich, a letter demanding the restoration of the commemoration of the Byzantine Emperor
during Divine Services.

286
In this letter, the very same rhetoric was used with regards to the attitude towards the position of
the Patriarch.

The Patriarch of Constantinople Anthony IV, in his address to Vasily Dmitrievich, writes
literally the following:

We are guardians of Divine laws and canons, and are obliged to thus act in relation to all
Christians, especially with regards to great people—princes of nations and local lords—
such as your nobleness … inasmuch as I am a universal teacher for all Christians, I have
an indispensable duty: When I hear concerning your nobility, that something is hurting
your soul, to write to you about it, like your father and teacher, instructing and
encouraging you to correction. And you, as a Christian, and a son of the Church are
obliged to correct yourself… Do you not know that the Patriarch takes the place of Christ,
from which he sits on the Master's throne? It is not a human who you despise, but Christ
himself! And on the contrary, he who honors the Patriarch honors the very Christ Himself!
12

If these words were to be understood literally, we could call Patriarch Anthony “the Vicar of
Christ.” At the same time, taking authority from the Pontifex Maximus, the Patriarch sees here a
sacred instilment by Christ Himself. The mouth-piece of the universal authority of the empire, he
is now becoming “the universal teacher for all Christians.” In the Russian tradition of historical
science, it was customary to consider these words as simply a part of Eastern etiquette, but the
subsequent development of events in the twentieth century allows us to see the immediate
significance beyond these expressions.

Life after death … of the Empire

287
    

With the fall of Constantinople, much has changed. The Emperor disappeared, and in the Greek
world, the only one who can bear the burden of “sacred authority” remains the hierarch of
Constantinople. With strict adherence to the letter of the canons, this should not have happened,
inasmuch as Constantinople ceased to be the city of the Emperor and the Senate, and ceased to
exist as an ecclesiastical center, its Patriarch was now simply the Bishop of Istanbul.

Nevertheless, under Turkish rule, the Patriarch of Constantinople receives the title “millet-bashi
of Rum,” and becomes the head of all Christians living on the territory of the Ottoman Empire.
Millet-Bashi is a title that included secular functions, literally meaning “head of the [client]
nation.”

From now on, the Sublime Port13 [Ottomans] decided on all issues relating to Eastern
Orthodoxy, through the Patriarch of Constantinople, and making all aspects of the public life of
the Greek-speaking population14 dependent on him, all ideas of the sacred character of power
which were previously processed by the Emperor, were naturally transferred to him. This opened
the way for new claims to universal power for the Patriarch, which were not formed
immediately.

288
By 1832, after the long struggle for independence in the course of the latest Russo-Turkish War,
with the positive participation of England and France as well, the Greek Kingdom was formed.
This was a very significant event, since the Greek Church now had a “City of the King and
Senate,” their state appeared, and according to the canons (IV Ecumenical Council, Canons:17
and 28, and the Trullan Council, Canon 38) the ecclesiastical center was to be moved to Athens.
This did not happen, and in 1833, Greece declared its ecclesiastical independence. Self-declared
autocephaly was confirmed by the Constantinople See, located in the center of the Islamic world
—in Istanbul—in 1850.

This moment can be considered the final factor in the establishment of contemporary
Constantinople, and the formation of new aspirations in its ecclesiology. According to the logic
of Church canons, the Church of Christ is a universal phenomenon in and of itself, and is open to
all believers in Christ, but this universality must not necessarily be connected to state borders.
Changes in these borders lead to a change in the structure of the organization; we can see how
this happened in the long history of the Church of Constantinople. The Church always remains in
the center of the political life of the society of Orthodox Christians, regardless of the place in
which it is located, or in which this center moves.

The Greeks, who for many years had their center in Istanbul, in a specific city, then absolutized it
as the mythical Constantinople. The transfer of the capital from Rome to Constantinople was
seen by them as quite lawful; however the transfer of the Patriarchate to Athens from Istanbul
was not possible. The opportunity to normalize ecclesiastical life by transferring the center of the
life of the Church from Istanbul to Athens was not fulfilled, and this in turn led to changes in the
activities of the Church of Constantinople.

From this time onward, the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon was perceived by
Constantinople not as a conciliar rule, but as a historical fact, granting it, as the center of
Orthodoxy, extraordinary powers. From then on, Constantinople has fought for control of the
Diaspora—in general, all parishes located beyond its official borders—since its communities
[within Turkey] are not enough. From now on, the scope of Constantinople is political,
henceforth it is not the historical Mother Church but the invading Church. The role of the Church
of Constantinople, which does not now possess the opportunity to have a normal Church life on
its own canonical territory, is also interpreted differently.

In the Epoch of War and Revolution

With the end of the nineteenth century, a new stage in the realization of the ecclesiastical-
political interests of Constantinople began. It was connected, first of all, with political regime
changes within a number of states, including Russia and Turkey. After the defeat of Turkey in
the First World War, the Greek independence fighters raised their heads. A nationalist rise began
among the Greeks. A number of publications15 appeared on the theme of the formation of a
single center of the Orthodox world, which would be headed by the Greeks, while from the other
side, the “newly formed national” Churches, (including [in their opinion] the Russian), active
participation and abundant funding was needed. Fr. Alexander Mazyrin writes on this subject:

289
 There is no justification in Orthodox ecclesiology and in the canons for these plans to
transform the Phanar into some eastern Vatican. They could not be met with the
sympathy of the Russian Church, and only a sharp weakening [of the Russian Church]
gave the Greeks a chance to implement their projects.16

Canonically speaking these plans were really unfounded, but the [new] ecclesiology in the
Istanbul center of Greek Orthodoxy had already appeared, and by its logic, those perspectives
seemed very solid. Greeks no longer speak about the Emperor or “The Sacred Empire,” but they
have carried faith in the “New Rome” (as in the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople) through
the centuries, and in the sacral character of the authority of the First Hierarch of Constantinople.
The ideas concerning the sacred and universal authority of a central cathedra are pagan
atavisms,17 which are strongly fueled by nationalistic aspirations. These atavisms allowed one to
consider the political activities of the cathedra, if not directly sacred as before, then at least
ecclesiastical in essence. For the sake of the fulfillment of “its destiny,” Constantinople
considered itself able to step over all the canons and traditions of relations between Orthodox
Churches.

In November of 1921, a nationalist was elected to the throne of Constantinople, the Archbishop
of Athens Meletius (Metaxakis). He broke off relations with both the Greek and Turkish
governments, and after the defeat of the Greeks in 1922, he found himself in a difficult situation:
The Turks made it clear that they did not want to see him in Istanbul. There arose a project for
the transfer of the throne of Constantinople into exile, but the Greeks stubbornly did not want to
agree to this. They appealed to the international community, in particular, to the English
government and the Anglican Church. At the Lausanne Peace Conference of 1922-23,
Eleftherios Venizelos (a Greek politician directly related to Patriarch Meletius) said:

The Patriarch is first and foremost the “Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome,”
which, thanks to its status in the fourth and fifth centuries, was elevated to the dignity of
Ecumenical Patriarchate by the decision of all Christian Churches, including the Roman
Church. No one in the world can dissolve these two attributes.” “The Patriarchate
cannot be transferred to another place, only a new [Ecumenical] Council can adapt a
resolution on the preservation of its stay, or it’s transfer.18

It is this type of logic that was reproduced during the Synaxis on September 1- 3, 2018 by
Patriarch Bartholomew:

The Ecumenical Patriarchate bears the responsibility of setting matters in ecclesiastical

and canonical order because it alone has the canonical privilege … to carry out this
supreme and exceptional duty… If the Ecumenical Patriarchate denies its responsibility
and removes itself from the inter-Orthodox scene, then the local Churches will proceed
“as sheep without a shepherd.”

At times, we confront trials and temptations precisely because some people falsely
believe that they can love the Orthodox Church, but not the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
forgetting that it incarnates the authentic ecclesiastical ethos of Orthodoxy.19

290
Speaking in defense of the Church of Constantinople, many Orthodox scholars and hierarchs,
(for example, Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky), Anton Kartashev) argued that any attacks on
the throne of Constantinople and its primacy would lead to the collapse of the Orthodox world in
general. Thus Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), on behalf of the Temporary Holy Synod of
Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), writes, “The abolition or the
abasement of this Apostolic Cathedra would be a deep injury and blow to the entire Orthodox
Church.”20 Of course, this was a political stratagem, because after all, there was never an
apostolic cathedra of Constantinople.21 However, Russian rhetoric in defense of its Greek
brothers was in the end not accepted as a political game but as an ideological confirmation of
their quest and direction to action.

In March of 1922, the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletius issued a tomos concerning his right
to:

direct supervision and management of all Orthodox parishes located outside the borders
of the Local Orthodox Churches, without exception, in Europe, America, and other
places”22

Starting from this time, the undisguised expansionism of the Bishop of Istanbul over the entire
diaspora of the Orthodox Church begins.

This led to the rethinking of the concept of Constantinople, and concerning the Church itself.
And we are now witnessing very dangerous trends by the Greek Church in the theological world.

Primus “in sheep’s clothing”

291
    

On December 25, 2013, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a new
document, “The Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal
Church”.23

In response to the position of the Russian Church, a professor at the University of Thessaloniki,
the Metropolitan of Bursa Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, published an article: “Primus sine
paribus,” literally meaning, “The First Without Equals”.2425 This article attempts to
theologically substantiate Istanbul’s jurisdictional claims. It is important to note that this article
has long been located on the official website of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Unto this very
moment, the Phanar has never expressed a word of criticism against the provisions of the article,
which directly speaks to the support of similar ideas by the hierarchs of Constantinople.

What is Metropolitan Elpidophoros’s argument?

First of all, the Metropolitan of Bursa reproaches the Russian Church for refusing to identify “the
primacy of the Lord” and “the primacy of the bishops.” He writes:

292
 Thus the text of the Moscow Patriarchate is forced to adopt the unprecedented
distinction between, on the one hand, the 'primary' primacy of the Lord and, on the other
hand, the 'secondary' primacies of bishops ("various forms of primacy ... are
secondary"), although later in the same document it will be suggested that the bishop is
the image of Christ (cf. 2:1), which seems to imply that the two primacies are univocal or
at least analogous and not merely equivocal.26

The identification of the primacy of the Lord, and the primacy of earthly, albeit ecclesiastical
authority has so far only been found in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The
infamous words of Pope Innocent III are known, when he speaks of his title, “The Vicar of
Christ,” which purposes the actual unity of [Papal] power with Christ in the management of the
Church:

Peter is the only one who has been called to enjoy the plentitude. I have received from
him the miter for my priesthood and the crown for my royal state, he has established me
vicar of him on whose robes it is written: ‘King of kings and Lord of lords, priest for ever
after in the order of Melchizedek’.27

Considering that such ideas about the primacy of the bishops of Rome have been addressed
before, the defender of the Orthodox Faith and holy Hierarch Mark of Ephesus, in his Encyclical
Letter, makes a direct comparison, during which he acknowledges at least the negation of the
equality of the Patriarchs among themselves:

And for us, the Pope is as one of the Patriarchs, and that alone—if he be Orthodox;
while they, with great gravity, proclaim him, “Vicar of Christ, Father and Teacher of all
Christians.28

Reflecting on the words of the holy Hierarch Mark, one involuntarily asks himself the question:
If the Patriarch of Constantinople is “first without equals,” then perhaps he is not fully
Orthodox? In this case, the words of Patriarch Anthony IV: “The [Patriarch] is the universal
teacher for all Christians” acquire an immediate meaning: Does the Patriarch take the place of
Christ, from Whose blessing he sits on the throne?!”29

The Image of Christ, and the bearer of Christ’s authority are two completely different approaches
to understanding ecclesiastical management, the difference and gap between which the
Metropolitan of Bursa is trying to close.

This position fully explains the canonical nihilism of Constantinople. Since the canons do not
provide opportunities for primacy, they are rejected. There can be no canonical rules for the
“Sacred Authority,” and therefore the Metropolitan of Bursa cannot even recognize the canon—
the source of the right of primacy—the 28th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and this
also means the Ecumenical Council itself, which established this rule, and even the Ecumenical
Church. While at first, affirming the foundations of their rights in the decision of that Council of
Chalcedon, in the end, the partisans of the Primate of Constantinople come to deny the
significance of canonical decisions in general.

293
Metropolitan Elpidophoros writes without a second thought:

If the primus is a recipient of (his) primacy, then primacy exists without and regardless
of him, which is impossible.

If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of such primacy is
the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one
"among equals," but as Archbishop of Constantinople, and thus as Ecumenical Patriarch
is the first without equals (primus sine paribus).30

Here, the First Hierarch (Primus) is not a recipient, but the very source of primacy for the
Church, into which he introduces in that way harmony and order, borrowing it, allegedly, from
the Mystery of the Holy Trinity—“the true source of all primacy.” The Metropolitan of Bursa
carries forth without the slightest constraint these insane theological correlations:

In order to understand these innovations more clearly, let us look for a moment at what
all this would mean if we related and applied them to the life of the Holy Trinity, the true
source of all primacy.31

In relation to the Trinity, the Primus (First Hierarch) therefore exists as a vicar32!!! Such strange
speculations—to be standing above the Church, Her face, to sanctify the Church itself!

In this regard, an extremely important factor is multiple times repeated, including by

Metropolitan Elpidophoros, the statement that the position of the Russian Church is an
innovation, while the doctrine of primacy in the Church was from the beginning. In this regard,
Pat. Bartholomew cites the words of the Metropolitan of Gortyna and Arcadia Kyrillos:

Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate.33

The affirmation of Metropolitan Elpidophoros is false—since the history of the Church and the
witness of the Church Fathers in the first three centuries completely exclude [the theory or
existence of] ecclesiastical primacy of authority [in general], not to mention the specific idea of
Constantinople’s authority.

Here another thing is important to note. The assertion of a primordial or eternal primacy of a city
is too clearly correlated with the ancient ideas of Rome as the “eternal city.” To be sure, in this
sense, the title “Universal/Ecumenical” sounds like “Imperial,” or “Central” Rome meaning that
it would be the center of the oikumene—a universe that possess a sacred meaning, but not an
ecclesiastical one.

In Summary

1. The definitions of the canons of the Council of Chalcedon (Fourth Ecumenical) define
the privileges of Constantinople as “the City of the Emperor and Senate,” and this
possess two levels of understanding: a) historical-political34 and b) historiosophical35.
The first is the process of transferring the capital (of the Roman Empire) to

294
 Constantinople, and the elevation of its cathedra by these historical events, possessing the
end result of a change in the balance of ecclesiastical-political powers within the state.
The second is a sacral event, defining the See of Constantinople as the center of the
Orthodox world because of its direct connection to the center of the “Sacred Empire”—
the mythical Rome. The historical-political approach is a scientific method, and extant
mainly in the writings of the historians of the Church, and supporters of the privileges of
the Constantinople First Hierarch standing on historiosophical positions.
2. The Emperor in the Roman Empire was the head not only of the secular, but also spiritual
authority, and this corresponded to the idea of the sacred character of Imperial Authority.
The perception of the Byzantine Emperors as Pontifex Maximus led to the transition to
them of a number of sacral functions of the Church—first of all, related to ecclesiastical
management. In turn, the ecclesiastical administration in the ideological paradigm of “the
Empire” begins to be perceived by supporters of the Primate of Constantinople as a
sacred, primordial, and universal phenomenon.
3. The loss (by enemy conquest) of the territories of the Empire, which fell under the
jurisdiction of the leading Patriarchs of the Greek East, led to the standing of
Constantinople as the real (practical, acting) center of the Orthodox world. The fall of
Constantinople itself led to the actual disappearance of the Empire, with the result being
that the Patriarch, as the “millet-bashi of Rum” became the head of Greek Orthodoxy,
and at the same time, the Greek people. This leads to the reception of the Patriarch of
Constantinople in the Greek world as the bearer of sacred authority, which is confirmed
by all of his titles, such as “universal teacher of all Christians,” accepting the throne
“from Christ himself.” The subsequent formation of the Greek state in 1832, therefore,
does not lead to the transfer of the “capital of Orthodoxy” to Athens. Istanbul (still in
their view) stands as the mythical Constantinople—the “second Rome.”
4. The absence of full-fledged Church organization in the Ottoman Empire itself led to the
emergence of the claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the entire diaspora,
which they claimed in the corresponding Tomos of 1922. The Church of Constantinople,
for the supporting of its own existence, in this document stood opposed to all Orthodox
Churches that possessed parishes outside the borders of their respective states. The
interests of Constantinople were mainly directed to the canonical territory of the Russian
Church—partially because of political instability in countries of origin, which contributed
to the dissolution of its parts, and also particularly because Constantinople perceived the
Russian Church as a rival, in connection with the historical fact of the emergence of the
historiosophical idea of “Moscow as the Third Rome.”
5. The development of the idea of an ecclesiastical Empire among supporters of the primate
of Constantinople led to a rethinking of the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the
structure of the Orthodox world. This, above all, was reflected in the perception of
Church institutions through the prism of the historiosophical idea of the “New Rome.”
Essential in canonical definitions was the recognition of not a legal form connecting the
ecclesiastical norms with the imperious command of the Universal Church, but a
historical fact, which acquired the features of the myth of the “Eternal Rome.” As a
result, this led to the marginalization of a (proper) ecclesiastical legal consciousness. The
supporters of the primate of Constantinople perceive the canons only in accordance with
their ideas of primacy. The real and historical meaning of the ecclesiastical canons are
ignored, as well as the norms of the Church, which are not directly connected to it.

295
 6. The idea of a “Primus” of Constantinople led to the emergence among its supporters of a
new doctrine on the special primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople. This primacy
does not depend on the Universal (Ecumenical) Church, but on the contrary, on the
Primus (First Hierarch) of Constantinople. As supporters of such a theory teach, he
himself is the source of primacy for the Church, accepting it, in turn, from God. The
sacred, universal, and primordial character of such a primacy manifests itself in the actual
ideological basis of the myth of “Eternal Rome.”

The idea of a universal center of Ecumenical Christianity presents itself as the ideological basis
of the new doctrine of the Church, even though it claims that it existed for centuries. This idea
(of primacy) became the cause of the separation of the Christian Church in the eleventh century
and it also serves as a confrontation with the other Local Orthodox Churches today. Disproved
by history, denied by canons, and refuted by the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, the
Church of Constantinople lives in earthly and bygone ages, and finds supporters who are reading,
according to the Holy Hierarch Gregory the Theologian: to contest one another for sacred
thrones… To proclaim peace but boast in blood!”36 After yet another thousand years, this idea
gained new supporters, and again puts the Church on the brink of schism.

The hostile actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople bear the stamp of faith and doctrinal
perversions. Explanations for the invasions of canonical territory are supported by the Phanar’s
allies, not in political or economic expediency, but in an assertation of the idea of primacy, and
its theological justification. Patriarch Bartholomew made very clear the purpose of such
pretentions in one of his recent statements:

The primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and our (Greek) nation in Orthodoxy.37

Therefore, Constantinople’s modern claims are not only manipulations in the field of
ecclesiastical politics, or a struggle over spheres of influence with Moscow.

This is an attempt to revise Orthodox ecclesiology.

Priest Mikhail Ulanov,

Doctoral Candidate in Theology
Translation by Matfey Shaheen

Pravoslavie.ru

12/18/2018

Ethno-phyletism and the Patriarch of

Constantinople
Anna Stickles

296
 Photo:
regnum.ru
    

In this text, the author, Anna Stickles, refers to Archimandrite Grigorios D. Papathomas, who is
one of the leading canonical scholars supporting the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Ukraine
crisis, and whose definition of ethno-phyletism she finds particularly useful in evaluating the
Ukrainian situation. He is a Lecturer of Canon Law at the Orthodox Institute of St. Serge in
Paris and a Lecturer of Canon Law in the Faculty of Theology, University of Athens.

***

Archimandrite Grigorios D. Papathomas describes ethno-phyletism this way:

“Ethno-phyletism constitutes … a confusion between the Church and the race/nation, an

assimilation—and even, sometimes, identification—of the Church with the nation… Phyletism
'tribalizes' the Church and subordinates it to the endo-created historic goals of the race and the
nation or, even worse, exploits the Church in order to discriminate against those of other races
and nations solely for the benefit of the race and the nation.”1

Now if we look at this in light of the parties involved in Ukraine, we have to ask which party—
the canonical Ukrainian Church or Poroshenko along with the schismatic churches—show this
heresy? The canonical Church recognizes that there are various political views in the country—
those who have a Ukrainian vision of being one race with the Russians, those who have a
historical vision in which there have always been two separate nations/peoples, and many
variations along the spectrum. The canonical Church does not try to suppress the diversity of
these views, but simply supports the territorial integrity of the nation and encourages people to
find unity in Christ even in the midst of differing political opinions.

297
On the other hand, Poroshenko and the schismatics have constantly shown discrimination against
those of other races; i.e., those of the Russian language and ethnicity, and they do this under the
auspices of benefiting the nation. Does a political “us vs. them” atmosphere full of suspicion and
mistrust really build a strong nation or does the effort toward living together in trust and
cooperation build a strong society? Poroshenko has slandered his own citizens, making the
accusation that anyone who speaks Russian or sympathizes with traditional Russian culture
(rather than the Western European culture that Poroshenko supposedly wants to introduce into
Ukraine) must necessarily be unpatriotic and want the nation of Ukraine absorbed back into
Russia. He is not willing to recognize the distinction between race and nations, or allow that
there might be those who speak Russian or are culturally more Russian who also support the
integrity of the Ukrainian state and actually be patriotic.

This is not to deny that there are various individuals who may not be patriotic, but this should be
determined according to some kind of proof of action, not universally prejudicially applied
according to cultural affinity. To drive his views, Poroshenko and those with him preach a
political agenda of fear and suspicion. And this is the person that Patriarch Bartholomew has
allied himself with.

Archimandrite Grigorios continues:

“The Ecclesiological Heresy first appeared in the heart of the Orthodox Church in 1870, with the
arbitrary establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Constantinople, according to which the
Church is organized not on a territorial basis, but rather on a racial, national, or—to be more
precise—culturalistic one, such that, in a way of co-territoriality, two or more Ecclesial entities
and Ecclesiastical jurisdictions can co-exist in the same territory.”

If Constantinople decides to submit to Poroshenko’s wishes and establish an Orthodox church on

Ukrainian soil against the wishes of the canonical Church, is this not exactly what will appear?
On the same territory there will be two ecclesial entities split according to cultural/political
criteria. In America we do not have these kind of ethnic tensions in politics, but an analogy
would be setting up one Orthodox church for Democrats and one for Republicans. While some
very politically-minded people may joke that this would not be a bad thing, I think we all
recognize how very seriously this warps the very nature of what the Church stands for in terms
of bringing all into one in Christ. This denies the central Eucharistic mission of the Church.

Let’s take a brief look at the history of the council that condemned ethno-phyletism and the
events leading up to it.2 When the Bulgarians and the Ecumenical Patriarch could not work
things out, the sultan stepped in and unilaterally intervened. He created a jurisdiction for the
Bulgarians that territorially overlapped with the Patriarch’s, and the Patriarch complained that
the ecclesial principle of one bishop for one territory was being violated. He also complained that
the Turkish government should not be interfering in Church problems. Today, who is playing
sultan?

When a council of laymen was convened to elect a Bulgarian bishop, the Ecumenical Patriarch
immediately deposed him. Now, however, this same Patriarchate is restoring schismatic, deposed
bishops to communion without repentance.

298
In order to settle this Bulgarian question the Ecumenical Patriarch convoked a general council
that same year in 1872, which it decided that ethno-phyletism was a heresy; all the churches have
since accepted this council’s decision, even the ones who did not attend. In the current situation
the Russian Church has also called for a Pan-Orthodox council to help settle the problem, but
Constantinople, who currently has the rights of calling a council, will not respond.

One question is: Will Constantinople continue to simply dismiss anyone whose ideas or plans
differ from theirs as spreading fake news? Or will they make the effort to bear all things, believe
all things, hope all things, endure all things?3 in reference to their Ukrainian and Russian
Orthodox brothers who are being slandered? Will they persist in a mindset that looks with
suspicion at those who do not agree with them or will they move to the place where to the pure
all things are pure?

Lastly, the question is: Will His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople have the
courage to stand up to ethno-pyletism and live according to ecclesial truth, or will he bow to the
pressure? He now faces the additional pressure that dropping this whole thing would be to lose a
great deal of public face in the eyes of the secular world—although this move would only give
him a great deal of credence in the eyes of those with faith, who understand what an act of
courage and holiness it is to confess our errors. Genuine metanoia is only seen in holy people,
and is not something seen in the secular world. This kind of courage is only attained by grace.

Anna Stickles

12/6/2018

If We Lose the Purity of Faith, We Are

Worthless As Christians
Metropolitan Onuphry (Berezovsky)

His Beatitude answers the questions of his flock about the fast, the Church, and the faith.

“Remain true to Christ, then His grace will not let you lose your way in the darkness of the
temptations of today,” said His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine.

299
    

—Your Beatitude, the fast is always a time of self-restraint, and not only in dietary terms.
First of all this concerns spiritual life. Today as never before it is important to gain
humility, which is always expressed as trust in God, His Church, the hierarchy. Why is this
so difficult for people, and how do we approach this attitude? How do we learn to trust in
God?

—During the holy Nativity fast period, every believer must try to enrich himself with invaluable
spiritual gifts, among which the most precious is humility. A humble person accepts with
gratitude all that the Lord sends him. He never considers God to be indebted to him, for he
knows that he himself is indebted to God for all the good things that He provides.

Humility is the proper understanding of peace, the correct grasp of Who the Lord is, who we are,
who our neighbor is. The first step towards humility is recognizing oneself as the creation of
God. With profound humility, a person who tries to live by the commandments begins to look at
himself critically, analyzing his actions, his state of mind, his emotions and thoughts, and to
rebuke himself for his failures and weaknesses. Only then will he humble himself before Divine
will and surrender himself to His will, then he will trust in God and devote himself to Him.

300
—Your Beatitude, how are believers to react to the possible (worst-case) scenario around
the Church?

—People who don’t understand the nature of the Church view it as a great ship traveling upon
the sea. But they don’t see the Great Helmsman and think that His place can be occupied by
someone else. But Christ guides the Church. Those who don’t understand at times brazenly
intrude upon Church life and think themselves to be controlling the fate of the Church.
Employing purely political approaches, they form their own models of ecclesiastical order and
carelessly direct us where to go, beneficial to them but unacceptable to us.

The frivolity of their strange decisions are based not only on a lack of understanding of Divine
Law, but on the fact that for them the Church is alien, as is Church life itself. The Church does
not occupy a place in their life, it is their “hobby.” We do not rebuke such politicians, we pray
for them, we love and respect them, but ask that they not interfere in the canonical order of the
Church. This will do no good for anyone—not them, not our Ukrainian land, not our people.

For those of us for whom the Church is the Ship of salvation and our very life, we lovingly bear
witness that we don’t need to go elsewhere, that we have everything we need for salvation. Our
Church has autonomy, all the administrative, financial and canonical freedoms necessary for the
effective service to God and our people.

We must preserve the purity of the Holy Orthodox faith. But the path we are being offered today
is fraught with peril, for it proposes many limitations; there is a danger of losing the purity of
faith. If this occurs, then we are worthless as Christians. We will become spiritual enemies to our
own selves, to our land and to our people. Pure faith helps to properly organize our lives on earth
and attain salvation in Heaven, it invokes Divine blessings on earth.

Dear brothers and sisters, strive to preserve our faith, don’t exchange it for temporary pleasures,
remain true to Christ—and then His grace will not let you lose your way in the darkness of
today’s temptations.

Pravlife.org

Translation by the ROCOR official website

Natalia Goroshkova
spoke with Metropolitan Onuphry (Berezovsky)

12/3/2018

The Best Time for the Church is the Time of

Persecution

301
A word from His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry, First
Hierarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Onuphry (Berezovsky)

Photo: unian.net
    

A time of calm in the Church is, if you will, the worst possible time for it. What we are
experiencing right now is in fact a process of growth and maturity.

The ground under a Christian’s feet can be compared to a swamp. We have to continually labor,
and move forward, because after all, if we stand in one place then we are guaranteed to sink.

302
Without even noticing it, the Christian will sink lower and lower, until he drowns in his own
stony insensibility. That is the nature of times of calm. This applies to the laity as well as the
clergy. Everything inside him unnoticeably goes sour. He squeaks like an old floorboard, and
reads his morning and evening prayers without any feeling. The soul unoiled with grace squeaks,
and then dies, like a consumptive old hag.

After all, it is no accident that monasticism began to flourish at the time when the Orthodox faith
became not only allowed but also desirable. When instead of the roaring of wild animals in the
Roman theaters and the blood of martyrs there came the clinking of gold in bishops’ pockets, and
a good salary for the clergy began to attract people to ecclesiastical service who were eager to
run jumping after Christ, but not entirely for the sake of Christ. Then the blood of real Christians
began pouring bloodlessly in the deserts of Egypt and Syria, and the podvig of the crucifixion of
the flesh with its passions and lusts replaced the podvig of martyrdom and confession of the
faith. The marriage of Church and State always produces ugly, bastard children—that is a law of
all times. But when the temperature created in society of antireligious hysteria rises, only those
who place their faith in God higher than any other life priorities can remain in the Church.
Church opportunists and careerists are those who seek advantages, money, fame, and honor in
the Church, who love to “preside at assemblies”, that “people would speak well of them,” and
they eventually go to the places where they can reach these goals. In other words, in such times
the Church is cleansed of everything fake. And that is very good.

Christ clearly outlined the paradigm of the relationship between the world and the Church: “They
persecuted Me and they’ll persecute you, too,” “Those who kill you will think that they are doing
God’s service.” As soon as the world begins to love us we cease to be servants of Christ and
become slaves to the world; and this is the most terrible falsification there can be in life. Looking
at my home iconostasis, I don’t see there a single person who lived a stagnant pious life and yet
entered the world of Light. Looking at me from every icon is either a martyr’s blood, or
bloodless martyrdom. The algorithm of the devil’s “work” with the Church is something we well
know. It is simple to the point of naiveté and therefore extremely effective. In the early days of
Christianity, satan shouted in the “media” of those days that “Christians are depraved and
cannibals,” that “they slaughter infants at meetings, drink their blood, and then have orgies.” Of
course, how could they not give the Christians over to be eaten by lions in the coliseum? A
hundred years ago, satan also taught that Christians are “reactionary clergy”, “abettors of
imperialism,” and “enemies of the revolution”. According to his contemporaries, Lenin literally
quaked at the mere mention of the Church and of Christ. Within a couple of decades they were
shooting the clergy “for connections with counterrevolutionaries,” for “working for foreign
spies,” for “organizing conspiracies with the aim of overthrowing the Soviet government” and
for “abetting Western special services”. It’s the twenty-first century now, and satan’s arguments
are the same: “agents of the Kremlin”, “working for the FSB [Russian special services],”
“abettors of the aggressor”. It’s the same old broken record, and we can recognize the
handwriting.

But true Christians have lived, live, and will live by only Christ and the Gospels. Of course you
can slander them, kill them, and put them in prison, as has happened many times in history, but
they will continue to love God, the Church, and their Motherland. This is because we have only
one God. The time of persecution is the best time for the Church. In such times we only have to

303
do one thing to be saved—to be faithful to God and our Mother Church. In fact, everything in
this world is very, very simple. This is because God Himself is simple. In the world there is
Good and Evil. There is Universal Love, and there universal hate. The Savior gave us the
commandment of love. Everything that bears in itself love, light, goodness, mercy, and
compassion one way or another has its source in God. This is because He is Good. Everything
that bears hatred, destruction, war, calls for murder, and the thirst for murder has its source in
hell, regardless of what clothing of motivation or intentions satan dresses his evil in.

Our true citizenship is in the Kingdom of God, and we have to exert much effort in order to
receive our eternal registration there. What we are living through now is, in fact, a process of
growth and maturity. A comfort zone never gives dynamic growth. This applies to any system,
no matter what kind. Growth is only possible in labor and difficult circumstances, in the most
adverse conditions. Then our inner reserves come to the fore, and we gain new experience: To
perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.… For
he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness… Therefore, brethren, be even more
diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble (2
Pet. 1:6–10).

His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry (Berezovsky)

Translation by Nun Cornelia (Rees)

Azbuka Vernosti (Alphabet of Faithfulness)

11/15/2018

The Truth of God will never be put to shame!

Those who keep it will always be proven right
—both in history and in eternity!
Archbishop Theodosy (Snigiryov) of Boyarka

A Vicar of the Kiev Metropolia, Archbishop Theodosy (Snigiryov) of Boyarka, during his Sunday
homily, gave spiritual advice on the right attitude for the current situation in the Orthodox life of
Ukraine, to the parishioners of the Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in Kiev on
October 21, 2018.

304
    

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

Today believers are greatly troubled. How should we present ourselves today, and how can we
properly perceive these events? What can be done?

Firstly, all believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the canonical Orthodox Church, must
understand and firmly know the following: Nothing in the church life of Ukraine has changed!

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, as she was the only canonical Church conveying grace to her
believers and all of Ukraine—thus she shall remain—the only grace-filled1 canonical Church of
Ukraine.

Our Church carries out her service throughout Ukraine, even where the current authorities of
Ukraine do not reach—in Crimea2 and the East of Ukraine3. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is
from Uzhhorod4 to Donetsk and Luhansk5, from Simferopol6 and Sevastopol7 to Sumy8 and
Chernigov9—that is to say from East to West, from the North to the South—it is the largest,
canonically solid, and certainly grace-filled Church of Ukraine.

305
We know that not long ago, our Ukrainian schismatics—a group of the former Metropolitan
Philaret and the so-called UAOC received “legalization” from the Patriarch of Constantinople
Bartholomew. What could this mean for us? For us this does not mean anything at all! And here
is why:

The Orthodox Church lives by its own rules and canons, which we Orthodox people consider to
be unshakable, we consider them a protecting wall for Orthodoxy. The canonical rules and laws
were drawn up from the time of the Apostles and throughout the first millennium, and constitute
the foundations of the Church. From time to time, various church formations depart from the
Orthodox Church, falling into schism. Sometimes this schism is for the long-run, even
millennial. Thus it once was with the Roman Orthodox Church—which for reasons not spiritual,
but arrogant and political, violated the canons of Orthodoxy.

Rome was expelled from Ecumenical Orthodoxy and remained alone. So, the Roman Orthodox
Church became the Roman Catholic Church. But in as much as it was the Church of Rome, and
the second part of the Roman Empire, the Church of the Western World, which dynamically and
civilizationally developed, it did not disappear in the peripeteia10 of history, but it survives today,
and developed into a strong structure—the Roman Catholic Church, which was once one of the
family of Orthodox Churches.

Something similar has come about, over the past hundred years, with the Church of
Constantinople. Despite the fact that unlike the Roman Church of its time, the Patriarch of
Constantinople is under difficult conditions11… in practical reality the Patriarchate of
Constantinople doesn’t exist as a Local Church… the residence of the Patriarch is in Istanbul, on
the territory of Turkey, where there is practically no Orthodox population. The title and position
of Patriarch of Constantinople is in fact, symbolic.12 But nevertheless, the Orthodox world gave
honor to the Patriarch of Constantinople throughout the centuries, even when Turks began to live
and rule on his territory after the fall of Constantinople.

The problem is in that for the past 100 years, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been
following the same malignant path that Rome went on 1000 years ago—in violation of the
canons and rules of the Church, in violation of the very spirit of Orthodoxy! In this case, that
which is worldly began to be placed above that which is spiritual. The laws of human pride and
secular power, understood by earthly reasoning, began to be placed above the canons of
Orthodoxy.

If someone thinks that what happened today in Kiev with the Patriarch of Constantinople is
something new, then this is not the case at all. The case, is in that the Patriarchate of
Constantinople over the course of a century, in one form or another, took steps that were not
characteristic of an Orthodox Patriarch.

The canons firmly state that no one Local Church, and not one bishop can step on a different
territory with its own laws and canons, much less set up court there and make rulings. These are
unshakable laws from the time of the Apostles, which the apostles observed and commanded
their successors to observe. However, the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the last century has
come out in many ways in defiance of them.

306
I will illustrate this with an example close to us, one hundred years ago. We are today speaking
with you parishioners of the Kievan Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross13 [official church
website here].

Vladika Theodosy serving outside the Holy Cross Church in Podil, Kiev. krest-podol.church.ua
    

  

Many of us know that a famous writer, who became a classic, Mikhail Afanasievich Bulgakov,
the son of a professor at the Kievan Theological Academy, was baptized in our Holy Cross
church in Podil.

His family rented an apartment on Vozdvyzhens'ka14 street from the then-rector of the Church of
the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. Mikhail Bulgakov was born here, he was baptized in our
church. Those who read his works know that in our city, almost the same thing happened then,
which is happening again today: the collision of the same ideas in the very same aggressive
form.

307
Similar things happened in the ecclesiastical life. What happened with regards to the civil war,
can be found in Bulgakovs novel “The White Guard”, and what happened ecclesiastically, was
described in his feuilleton “Kiev city”15. I think that most of us [in this church—trans] are
Kievans by birth, and Mikhail Bulgakov’s youth passed, most likely, like ours, in the flowering
of chestnut trees16, in peace and prosperity.

The Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross . www.videnovum.com/.

    

And then suddenly, as Mikhail Bulgakov says, something happened in an instant, and everything
went off the rails. He describes the church life of that time in this work.

In those days, the canonical Church was called the “old” Church, and were we called
“Tikhonites” since Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Rus’, whom we honor today among the
Saints, was the Primate of the canonical Orthodox Church. And the revolutionary authorities in
Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and Kiev created their own marginal schismatic entitied:
“Renovationists”17 “Samosvyatov/Self-Consecrators”18 or “Lipkivty”19. And these “churches”

308
were used by the authorities to fight the canonical Church, the “old church”, while the true
believers were called “Tikhonites”.

Why am I taking this excursion into history? Because in the 1920s, the Patriarchate of
Constantinople recognized the “Renovationists” as “the only legal church” on the territory of the
Russian Orthodox Church, and called Saint Patriarch Tikhon “a person who brings confusing
troubles into ecclesiastical life”. Isn’t it very similar to today’s realities?20

Remembering the events from 100 years ago, and such behavior of the Patriarch of
Constantinople, we can already draw conclusions and understand in hindsight that the truth of
God cannot be put to shame, the truth of God will always prevail—even when it seems that evil
has conquered and overwhelmed all spheres of our life. When black is called white, and white is
called black, and so certainly, that even our neighbors and friends, and sometimes we ourselves,
think that black is actually almost white. When such clouds go over our hearts, one should never
forget that the truth of God, sooner or later, will triumph.

Where are these renovationists today? Who remembers them? They were given practically all the
churches, including the churches of our Kiev, but the few churches of the “old” confession, were
filled with Believers—the “Tikhonites”, who wanted to receive communion, because they knew
that Grace was present only in the true Church, and not among the “renovationists”, who were
propped up by the revolutionary authorities.

It was that same time that Hieromartyr Vladimir Bogoyavlensky, Metropolitan of Kiev and
Galicia was taken outside the walls of the Kiev Caves Lavra and shot at the instigation of the
Samosvyat (self-ordained/self-consecrated) priests, the “independists” as they were called then.
Where are they? No one remembers them. But Patriarch (Saint) Tikhon and Hieromartyr
Vladimir are among the Saints, and the Church, which Patriarch Tikhon led shall exist until the
final age, because “The gates of hell will not prevail against Her” (Matthew 16:18). Indeed,
many believers of the Orthodox Church suffered, were in prison, or gave their lives for the faith,
but the Church remained strong and true.

This great sorrow and lamentation, for the believing hearts of simple human beings, for our
clergy and hierarchs, is caused by the fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople again, 100
years later, has not ceased this strange behavior. For the majority of our believers, the first days
after this decision were lived through in astonished perplexity, because after all, by canonical
logic it just can’t happen…

But…it happened…

You know how it is sometimes when there are issues in a family with the father, for example a
father who is an alcoholic, and the family tries to hide these problems, not to reveal them to
anyone. When the family goes out among people, they make the father orderly, so that no one
will realize he is a drinker. When receiving guests, they try to hide the vices of their father. But
this is all before the time when the father crosses the red line, when he brings a prostitute or other
alcoholics into the house.

309
Something similar to that has happened in our church life today. These are problems which arose
due to those things which Constantinople has undertaken in the last 100 years, including when
they recognized the “Renovationists”. Because after all, the Church was persecuted, Bishops
were thrown into prisons, priests were shot, laypeople were thrown into concentration camps or
labor camps. It was the most difficult time for our Church, and Constantinople just jumped on
the persecutors’ bandwagon.

We did not talk about it, we were silent about all the problems which Constantinople created, we
hid them in order not to air the dirty linens in public. Now we can no longer be silent.

Patriarch Sergius in the twentieth century said when Constantinople recognized the
“Renovationists”, that “The Constantinople Patriarch’s communion with the renovationists can
only make the Patriarch [of Constantinople] a renovationist, but it can’t make the renovationists
Orthodox.”

The exact same thing is happening now: Philaret and his cohort did not become grace-filled due
to him being “legalized” by Constantinople. It was the Constantinople itself, who brought itself
out of the canonical realm, and called into question its continued place in the family of the
Orthodox Churches; his authority in the Orthodox world is now under great doubt.

    

310
The time has come, perhaps, among us, when we must firmly stand up for the confession of our
Faith, our Church, and we must understand perfectly that the Philaretites have not become grace-
filled, and those among them who have a conscience are gradually beginning to return to the
Church from the schism. This, for example, just happened one week ago in the Rivne21 Dioceses
of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

One of Philaret’s so-called “priests” came to repentance22, and was ordained to the rank of
deacon [in the canonical Church—Trans], because he understood that a priest cannot be a priest
nor become a priest as a result of this decision of the Phanar, and that the schism continues to be
a schism, the gracelessness continues to be gracelessness, and that the truth and the Grace of
Christ [among the churches of Ukraine.—Trans] are only in our canonical Church.

In order to not lose the correct approach, and understand how to act during this complicated
period in our ecclesiastical life, let us carefully listen and orient ourselves to the voice of our
shepherd—the voice of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry.

This is a man of the holy life23 and of firm monastic constitution. The Lord placed Metropolitan
Onufry as the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—it was not simply for nothing! The
Primate could have been chosen from any of the other Metropolitans—with other talents, but the
Lord chose the Most Blessed Metropolitan Onuphry, as the person most solid, principled, and
persevering.

Let’s listen to his voice, as the voice of our shepherd, and be firm in our hope; let’s listen to the
voice of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the voice of the Bishops Council of
the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and if it gathers, of the entire Russian Orthodox Church,
because our Ukrainian Orthodox Church is canonically located in the common heart of the
Russian Church, as it has been since the time of the Baptism of Rus’.

And as for Patriarch Bartholomew and the Synod of Constantinople, who have come to the point
that they may push our country and our Church not only to confession, but to persecution (who
knows what might happen in our country)—we must pray that the Lord will enlighten them.
When a person’s father stumbles [into sin], his family does not drive him away, but they pray for
him, and they grieve for him. It also follows for us to grieve for these people who are pushing
our Church into trials at such a difficult time. But we will hope that the Lord will not give us any
trials above our powers to handle them…

Never forget that Kiev is one of the portions of the Most Holy Theotokos. The Mother of God
chose it and under her care, under her mantle (omorphorion) the Kiev Caves Lavra has produced
so many Venerable Fathers of the Kiev Caves, who are buried with incorruptible relics very
close to us, in the ground on which we stand.

And this means that the Mother of God, we believe, will never abandon her portion; and if we
are given a small time of bitterness, to labor hard and show forth our loyalty to God and the
Church, then it will also be granted unto us, to greet those times, when we will once again be
able to take a peaceful breath, when our churches will be filled with people with calm and not
troubled thoughts.

311
And no longer will anyone threaten us—neither with violence, nor discrimination, nor with lies
or slander, which now pours in abundance out of the media, and from the mouth of politicians,
upon the heads of the faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Calling to remembrance the experience of the past hundred years, let us say: the truth of God will
never be put to shame! Those who keep it will always be proven right—both in history and in
eternity!

The Blessing of the Lord be with you!

Archbishop Theodosy (Snigiryov) of Boyarka

Translation by Matfei Shaheen

Website of the north Kiev vicariate

11/14/2018

US State Department on Ukraine: ‘Any

Decision on Autocephaly Is an Internal
Church Matter’
James George Jatras

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

September 21, 2018

312
    

Last week the website of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko posted an account of his meeting
in Kiev with Ambassador Sam Brownback, former US Senator and Governor of Kansas,
currently Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. According to the posting,
“President Poroshenko outlined the measures taken to establish the Ukrainian Autocephalous
Orthodox Church. The Head of State thanked the American party [i.e., Brownback] for an active
support in this process.” Moreover, according to Kiev, Brownback assured Poroshenko that the
United States would further support Ukraine in its struggle for “the right to have the Ukrainian
Autocephalous Orthodox Church.”

Poroshenko’s administration thus claimed explicit and public American official endorsement for
his quest for the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople to grant autocephaly (complete self-
rule among the various member Churches of the Orthodox Christian communion) to a schismatic
body headed by self-styled “Patriarch Filaret” Denysenko – an entity recognized as canonical by
no local Orthodox church in the world, including (as of this writing) by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate itself. As noted in this space two months ago when hardly anyone was paying
attention, this effort by Poroshenko, Denysenko, and their supporters is part of a two-pronged
attack against Russia and against the Holy Orthodox Church itself, in part to further the agenda
of academic purveyors of moral/sexual LGBT and “genderqueer” theology like “Orthodoxy in
Dialogue” and the hardly less revolutionary “Orthodox Christian Studies Center” at Fordham
University – both, unsurprisingly, staunch supporters of Constantinople’s neo-papal pretensions.

... Read the rest at Strategic Culture Foundation.

313
James George Jatras

11/2/2018

Ukraine is the Canonical Territory of the

Russian Church
Fr. Theodore Zisis

Kiev caves lavra

  

Kiev stood at the origin of the Russian Church, and still remains a part of it

At the epicenter of Church concerns, contradictions, confrontations, and even geopolitical

claims, has long been the question of autocephalous status for the Ukrainian Church, which not
only belonged to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church for centuries, but
is also in fact, the beginning of the Russian people’s Church history. [Kiev] is the baptismal font
that gave birth to the Russian Church, on the day of the Baptism of the Russian Grand Prince St.
Vladimir, and the Russian nation in Kiev, in the year 988.

314
The celebration of the 1000th anniversary of Russian Christianity in 1988, which was initiated
by the Russian Church, with the epicenter of celebrations being in Kiev, were recognized by the
fullness of the Church, and the entire academic community. This was proof of the universal
recognition that Ukraine is part of Russian Orthodoxy. Did Constantinople at that time declare its
claims to ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Kiev? If that were the case, would it not have been
logical to demand that the Patriarch of Moscow and other primates of the Local Churches receive
permission from Constantinople to attend festive celebrations in Kiev?

Any ecclesiastical encyclopedia, as well as the diptychs of the Local Churches indicates that
Ukraine is the canonical territory of the Russian Church. Has it been recognized and written
somewhere, that Ukraine belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

In the calendar of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the year 1998, which I easily found in my
library, in the second volume “Church Administration”, in the section “Other Local Churches”,
the Russian Church was first listed, and among its metropolitans, the first place belonged to
Metropolitan Volodymyr (the predecessor of the current canonical Metropolitan of Kiev
Onufry), listed as “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine, a permanent member of the Holy
Synod” of the Russian Church.

All other metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops of the dioceses and cities of Ukraine, the
theological schools of Kiev and Odessa, the famous [Kiev] Caves and Pochaev Lavras, and many
other institutions and Holy sites belonged also to the Russian Church. The same situation is
observed in the diptychs of the Church of Greece in 2018: All Ukrainian dioceses are within the
jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Ecumenical Patriarch is going hand in hand with the forces dividing and schisming
Orthodoxy

Thus, on the basis of the officially established and recognized ecclesiastical order, which can be
confirmed by many other documents, Ukraine in ecclesiastical regards, is an indissoluble and
inalienable part of the Church of Russia, since the very beginning of its Christian history.

For a short time period, due to an abnormal historical situation, and external pressure, the Church
of Ukraine again found itself under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, as it was during the period
of its formation, when all of Russia, along with Kiev, was subordinated to Constantinople.

And when this external pressure and violence from the Papal West, (which acted through Poland,
Lithuania, and various Crusaders and Uniates) disappeared, the Ukrainian Church returned to
where it had always been – the Russian Church.

It is a pity that today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople is entering into solidarity with the same
western forces, which then divided the Russian Church, and provoked the persecution of the
Orthodox, and the seizures and raiding of holy sites. The same is now being prepared by the
Ukrainian nationalists, patronized by the Uniate1 President Poroshenko, and the philo-papist
Ukrainian schismatics.

315
 Conscious misinterpretation and concealment of documents; a special study is being
prepared

We are preparing an article with all of the historical evidence of Ukraine’s unconditional
belonging to the jurisdiction of the Russian Church. In this lies our duty as scholars, because I,
writing these words, and my wife (before monasticism), Kristina Bulaki-Zisis (now the Nun
Nektaria, and in the past, an associate professor at the Theological University in Thessaloniki),
for many years studied the history of the Russian Church and its relationship with the Church of
Constantinople. Therefore, we are now mourning and regretting that historical truth has been
falsified.

Unfortunately, in order to justify the anti-canonical invasion of Ukraine, Constantinople refers to

two documents which allegedly say that Ukraine was never finally transferred to the jurisdiction
of the Russian Church, and the synodal acts of 1686 supposedly confirms that Ukraine remained
under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and that the transfer was of a temporary nature.

This is a deliberate misinterpretation and distortion of the documents, undertaken as it were, to

provide the general public with “scholarly” information that creates the impression that
Constantinople is asserting strong and unshakable arguments, among those who don’t have
sufficient knowledge.

Soon we will publish a scholarly article and present to the public some of the other documents
that are being concealed by Constantinople, and also speak on the incorrect interpretation of the
two documents provided by the Phanar.

At this moment, we will refer to the opinion of a most famous professor of history and canon
law, Vlasios Fidas2, who in a number of studies (monographs) and articles recognizes, that by the
synodical act of 1686, the Ecumenical Patriarchate subordinated Ukraine to the jurisdiction of
the Moscow Patriarchate.

We quote Professor Fidas saying:

“In 1686, a Russian-Polish peace treaty was signed, and Little Russia
[Malorossia/Ukraine.—Trans.] passed to Moscow. Lutsk, Lviv, Przemyśl, and Mogilev
gained religious freedom… in the end, Patriarch Dionysius subordinated the Kievan
Metropolia to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate (1687).”3

And we in the study “The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Russia”, wrote that:

“After the Russian victory over Poland in 1654, and the integration of Ukraine with
Russia, Kiev again found itself together with Moscow, and this union was approved by
the Ecumenical Patriarchate” (1686).4

The Mother Church of Ukraine is now Moscow. It was Constantinople in the past

316
It is also not true that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the Mother Church of the Ukrainian Church,
and would therefore, as the Mother Church, have the right to grant it autocephaly, as it had given
self-rule to the Russian, Greek, Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Albanian Churches.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate had this right until a daughter Church acquired autocephaly, after
which, she ceased to be a daughter, but became a sister Church, equal in every respect; therefore,
interfering in her internal affairs is a serious canonical crime, and represents the invasion of
another Church’s jurisdiction.

The Russian Church as a whole, together with the territories of modern Ukraine in particular,
was a daughter to Constantinople before the proclamation of it’s autocephaly in 1448, which was
recognized by Constantinople and the Eastern Patriarchates in 1593.

The separation of the united and indivisible Russian Church that caused Kiev to become an
independent Metropolia for some time was temporary. It is worth noting that this was caused by
the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople who became a Uniate—Gregory Mammas—a
supporter of the false Council of Florence, who ordained a Bulgarian Uniate Gregory5 as
Metropolitan of Kiev, and therefore laid the foundations for the expansion of the Unia in
Ukraine.

This continued until 1686, when Ukraine was reunited with the Russian Church, and has since
remained an integral part of the autocephalous Russian Church. Thus, as it was with Gregory
Mammas, by his actions, Patriarch Bartholomew promotes the Unia. <…>

Will it come to pass, that Constantinople can now, these days, voluntarily invade the canonical
territories of autocephalous Churches under the pretext that they once belonged to its
jurisdiction?

Even if we ignore the fact that Kiev and Ukraine were an integral part of the Russian Church
from the very beginning, for more than three centuries (from 1686 to the present day) Ukraine
has remained canonically subordinated to the Russian Church—is this not enough to
unconditionally prevent any interference on its canonical territory?

The provision of autocephaly to Ukraine will bring harm to Constantinople. Greece and
the USA could benefit

The invasion of Ukraine by Constantinople opens a Pandora’s box that may bring many bad,
unforeseen consequences for Constantinople itself.

Ukraine as an independent state makes claims to the possession of an independent,

autocephalous Church organization; from a historical and canonical point of view, the Orthodox
believers of Ukraine could put forward a corresponding request, if this would happen in a
canonical way, and with the approval of other Churches.

If guided by the precedent of granting autocephaly to territories which have gained political
independence, those dioceses which continue to be under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, but

317
de facto became a part of Greece in 1912, must then become a part of the Church of Greece,
including the semi-autonomous Church of Crete, the Dodecanese Metropolises6, as well as Holy
Mount Athos…

The USA is also an independent and unified state, yet talk about the autocephaly of the
American Church triggers anger and threats from Constantinople.7

Henceforth, a path towards negative consequences for the Phanar has been opened by
Constantinople itself, following the precedent of Ukrainian autocephaly.

Constantinople provokes divisions and schisms. The time has come to wise up to this

Worst of all, Constantinople, whose coordinating role recognized by everyone was supposed to
be aimed at ensuring the unity of Orthodoxy, itself provokes disagreements and schisms, and by
itself undermines and destroys the role entrusted to it.

In reality, he himself is sawing off the high branch on which he sits—that is, the high position
which he was given by the sacred canons and Church tradition.

Constantinople divided the Church with the pseudo-council on Crete, in which four Local
Churches did not participate, and their flocks constituted more than half of the Orthodox
believers. Members of the Churches participating in it refused to recognize it: Clerics and laity
ceased commemorating their ruling hierarchs.

Constantinople is dividing the Church again by its anti-canonical invasion of Ukraine, rejecting
the unanimous agreement reached in conciliar discussions on this issue. According to these
agreements, a Church that wishes to obtain autocephaly submits its request to the Mother
Church, and if it does not meet objections, it is addressed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which
takes upon itself the provision of general Orthodox consent. As soon as it is reached, then a
tomos for autocephaly is prepared.

Currently, there is no request for autocephaly from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The Russian
Church—the Mother Church—also disagrees with the provision of autocephaly.

The attempt of Constantinople to position itself as a “Mother Church” is not convincing because
since 1686, when Ukraine re-entered the Russian Church, more than three centuries have passed,
during which all Local Churches recognized that Ukraine is a part of the canonical territory of
the Russian Church.

Constantinople itself, until recently recognized Metropolitan Onuphry as the canonical

metropolitan of the Russian Church, and at Church meetings assured that he would never raise
the question of Ukrainian autocephaly.

But even if we accept and legalize the misappropriation of the name “Mother Church” which
Constantinople undertakes, misinterpreting historical documents, the Phanar still appears in an

318
unattractive light, because it did not receive a corresponding request from the canonical
Ukrainian Orthodox Church, headed by Metropolitan Onuphry.

The schismatics and Uniates are not part of the Church, and have no canonical status or rights,
unless they repent and return to the canonical Church.8

The agreement of the majority of the Local Orthodox Churches was also not reached, even if
only a few Greek-speaking Churches, guided by ethnophyletist criteria, may agree with
Constantinople, they will do so in silence, because they will not dare to openly go against the
historical truth.

For the first time in recent years, the Ecumenical Patriarchate appears to be so weakened and
isolated in Church relations.

For many years I have conducted the priestly service, and in the past I was an assistant and
advisor to the Church of Constantinople. Now these days I regret how events are developing,
although in the past I had already suffered persecution for not agreeing with the dangerous
initiatives of Constantinople.

The present counselors of Constantinople should have stopped its path to division, schism, and
isolation.

Fr. Theodore Zisis

Pravoslavie.ru

11/2/2018

Who Governs Whom? The Ecclesiastical

Institution or those who Oversee It?
Fr Touma (Bitar) on Racism and Orthodoxy's Byzantium
Complex
Archimandrite Touma Bitar

319
Fall of Constantinople
    

Like clerical garb, there are regulations and legislation that have stood still within the
ecclesiastical institution over the course of history. Many of them remain untouched by time but
nevertheless remain, even if they are outside their original framework and the circumstances that
brought them about. They continue to be transmitted for reasons that sometimes appear
comprehensible and sometimes obscure, sometimes conventional and sometimes arbitrary. In
addition to clerical garb, regulations and legislation, there also remains suspended in the
ecclesiastical institution heavy solid deposits resulting from crises of a worldly nature that the
Church has suffered in the past and which until today continue to cast their shadow over her.
Indeed, the Church and the truth of the Gospel have largely become captive to them and chained
by them, sometimes in a tragic manner. Among these crises, two have restricted the Church's
movement, distorted her, created within her an abhorrent duplicity and to a significant degree
hindered her from existing within the sphere of living spiritual theology and preaching the
Gospel throughout the world (Matthew 28:19-20). By this I am referring to the crisis of racism
and the crisis of Constantinople.

In principle, the Lord Jesus put an end to racial disputes within the Church. The words of the
Apostle Paul to the Romans are clear: "There is no distinction between Jew and Greek because
there is one Lord for all" (Romans 10:12). The Byzantine Empire was based on the true faith,
citizenship, and equality of rights and responsibilities. This, of course, was at the height of its

320
flourishing. There was no racial distinction between Greek, Armenian, Arab, Syrian, Goth and
Gaul... all were Romans. Marriage between people of different races was normal. Mixing
between races in the army and administration was an ordinary thing. The emperors were from
various racial backgrounds. When the spirit of truth diminished in people's hearts and Western
influence took root-- especially in the ranks of the intellectual elite, the centralization of the state
was weakened, corruption spread in the administration, the economy was subjected to
privatization and thus domestic production stagnated, with dangerous setbacks resulting from
this, feudalism flourished, separatist and isolationist tendencies grew, internal conflicts broke
out, fragmenting and weakening the state and so its prestige was shaken, the spirit of racism
gained strength and ethnic groups entered into disharmony and struggle. As the external threat to
the empire increased, politicians pressured the Church to bow to the papacy and Catholicism as a
means of securing military support from the West and there were two relapses that had the
greatest impact on believers and their dedication to preserving the truth faith: the first at Leon
(1274) and the second at Ferrara/Florence (1439). It is true that Orthodoxy stood firm in faith,
but the spirit of failure, lethargy and decline spread among the people. As a result of this, internal
fragmentation picked up pace within the empire and racism played a wicked role in this. Finally,
Mehmed II Fetih was able, at the age of twenty-one, to enter Constantinople with ease on April
29, 1453. The West didn't care about this event. For years, its concern had been to absorb the
weakened empire's energies and the Catholics' concern was to gain control over Orthodoxy.
Little by little, Constantinople transformed into a corpse. And where the corpse is, there the
vultures will gather! In this, there is no difference between the Ottomans and the West.

This is with regard to the racism that grew because of the empire's weakness and contributed to
undermining its remaining foundations. As for the crisis of Constantinople, there is no doubt that
following the fall of the imperial city, the Church in her entirety suffered and continues to suffer
from an ongoing psychological complex with regard to the Byzantine Empire! In what sense? In
the sense that here and there, she betrays a profound conviction or submission-- out of fear of
internal strife or schism in the Church-- to the delusional hypothetical case that the empire, with
all its weight and glory, continues to exist ecclesiastically without any clear boundaries between
what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar, until it returns (even if this is after some time).
This is something expressed in special scenarios and prophecies that many people repeat. Even
565 years after the fall of Constantinople, Byzantium is still alive, active and influential in the
souls of many-- and not only in its virtues, but also in its vices! Nothing is more indicative of this
than the words of the Patriarch of Constantinople at the recent synaxis of bishops of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople (August 31 to September 4, 2018). "The Ecumenical
Patriarchate," he said, "is for Orthodoxy, a 'leaven which leavens the whole lump' (cf. Galatians
5:9) of the Church and of history..." I beg the reader's pardon, so he does not misunderstand what
I am saying. God forbid that I be in a position of singling out the Ecumenical Patriarch or any
other person near or far. In this essay, I am dealing with a widespread psychological
phenomenon which, it is my conviction, has the ugliest influence on the Church, her vivacity, her
transparency and her witness. Here in the patriarch's words is a blatant expropriation on the part
of the ecclesiastical institution of the Spirit of the Lord's work in the Church and in history. For
the institution of the patriarchate to presume in this way, with arrogance surpassing every limit,
is alien to the spirit of the Gospel. Without any significant Orthodox population on its territory, it
claims authority over the diaspora, relying on a canon (28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at
Chalcedon in 451) that stipulates that "the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians,

321
should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of
Constantinople." For a patriarchate that is in a state of extinction to presume to imagine that it is
the leaven of the Church and of history, as though it were at the height of the empire and has
authority over the "Orthodox of the diaspora" as though they were "barbarians" is to plumb the
depths of a historic insanity that has no connection whatsoever either to the truth of the Gospel or
to holy tradition, which itself is not the work of people, but the work of the Holy Spirit in people
at every time!

In this way, we find the local ecclesiastical institution weighed down with historical burdens and
cares that have been passed down from generation to generation. Our positions with regard to
them range from total acceptance, as though they are a sacred heritage, to a profound sense of
their illegitimacy, but at the same time also of an inability to effect real change with regard to
them. The problem of Ukraine-- the state and the church-- between the Patriarchate of
Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Moscow is the outcome of historical data, accumulations,
sensitivities, errors and contradictions that make the conflict raging at present not only
exceedingly complicated but also having a psychological character open to all clashes of
personality, politics and temperament, that deep down has no connection to the Gospel, theology
or ecclesiastical law, even if the sides attempt to use ecclesiastical, pastoral and spiritual issues
as a cover. In many places, the Church's position has not gone beyond managing a crisis that has
grown to the point of casting its dark shadow upon our generation of those who oversee the
ecclesiastical institution and through them upon the entire Church today.

In such a case, it is not a question of whether autocephaly should be given to the Ukrainian
Church in the manner of "Constantinople" or if its dependence on the Church of Moscow should
be affirmed. The issue is how we may preserve the spirit of unity in the truth of the Gospel in
such a state of affairs. The problem of the Ukrainian Church has reached an impasse. We already
know the first results of continuing along this path. The Patriarchate of Constantinople's sending
two emissaries to directly supervise the process of granting full autocephaly to the Ukrainian
Church was met with the Holy Synod of Moscow suspending all relations with Constantinople!
What will happen next? The impetus, until now, is for maneuvering and making threats. Do we
want to taste something even more bitter? There is no solution to the problem of the Ukrainian
Church. In all simplicity, there are problems in the Church that have no solution! We can only
live with them in a spirit of peace and love. This is if we have within us zeal for God's house. But
if we go searching for enmity, we have no custom such as this in the Church of God. Ukraine is
not the target, but Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy will be victorious or those who are temporarily
exploiting the Ukrainian issue to hurt the Church will triumph. It is the responsibility of the
entire Orthodox world, not just of Constantinople and Moscow! When a dispute broke out
between Victor, bishop of Rome (r. 189-198) and a number of bishops of Asia Minor with regard
to fasting and Pascha, Victor attempted to cut off Polycratus of Ephesus and others and many
bishops violently rebuked him (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History 5.24), among them
Irenaeus of Lyon! He writes, "this disagreement has not originated in our time; but long before in
that of our ancestors... Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with
one another." He finishes his words with this beautiful statement, "Disagreement in regard to the
fast confirms the agreement in the faith."

322
From another angle, in his letter to Victor of Rome, Irenaeus pointed out Victor's predecessors
who had dealt with the disagreement in a spirit of peace. Among them were Anicetus, Pius,
Hyginus, Telesphorus and Xystus. With regard to Saint Anicetus, who was from Homs in Syria,
Saint Irenaeus explains how he and Saint Polycarp of Smyrna did not agree about this issue, but
they did not quarrel, instead they both maintained their respective customs and Saint Anicetus
"conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp" as a sign of respect for
him. In the words of Saint Irenaeus, "they parted from each other in peace, both those who
observed [one custom or another], and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole
church." If we have inherited a problem, we cannot turn it into a sin that we commit, for which
the entire Church pays dearly! Squandering the spirit of peace and concord is a terrible thing in
the Church!

The Orthodox world today stands before a great challenge: either it preserves the spirit of peace
and unity in the Church or it squanders them with its wordiness, laxity, carelessness,
obsequiousness, narrow calculations and its being dragged along, wittingly or unwittingly,
behind those who seek to fragment Orthodoxy, and how many of them there are today! There is a
sacrifice that God does not want. When Cain was very and his countenance fell, the Lord God
said to him, "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the
door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it" (Genesis 4:7).

This is the Lord's warning: "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you
as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned
to Me, strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). Let us not participate in the sins of others!

Archimandrite Touma (Bitar)

Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Silouan the Athonite
Douma, Lebanon

September 23, 2018

Archimandrite Touma Bitar

Notes on Arab Orthodoxy

10/24/2018

"Those who initiated autocephaly do not

want peace in our land"
Metropolitan Mitrophan of Gorlovka and Slavyansk
Metropolitan Mitrophan of Gorlovka and Slavyansk

323
—The Patriarchate of Constantinople “canonically restored” the head of the unrecognized
“Kiev patriarchate” Philaret (Mikhail) Denisenko, the head of the schismatic Ukrainian
Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) Makary Maletich, as well as the clergy and
parishioners of both structures. How should we react to this news?

—Someone looking at recent events in Church life from the sidelines would get the impression
that two jurisdictions are trying to figure out which of them is more important, and are fighting
over territory. This is not the case, in fact. The question of granting autocephaly to Ukraine is
absolutely not an ecclesiastical question.

Politicians have very blatantly interfered in Church life. In this case, the Patriarchate of
Constantinople is a tool in a great political game the goal of which is to prevent peace in
Ukraine. The people discussing the tomos and autocephaly and calling themselves experts are
people who don’t know how one opens the door to a church. In this situation, we have the
misfortune of being hostages who can only observe the process. The only way for us to influence
the situation is our attitude toward it and the personal choice each of us will have to make under
the circumstances.

The coexistence of several jurisdictions on one territory is only possible if the state does not
interfere in the life of the Church. We understand, however, what the idea of the authorities is,
because President Poroshenko articulates it openly: a definitive break of our spiritual ties with
the Russian Orthodox Church. So we don’t have any hope that the government will not interfere
in the lives of church communities.

Philaret was excommunicated, he is currently in schism, and all the Local Orthodox Churches
recognize this. In light of the decision of the Synod in Istanbul about his “canonical restoration,”
the question that arises is not who Philaret is to us now. The question is who Constantinople is.

The Patriarch of Constantinople has accorded himself the right to make such decisions
unilaterally about any territory, in any jurisdiction—in spite of the conciliar nature of our
Church. This is a serious problem not only for the Orthodox Christians of Ukraine, but for

324
Orthodoxy around the world. There are schisms everywhere, this is not a uniquely Ukrainian
problem, but there have always been rules that have guided us in this matter. Today they were
broken. If other Local Churches tacitly support the actions of Constantinople, the same situation
could arise for each of them.

Now we must wait for the decision of the Synod of our Church and the other Local Churches’
reactions to what has taken place in order to understand what to do next.

Metropolitan Mitrophan of Gorlovka and Slavyansk

Translation by Matthew Cassidy

Gorlovka and Slavyansk Diocese

10/13/2018

“The Patriarchate that once condemned

Church nationalism is now being eaten away
by it”
A conversation with Church historian Vladislav Igorevich
Petrushko
Yuri Pushchaev, Vladislav Igorevich Petrushko

The 1686 tomos concerning the transfer of the Kievan Metropolia from the Church of
Constantinople to the Moscow Patriarchate and the circumstances of this transfer have recently
become the subject of heightened discussion. The Patriarchate of Constantinople has now
suddenly begun to categorically challenge the validity of this transfer. As to just how true these
claims are, and about the issues of the 1686 transfer, we spoke with a professor of St. Tikhon’s
Orthodox University and Doctor of Church History, Vladislav Igorevich Petrushko.

325
    

—Please speak as to how long the Kievan Metropolia was included in the fold of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. And how long did it exist separately from the Muscovite
Metropolia?

—The Kievan Metropolia was included in the lists of metropolias of the Constantinople
Patriarchate from the end of the tenth century. With the passage of time, the Metropolia,
remaining “Kievan” by title, was then, factually speaking, as we know, moved to the city of
Vladimir.1

Kiev remained the first-throne cathedra, but only nominally.2 At the beginning of September,
Patriarch Bartholomew was either deliberately or accidently making a major error when he stated
that the Metropolia of Kiev was transferred to Moscow without the permission of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople.3

First, it was not the Metropolia that was moved, but the Metropolitan moved, and the Cathedra
remained in Kiev. Secondly, the Cathedra eventually moved not to Moscow, but to Vladimir.
Vladimir was recognized in the middle of the fourteenth century by the decision of the Council
of Bishops of the Church of Constantinople, as the second thronal city, and the location and seat
of the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus’.

326
However, Metropolitan [Saint] Alexis, with whom the decision on the transfer of the Metropolia
had been made, had already moved to Moscow. The recognition of Vladimir, and not Moscow,
as the second cathedral city of the Rus’ Metropolitans was associated with the reluctance to
irritate the Lithuanian Prince Algirdas, who at that time entered into a fierce rivalry with the
Muscovite princes.

    

Furthermore, as we know, in 1439, the Florentine Union was struck. During a council in 1441, in
Moscow, the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus’, Isidore, a Greek, was deposed by the Rus’
bishops and condemned as a heretic, because he had concluded a union [with Rome] and
renounced Orthodoxy.

In connection with this, the Orthodox Church in Rus’ passed into its independence from Uniate
Constantinople existence, inasmuch as this was a dogmatic issue, and not just a canonical one.
Soon after the Moscow Council of 1441, the Eastern Patriarchs also renounced the union.

327
And Constantinople did so only in 1453, only after the capture of the capital of the empire by the
Turks. So, the Uniatism of the Constantinople patriarchs was the reason that the Russian Church
passed into autocephaly—for the sake of the preservation of Orthodoxy! The Russian Church
could not obey a Uniate Patriarch!

With the election of the Holy Hierarch Jonah to the Russian Metropolia, and his recognition as
Metropolitan in Western Rus’4, the entire Rus’ Church became autocephalous. But in 1458, the
King of Poland and Grand Prince of Lithuania Casimir IV Jagiellon, who had previously
recognized Metropolitan Jonah as the primate of the united Rus’ Church, denied that recognition
and accepted instead the Uniate Metropolitan Gregory [the Bulgarian].

In Italy, Gregory Mammas5, the Uniate Constantinople Patriarch in exile, “placed” Metropolitan
Gregory the Bulgarian as Metropolitan of Western Rus’. The Uniate Metropolitan Gregory was
then sent to Western Rus’.

As a result, there was a division of the previously united Rus’ Church into Muscovite and Kievan
Metropolias—precisely because of the forceful captivation of the Western Russian portion into
the Unia.

However the Uniate Metropolitan Gregory soon saw that the Orthodox population of Western
Rus’ did not accept the Unia. And Gregory, evidently realizing that as a Uniate, he cannot realize
himself among the Orthodox Rusians of Lithuania and Poland, went into contact with the
Constantinople Patriarchate.

He renounced the Unia, and was again received into communion, and reestablished by
Constantinople as the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, with a claim to the Muscovite part of
the Rus’ Church. The sincerity of his return to Orthodoxy, however, was not believed in
Moscow, and the prospect of returning under the strict jurisdiction of the Constantinople
Patriarchate, which was now placed by, and totally dependent on the Muslim Sultan, was
certainly not endearing to the Grand Prince of Moscow Ivan III the Great6, as well as the
hierarchy of the Russian Church.

And in the end, this division was made solid: From that time, there existed the separate Kievan
and Muscovite portions of the once united Rus’ Church.

They existed in this form until the end of the seventeenth century, when in the 80s of that
century, under Patriarch Joachim (Savyolov), the reunification of the Kievan Metropolia with the
Patriarchate of Moscow took place.7

—This is to say that this separation lasted about 200 years?

—Even longer.8

The Patriarchs of Constantinople did not exert influence on the ecclesiastical life of
Western Rus’

328
First, despite the claims of the Patriarchs of Constantinople to control the life of the Russian
Church, they in general did not participate in it at all. Already by the end of the fifteenth century,
they renounced the originally stated demand that the Metropolitan of Kiev be sent forth from
Istanbul.

At first, they sent exarchs for this, but later, this also ceased. The Kievan Metropolia, factually
speaking, became self-headed (if not taking into account the ever-increasing dependence on the
Polish-Lithuanian catholic authorities), only being listed as being subordinate to Constantinople.

But this independence was not a status for which the Kievan Metropolia specifically and
consciously fought. It formed quite spontaneously, because the Patriarchs of Constantinople
practically had no opportunity to exert influence on the ecclesiastical life of Western Rus’.

—But all the same, was the division into the Kievan and Muscovite Metropolias lived
through strenuously? Was there, for example, a movement towards reunification from the
side of the clerics themselves?

Ecclesiastical life in the Muscovite and Lithuanian Principalities was very divided, especially in
the Polish part of Rus’: Galicia. The confrontations between the sovereigns of Lithuania and
Moscow led to these ties being increasingly weakened.

And then, in the midst of it, in the second half of the sixteenth century, the Kiev Metropolia
entered a very deep crisis. In many respects, it was the consequence of the right of patronage, in
which persons originated from the ranks of Orthodox feudal lords and completely unfit to serve
became hierarchs.

We know from surviving historical documents what ugly things were then worked by the quasi-
Orthodox bishops of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Since the king did not have a special
land fund, from which he could favor his subjects, and was in general a rather weak figure9, he
found a way to use Church property for this purpose.

The Polish-Lithuanian monarch would encourage the Orthodox nobility with a Church land fund.
As a reward for service, the King gave appointments to high Church offices—to episcopal
cathedras and abbatial positions in monasteries. That is to say, the king usurped for himself the
right to appoint bishops, archimandrites, and abbots. In fact, cathedras and monasteries were
given for the feeding of secular feudal lords.

329
 Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremias II
—But it was necessary to be an unmarried man to hold those positions!

Such a status is of course, implied. But very soon they simply stopped paying attention to it. For
example, Lviv brothers complained to Patriarch Jeremias II on the eve of the conclusion of the
Union of Brest, that a number of hierarchs were with their wives … or rather … their mistresses.

Hence it was an extremely deep personnel crisis, because corrupt hierarchs did not care about the
Church. Not only that—some stained the Church with their actions. For example, Kirill
Tarletsky, one of the signatories of the Union of Brest, was involved in some criminal cases
including highway robberies, raids on neighboring estates, and rape. There was no way to put a
stigma on many hierarchs of that time.

Actually, the Union of Brest [1595-1596] was conducted, by in large, because those hierarchs
were scared for the first time in a hundred years, when Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople
came to the commonwealth to restore order [a few years prior to the Union.—Trans]. They, first
of all, were afraid that they could be deposed, which meant that they would lose their holdings
and privileges. And it’s true, some were deposed—for bigamy, like Metropolitan Onesiphorus
Divochka, and some for the unrepentant sin of murder, like the Archimandrite of Supraśl
Monastery Timothy Zloba, and others.

But in all, this was just a coincidental act. Patriarch Jeremias II rode to Moscow for alms, where
he participated in the enthronement of the first Patriarch of Moscow, Job. Then, on his way back,
he took up administration in the Kiev Metropolia at the request of the brothers, who told him that
the local hierarchs were very unseemly. But Jeremias did not know the language, and did not

330
orient himself within the realities of the ecclesiastical life of Western Rus’. Therefore, he made
rather feverish and often not very appropriate decisions.

The feudalist bishops of Western Rus’, however, were frightened that the Patriarchs of
Constantinople would pave the way to Moscow, go here and there for alms, and periodically
agitate and depose the Orthodox hierarchs of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Something
had to be done urgently. The idea [of the Union of Brest] was first put forth by the Jesuits—the
project of a new union with Rome was explicitly mentioned in the journals of the Jesuit Piotr
Skarga.

The idea was to bow to the Pope of Rome and propose to him a union, in the hopes that the
Bishops of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would forever be spared from the Sword of
Damocles10, and that their rights and holdings would be guaranteed for the rest of their lives.
Such were the realities of ecclesiastical life; but the case with Jeremias was unique.

In all, the Kiev Metropolia, after the Union of Brest and for the entirety of the seventeenth
century, existed without any participation from Constantinople in its life.

This, in fact, was the main reason why the Cossacks and the clergy of the Left-Bank portion of
Ukraine11 advocated the transition to Moscow’s jurisdiction.

This desire was supported by the Archbishop of Chernigov Lazar (Baranovich), the
Archimandrite of Kiev Caves Lavra Innocent (Gizel), and many other Church leaders. But the
problem was that the dioceses of the Kievan Metropolia, on the territory of Left-Bank Ukraine,
were located in Kiev and Chernigov (restored after a long lapse by Hetman Bogdan
Khmelnitsky).

And the rest of the dioceses were on the territory of Right Bank Ukraine, and the bishops that
were there were mostly Szlachta [Polish Nobility.—Trans.], subjects of the Polish king who were
loyal to him, and were under his influence.

Nevertheless, the new elections of the Metropolitan of Kiev at the end of the seventeenth century
took place with the active participation of the Cossacks, whose Starshina [leaders] in fact
replaced the Szlachta.

And it is known that Hetman12 Ivan Samoilovich actively labored for the transfer of the Kievan
Metropolia to the Moscow Patriarchate; therefore it cannot be said that there was any pressure
form Moscow, though of course, in Moscow, Patriarch Joachim and the administration of
Tsarevna Sophia also desired this.

For or Against?

331
 Archbishop Lazar of Chernigov
—But opponents say, that at the council that elected the “Pro-Moscow” Kievan
Metropolitan in 1685, mainly laypeople participated, and among the clergy there were only
participants from the Kievan Diocese. They also say that prior to the tomos of 1686, Kievan
clergy resisted the transfer to the Moscow Patriarchate for over 30 years.

It was not only lay people who participated in the council, but in reality there were no bishops,
because the Right-Bank bishops simply did not want to participate, and the only other Left-Bank
Hierarch—Archbishop Lazar of Chernigov—was greatly afflicted and insulted.

Hetman Samoilovich very much wanted to marry his daughter to the nephew of Bishop Gideon
—who would eventually be elected Metropolitan of Kiev—in order to become a true aristocrat,
because Gideon in the secular world was a Prince of the Sviatopolk-Chetvertynsky
(Czetwertyński) family.

Samoilovich really wanted to arrange this marriage, so for him, Gideon was the preferred figure.
And Archbishop Lazar, who was quite pro-Moscow himself, was effectively removed from the
elections, simply for the fact that Samoilovich wanted the Metropolia to go to Gideon.
Archbishop Lazar was not even invited to the council, and was therefore very offended.

Previously, he had repeatedly appointed the Locum Tenens of the Kievan Metropolia during
times when there was no metropolitan, or when the metropolitan had fled to Poland—for
example Dionysius (Baloban).

However, to say that the Kievan Metroplia and the Kievan clergy as a whole were against joining
the Moscow Patriarchate is a massive exaggeration. Many people were in favor of it, because
they saw this as a guarantee of the normalization of Church life after the long years that are
called (in historical terms) “The Ruin.”
332
—Who among them was the larger group—the supporters of joining the Moscow
Patriarchate, or the opponents?

This is hard to say, because opinions often changed. For example, take what happened when the
Muscovite authorities replaced Archbishop Lazar (Branovich) with the former Archpriest of
Nezhin Methodius (Maxim) Filimonov because he was more strongly associated with the
Cossacks, and more known in the circles of Cossack Starshina.

But after becoming Bishop of Mstislav, Methodius—a very ambitious man—turned from a
supporter of Moscow to its opponent when the issue arose of the election of the new
Metropolitan of Kiev, which meant for Methodius that he would lose his status as Locum
Tenens. And that meant that he, for his own interests, propagandized the Kievan clergy against
Moscow. But this was a very short moment, an impulse; and when Methodius’s fears passed, the
Kievan clergymen changed their position.

    

This entire period—from after Hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky, to Hetman Samoilovich—

historians call “The Ruin.” It was the endless bowing back and forth of Cossack officers between
Moscow and Warsaw. Why is this?

Cossacks mostly arose from the bottom ranks. Being that they were new risers to power, they
wanted to receive the same rights as the Szlachta had before. Therefore, on the one hand, they
defended Little Russia (Ukraine) from the Poles, thanks to Moscow, but on the other hand, ran to
the [Polish] king to bargain: “We will return under your scepter, but only with rights of

333
autonomy, and of course, with the condition that we will become Szlachta, receive the right to be
deputies in the Sejm [Parliament], with charters of nobility, coats of arms, and so forth.”

But no one in Poland especially wanted to take them in this capacity, and so from here, we see
all of this running back and forth.

And the Kievan clergy in the form of their most educated representatives were essentially “in
favor” because it was obvious that under the Muscovite authorities, there would be tranquility of
Church life, and most importantly—the Union of Brest would be guaranteed to be liquidated. In
Left Bank Ukraine, there was nothing left of the Unia after the reunification13. Therefore this was
also an important point.

Certainly, the clergy of the Kievan Metropolia also wanted some rights, preservation of
autonomy, and all this was stipulated before entering the Moscow Patriarchate. And it must be
said that as long as the Patriarchate existed in Russia, the special rights of the Kievan Metropolia
stipulated during its reunification with the Moscow Patriarchate were respected. The fact that
they were later violated was not the fault of the Russian Church but of the autocracy, which, after
the synodical reform,14 established that everything within Great Russia and Little Russia be
under the same order and system, and everything in ecclesiastical life was brought down to a
common denominator.

At the same time, it should be noted that Peter the Great was very fond of Little Russian
hierarchs, and demanded that all the bishops in Great Russian dioceses should come from Little
Russia. He considered them to be more educated, more loyal to his reforms and to him
personally.

Therefore, right up to the time of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, almost all the bishops in Russia
were Little Russians.15 Now people forget about this, but Little Russians were not at all
oppressed or unappreciated—not in the Russian Empire nor in the Russian Church. They were an
essential part of it—both among the clergy and the nobility.

Therefore all this talk about a Russian colonial game in Ukraine is nonsense and stupidity.
Ukraine was a part of the Metropolia; moreover, an active, and in many ways even a privileged
part.

Excuses for the Affronts

334
 Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius V
—Yet still, as I understand it, the process of the reunification of the Kievan Metropolia
with the Moscow Patriarchate was not entirely smooth. What circumstances does the
Patriarchate of Constantinople give today as its reason for challenging the reunion?

—First of all, they speak about the pressure that was exerted on the Patriarch of Constantinople
Dionysius, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus. The latter was also one of the participants
of this process, due to his great authority in the Greek community of the Ottoman Empire. They
were at first opposed to the transfer of the Kievan Metropolia, but under pressure from the
Ottoman authorities they eventually agreed.

Indeed, pressure was exerted, because it was important to the Turks, not to allow Russia to
participate in the anti-Ottoman Coalition16. Western European countries drew Russia into this
alliance, and the Turks really did not want Moscow to enter the war.

Therefore, to go to such a complete trifle, as to support the transfer of the Kievan Metropolia to
the Patriarchate of Moscow was nothing to the Turks. Moreover the Kievan Metropolia was not
located on their territory. In a way, the Ottomans pressured the Patriarch of Constantinople.

At the same time, it should be remembered that the Patriarch of Constantinople was “millet-
bashi” or ethnarch—the leader of the entire Christian community of the Ottoman Empire;
moreover, both its privileged parts—the Greeks—and also the rayah (flock/subjects), that is to
say the Slavs and the other Orthodox peoples, in relation to whom the Phanarites have never held
themselves as fraternal.

335
But the Patriarchs of Constantinople themselves completely depended on the Ottoman
authorities. Most of them were replaced on their seats three or four times. None of the Greeks are
embarrassed that today, at the whim of the Turkish authorities, the Patriarch could be changed,
replaced with another, and then be put back the day after tomorrow—and this could go on
forever.

Although it must be said that in Istanbul, the Greeks did not live poorly under the Ottoman
regime. It’s another affair that the Turks always tried to make the Greeks fight among
themselves, and it was very often that the replacement of a patriarch was caused by the initiative
of some disgruntled Greek party.

The Turks not only fueled conflict among the Greeks, but this also served their utilitarian goals,
as each new Patriarch had to pay a large bribe each time.

The second objection is that opponents [of the union with Moscow] constantly say that they
claim the transfer to Moscow was with a “special right”. That is to say, that the Patriarch of
Moscow would install the Metropolitan of Kiev; but they claim that he is not the first hierarch
from the position of the Kievan Metropolitan, inasmuch as [the Kievan Metropolitan] is only an
“exarch” of the Constantinople Patriarch.

The fact is, however, that many different letters by Dionisius and Dositheus on this subject have
been preserved. And each time they used different formulations—the Greeks in general are
masters at formulating language that it can be interpreted in many ways. But in many texts, the
speech directly relating to the transfer of the Kievan Metropolia to be under the authority of the
Moscow Patriarchate speaks of it being “forever” [for a permanent time], and without an
indication of a temporary nature [“for a season/time].

Constantinople Changes the Strategy

—As I understand it, one more objection is that the very first installment of the Kievan
Metropolitan, Gideon (Prince of Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky), by the Patriarch of Moscow
occurred in 1685—before the official transfer of the Kievan Metropolia to the Moscow
Patriarchate. Was this, generally speaking, prior to the transfer and in violation of
canonical rules, and therefore what that caused the Greeks’ resentment?

—To some extent, yes, but any insults to the Greeks at that time were easily smoothed out by
gifts of Muscovite sable and gold, which is why there were so many letters about this. For each
letter they asked in return for a “gold pen”. So I would not exaggerate the scale of the offense,
especially seeing as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, with the exception of Jeremias II, never
really dealt with the affairs of the Kievan Metropolia. It was a matter of indifference to them, and
existed in general by itself. The Patriarchs of Constantinople never once indicated their position
on all the problems that arose here in the seventeenth century.

—What kind of problems?

336
—First of all, the problem connected with the reunification of Ukraine to the Russian Tsardom.
And before that—the imposition of the Union of Brest by the Polish Authorities, and the constant
violation of the rights of Orthodox people in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. From the
time of Patriarch Jeremias II, Constantinople gave practically no support to the Orthodox people
—not even moral support.

Moreover, to please Turkish authorities, who in the second half of the seventeenth century had
captured Podolia from the Poles and occupied it, Constantinople took the Podolian territory away
from the Metropolitans of Kiev, and formed from it a separate Metropolia. Of course, the Phanar
did all this without asking the opinion of the Little Russian clergy.

The main point is that later, up until the beginning of the 1920s, the Patriarchs of Constantinople
did not even try to challenge the legitimacy of the transfer of the Kievan Metropolia to the
jurisdiction of Moscow. This is because the Greeks were given very much from the Russian
Empire.

And none of them wanted to spoil relations with the Emperor, because only due to his support
did the Eastern Patriarchates even exist. However, with the disappearance of the Russian Empire,
and the beginning of the persecution of the Russian Church after the 1917 revolution,
Constantinople completely changed its strategy.

Firstly, it actively began to demand that the entire Orthodox diaspora be under the jurisdiction of
the Patriarchate of Constantinople, so that throughout the entire world, in places where there are
no Local Churches, the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate would be recognized. This
requirement was based on a very arbitrary interpretation of the 28th canon of the Fourth
Ecumenical Council, which, indeed, added to the Patriarchate of Constantinople a number of
provinces that were adjacent to the territory of Constantinople. But who said that this applied to
the entire world, and when?

Secondly, Constantinople immediately began to take maximum benefits from the extremely
difficult situation of the Russian Church at that time. For example, he took the Orthodox Church
of Finland (a country that had just achieved independence) under his jurisdiction, giving it the
status of autonomy. The same happened in Estonia. The Phanar tried to act similarly in Latvia,
although in this case it was less successful. The apex of such a policy was when Constantinople
provided autocephaly to the Polish Orthodox Church in the 1920s, at the request of the Polish
government. And by the way, it wasn’t for free (although for a very reasonable fee—Piłsudski17
was not generous). And this was done on the same pretext: that the Kiev Metropolia was
allegedly, transferred illegally to the Moscow Patriarchate, at the end of the seventeenth century.
And therefore, the Polish Orthodox Church, which was thought of by Constantinople as being a
continuation of the Kiev Metropolia, received autocephaly. This was immediately challenged by
the Russian Church, which did not recognize it as legitimate. It was only after the Second World
War that the Polish Church received autocephaly a second time—from the Moscow Patriarchate.

—And why was the Kievan Metropolia alleged to be illegally transferred to Moscow? After
all, the tomos was on this subject, and it had never been previously challenged.

337
—Well, they have to argue at least something to justify their actions, especially because they
have been paid for it. And so they argued that the tomos was issued under pressure from the
Ottoman authorities, which meant that it was uncanonical. Although by this logic, almost all the
Patriarchs of Constantinople and their deeds should be recognized as uncanonical, since by the
end of the sixteenth century they were instilled, deposed, and moved around as desired by the
Ottoman authorities. And all the while they did everything that the Turks ordered them to do.

By the way, it may also be remembered that as millet-bashi, the Patriarch was an official of the
Ottoman administration. What kind of pressure from the Turks can they be talking about?
Obedience to the Sultan’s administration was his duty, to which the Patriarchate of
Constantinople quite voluntarily agreed.

—Would I be right to understand that the Patriarch of Constantinople has a strange

duality here—a form of doublethink? On the one hand, they never previously officially
withdrew the tomos of 1686, and did not disavow it, while on the other hand they often say
that the transfer was somehow illegal.18

—Yes. The renunciation of its own 1686 tomos in the twentieth century became part of the
strategy of elevating the Cathedra of Constantinople and transforming its primacy of honor into a
primacy of power; we are witnessing the continuation of this now in essence. It was just declared
at the September Synaxis that only the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to provide
autocephaly, and only he can be the supreme arbiter in disputes between the Local Churches, etc.
In fact, we have been observing this for the past hundred years, and the Constantinople
Patriarchate is decisively and resolutely proceeding to do just that: to create within the Orthodox
community of Churches a certain supreme center of power, and to give the Patriarch of
Constantinople much greater prerogatives than the leaders of the other Local Churches.

338
 Patriarch of Constantinople Meletius IV
—But how can these ambitions actually be enforced? To paraphrase the famous saying:
How many army divisions does the Patriarch of Constantinople have?19

He has no real divisions. But firstly, there was a kind of push, which was given by the rare
opportunist Meletius (Metaxakis), who for some time occupied the Cathedra of Constantinople.
Here, for the record, it would not be superfluous to recall that the Phanar recognized the Russian
“Living Church” schismatics, and joined in communion with them. The reason for all of this,
unfortunately, was the typical desire of the Greek-Phanarites to maneuver and derive maximum
profit from someone else’s problems, and even ills.

The Russian Church was thought of by the Greeks as a major competitor and obstacle to its own
primacy. The desire to realize in ecclesiastical life the so-called Megali Idea20—the project of
building a new Byzantium. Politically, an attempt to make this idea come true turned into a
disaster for the Greeks in the Little Asia Catastrophe of 1922—a war lost to the Turks, with the
massacre and mass exodus of Greeks from Asia Minor.

Imperial ambitions turned out to be very tenacious in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and still
many don’t see or notice that they have already put the Orthodox world on the verge of a large-
scale schism.

There is a point of view that the Patriarch of Constantinople does not really decide anything.
They say that they [foreign actors] come to him and say, “Do this.” And that’s that.

339
I would not say that. In my point of view, the dramatic nature of the current moment is the result
of three forces colliding.

Firstly, it is Poroshenko’s regime, which today desperately needs autocephaly in order to distract
the people from the real issues, which they are not able to solve, and for the sake of raising his
approval rating before the presidential elections. And in general, if a religious war begins in
Ukraine, then elections can be postponed for an indefinite period.

Secondly, it is the ambitions of Constantinople.

And thirdly, it’s the United States, for which everything that happens after the “Maidan” in
Ukraine has become an opportunity to harm Russia as a political rival.

In the United States there is a huge Greek diaspora, which forms the main flock of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, and it is by and large due to this flock that that patriarchate exists.
It has a number of clans and individuals who are part of the elite of American society, part of the
very same globalist elite that is now so heavily attacking Russia. Of course, these people are also
acting through the Phanar today.

The result was a kind of resonance when the interests of three political players21, mixed together
in the question of the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church. And this is political. There is
absolutely nothing religious about this problem!

I do not think that Patriarch Bartholomew was ordered to do anything. Rather, it can be argued
that having felt interest and support from the U.S., he began to act in the Ukrainian issue much
more boldly and confidently. At the same time, Patriarch Bartholomew, for all his ambitiousness,
can not understand that what he is doing now can cause the collapse of the whole construct,
under which he himself will be buried—I am referring to a crisis in the entirety of world
Orthodoxy. Here, possibly he is spurred on, and encouraged to act in every possible way.

—What are the most likely next events?

—I do not presume to predict. Everything could turn around. But I still fear that in Ukraine there
will be a great aggravation of confrontation on religious grounds. It does not matter what kind of
new jurisdiction will be created there, to be under Constantinople or autocephalous. Obviously,
the question of the redistribution of property, churches, and monasteries will immediately be
raised; they will begin to forcefully seize them from the canonical Church. I think also that
Orthodox believers will not so easily give them up, and that blood can be spilled.

—The tremendous risk of starting a conflict on an even larger scale is terrifying. How can
this be summed up with a simple Christian conscience?

—They have already come to this. Constantinople apparently made a choice. And it is quite
obvious that the actions of Constantinople did not only exacerbate the schism in Ukraine, but
also led to a tremor throughout the entire Orthodox world.

340
It would have been hard to believe that earlier. Would you yourself, half a month ago, think that
this would have happened?

A month ago, I already thought so. Because in geopolitics absolutely incredible things are
happening today, inconceivable it would seem, a few years ago. Take the British Prime minister
from whom we hear completely unfounded accusations against Russia in the “Skripal case” Can
you imagine what happened with these Skripals? What is going on there, are they alive or not?
Did someone evaluate their condition after the so-called poisoning? Do they have any proof,
even minimal?

Vladislav Igorevich Petrushko

—Why did you think of that now?

—We live in a strange era. You can make any accusations against a political opponent and not
support it with any evidence. You cannot uphold any principles, even the rules of decency, to
speak of what is “black” as what is “white”, and vice versa. We see with horror that this has
already come into the ecclesiastical environment, into the communion between the Local
Orthodox Churches.

Constantinople is demonstrating this today by its steps. Our Patriarch arrived, and at a meeting
with him, the Phanarites said that we would work together in the interests of ecclesiastical unity.
I understand that some assurances were given, judging by the fairly optimistic mood of our
primate at that time. But just one day later at the Synaxis, Patriarch Bartholomew says something
completely different, and within a week he appoints two exarchs to Ukraine. Lies and hypocrisy
are always particularly disgusting when committed amidst a backdrop of piety.

341
Unfortunately, the so-called Great Byzantine Idea has become of the highest value for the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, which has forced out Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. So the
Patriarchate, which a century and a half ago condemned ethnophyletism—that is to say
Ecclesiastical Nationalism—as a heresy, has now been eaten by this nationalism.

Yuri Pushchaev
spoke with Vladislav Igorevich Petrushko
Translation by Matfey Shaheen

Pravoslavie.ru

10/3/2018

Preserving Orthodox Unity

Jad Ganem

Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras I

1948 was a pivotal year for the Orthodox world. It was the year when the Orthodox church was
thrust into the Cold War between America, the Soviet Union and their respective allies. That
year witnessed the failure of Stalin's plan to move the leadership of the Orthodox world to the
Soviet Union and establish an "Orthodox Vatican" in Moscow, after the decisions of the
Orthodox conference held in Moscow in 1948 roused the free world vigilance in confronting the
Soviet Union's plan to use the Russian Orthodox Church to promote Soviet policy and spread

342
Communist thought in the Orthodox world. Political leaders in the West began taking practical
steps to contain and confront Soviet expansion in the free Orthodox world. These steps began
with pushing the Ecumenical Patriarch Maximos to resign. In his place Metropolitan
Athenagoras of America, who was close to the American President Truman, was elected
Ecumenical Patriarch. This was possible because the American, Greek and Turkish governments
agreed on the election as part of a comprehensive plan to distance the latter two countries from
the Soviet sphere, resulting in their joining NATO in 1951. Athenagoras arrived in Turkey in the
American presidential plane and immediately upon landing he was granted Turkish citizenship at
the airport. Thus, the Orthodox conference in Moscow achieved the opposite result of what its
organizers had intended, as it led to the rediscovery of the Ecumenical Patriarch by the Western
world. From that time, the West worked to raise his profile and transform him into a weapon for
containing and confronting Soviet expansion into Orthodox countries outside the Iron Curtain,
especially in Greece and the Ancient Patriarchates.

On both sides of the Iron Curtain, Orthodoxy paradoxically benefited from the circumstances of
the Cold War. The Church of Moscow, which in the 20s and 30s had been on the brink of total
annihilation under Soviet persecution, was able to reassert its presence within most of its pre-
Revolutionary canonical territories and to reconstitute its episcopal body, which had been
reduced to only four bishops on the entire territory of the Soviet Union.

During this period this church was likewise able to hold a synod to elect a new patriarch after
having been unable for two decades to elect a successor to the martyred Patriarch Tikhon. The
church was also permitted to revive a number of monasteries and churches and a some bishops,
priests, monastics and believers were released from prisons and gulags as evidence of religious
freedom in the Soviet Union.

During this period, the Ecumenical Patriarchate was also able to regain its role in the Orthodox
and Christian worlds, which had been sharply diminished following the Greece’s loss in its war
with Turkey and the population exchange mandated by the Treaty of Lausanne, which removed
almost all Orthodox Christians in Turkey (apart from those living in Istanbul) to Greece. The
Ecumenical Patriarchate further lost its freedom of action and ecumenical character when the
Greek negotiator accepted that the patriarch’s role be limited to providing pastoral care to the
Greek community in Istanbul and its surroundings and that the patriarchs and bishops be required
to have been residents of the city before 1920 and of Turkish nationality, in order to prevent
moving its headquarters from Turkey to Greece, as desired by the Turkish negotiator. It also was
confronted with a schismatic body called the "Turkish Orthodox Church" whose leader occupied
its headquarters for a time and called for its transformation into a Turkish national church. This
group was even able to threaten the stability of the patriarchate and to take ownership of some of
its most important properties in Istanbul for several years. The Ecumenical Patriarchate was,
however, able in the mid-40s to regain some of these properties, just as it was able to elicit a
degree of recognition of its role outside the borders of the Turkish state.

Changing political circumstances did not allow the period of détente between Constantinople and
Moscow to last, as the systematic pogroms against the Greek community in Istanbul on April 6-
7, 1955 led to the destruction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's infrastructure and to the
emigration of most of its flock. It is said that this led Patriarch Athenagoras to opine that the real

343
fall of Constantinople occurred after these events. Throughout this time, Russian Church
continued to suffer the horrors of systematic persecution and discrimination against believers.

Breaks in relations between Constantinople and Moscow and Turkey and the Soviet union,
respectively, gave a positive impetus to the Orthodox world and all the churches were able to
gather for the first time at a general conference held on the island of Rhodes in 1961. This
meeting laid the foundations for arranging relations between the Orthodox churches and defined
a shared mechanism for addressing controversial issues. This meeting resulted in an openness on
the part of the Orthodox Church to dialogue and joint ecumenical work with the rest of the
Christian world. It also inaugurated cooperation between the various local churches to find
common solutions to issues that had arisen in the Orthodox world between the wars-- the most
important of which were the issues of autocephaly and autonomy and organizing the Orthodox
presence in the diaspora.

The Cold War left its mark on relations between the churches during this period, but they
cooperated with each other, aware that each needed to adapt to the realities of its context.
Political leaders also encouraged these meetings because they were an opportunity for each side
to catch a glimpse of what was happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain, not to mention
that it opportunities for propaganda and influencing the course of events on the other side.

Perhaps one could say that Orthodox activity attained its apex and made its more important
achievements during the period of the Cold War. This period saw the Church of Moscow
abandon its plan to lead the Orthodox world and accept the leadership role of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate as first in honor among the patriarchates and churches. It likewise witnessed the start
of preparatory work for the Great Orthodox Council, which entailed a great number of meetings
where agreement was reached on the majority of items on its agenda. Three issues remained
outstanding: the manner of signing a tomos of autocephaly, the conditions for granting autonomy
and the issue of the diptychs. Joint Orthodox work, within the limited margins of freedom
available at that time, relied on the fundamental premise of the acceptance by all the local
churches of the existing boundaries of the local Orthodox churches, including the Church of
Finland, which had separated from the Patriarchate of Moscow in the mid-50s and obtained
autonomy from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This work likewise followed the principle of
building consensus between the churches and until unanimity could be reached on all the topics.

344
 Patriarch of Moscow Alexei II
The end of the Cold War coincided with the election of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who
was elected without interference from the Turkish authorities, and the election of Patriarch of
Moscow Alexei II by a synod that included all the metropolitans of the Russian Church and
representatives from the clergy and laity. The post-Cold War period brought promises of
overcoming the difficulties of the past and increased cooperation between the Orthodox
churches, especially after the meeting of the first synaxis of the primates of the Orthodox
churches at the Fanar, presided by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in 1992.

These promises were quickly dashed after Ecumenical Patriarchate decided unilaterally to grant
autonomy to the Church of Estonia, which had been dependent on the Patriarchate of Moscow
before the Bolshevik Revolution. This step worried Moscow, whose patriarch at the time had
previously been Metropolitan of Estonia, as it understood this decision and the course of
discussions with Constantinople to indicate a desire on the part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to
change the existing boundaries of the Orthodox churches and to encourage the establishment of
national churches within the canonical boundaries of the Patriarchate of Moscow. This step
likewise alerted the patriarchs of the other Orthodox churches to a transformation in the
Ecumenical Patriarchate's understanding and practice of primacy.

The issue of Estonia led to a break in communion between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the
Patriarchate of Moscow for a number of months in 1996 and to the suspension of joint Orthodox
activity for a decade. At the synaxis of the primates of the Orthodox churches in 2008, it was
agreed that autonomous churches would be excluded from joint Orthodox activity and that the
preparatory work for the Great Orthodox Council would recommence and complete the study of

345
the three outstanding issues on its agenda. In practice, however, agreement was reached on the
issue of autonomy and how it is to be granted, while agreement about the issues of the diptychs
and the manner of ratifying a tomos of autocephaly was impossible. These two topics were
excluded from the agenda of the Great Orthodox Council which, it was decided at the synaxis
held in April of 2014, would be held on the Feast of Pentecost, 2016.

There did not appear during this preparatory work, and especially not in the study of the question
of autocephaly, any positions implying a refusal to recognize the canonical boundaries of the
autocephalous churches or a desire to revise these boundaries. His Holiness the Ecumenical
Patriarch repeatedly affirmed that the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognizes the Ukrainian Church
dependent on the Church of Moscow as the legitimate church in Ukraine. Its head took part in
the synaxis of the primates of the churches that was held in Chambésy, Switzerland in January,
2016 as part of the delegation of the Church of Moscow, where His Holiness the Ecumenical
Patriarch welcomed his presence.

The request of the churches of Antioch, Russia, Georgia and Bulgaria to postpone the Great
Council, followed by their declining to participate in what became the "Council of Crete" in
June, 2016, opened a new cold war in the Orthodox world. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the
Church of Greece responded by boycotting the celebrations of the centenary of the
reestablishment of the Patriarchate of Moscow held in early December, 2017. The issue of
Ukraine was re-opened a quarter-century after the schism of Metropolitan Filaret and his
declaring the establishment of the so-called Patriarchate of Kiev, which is not recognized by any
of the Orthodox churches.

The rhetoric of the Ecumenical Patriarchate changed after the Council of Crete and it started to
state in its literature that it is the mother church of the Church of Ukraine and that this church
was uncanonically absorbed by the Church of Moscow in the 17th century. On this basis, the
Ecumenical Patriarchate declared that it considers itself as having the competency to grant this
church autocephaly. Some of its bishops even went so far as to reject the rules that were agreed
upon during the joint Orthodox work on the issue of autocephaly and the manner of its
declaration and to state that what was agreed upon by all the churches is not valid for dealing
with the issues that have been raised to the conscience of the Church in the current century--
especially given the ambiguity that still prevails about their opinion about what is meant by
"mother church" with regard to the church in Ukraine, for example. They likewise questioned the
principle of requiring the unanimity of the Orthodox churches, regarding it as too difficult to
achieve, as demonstrated by experience during discussion of the document on granting
autocephaly during the preparatory work for the Great Council. In addition to the issue of
Ukraine, the issue of the Macedonian schism has been raised within the Patriarchate of Serbia
and it has been suggested that a solution must be found for the issues of the churches in
Montenegro and Moldova. A communique issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate has stated that
the mother church of the churches in the Balkans remains the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s statements have provoked a wave of anxiety in the Orthodox
world and fears of schism. Several churches and bishops have expressed opinions that are not
supportive of it. Senior officials in the Patriarchate of Moscow said that the day after the
Ecumenical Patriarchate grants autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine could be likened to the day

346
after the Great Schism between East and West. One of the bishops of the Serbian Patriarchate
stated that any individual decision on the part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate regarding Serbia
and Ukraine would be a grave mistake both canonically and spiritually and would be rejected by
the universal Orthodox Church. He also stressed that the Orthodox churches regard the
Ecumenical Patriarch as first among equals and not first without equal. On the other hand, a
number of autocephalous Orthodox churches have kept silent and not taken any public position
with regard to these developments, while other churches have expressed their support for the
legitimate church in Ukraine dependent on Moscow. The Ukrainian and Macedonian crises have
brought the Orthodox world into struggles that transcend ecclesiastical concerns and belong to
the conflict between the West and Russia, just as Orthodoxy has embarked on internal conflicts,
which observers fear, if allowed to worsen or if inappropriate steps are taken, will lead to
schisms between and within the churches.

The Orthodox churches did not escape being influenced by political developments, since
political leaders both inside and outside the Iron Curtain resorted to making use of the ancient
rivalry between Second Rome and Third Rome over the course of the Cold War. At this difficult
moment, when populism and nationalism are on the rise, borders are being redrawn, and a new
order is slowly emerging out of the rubble of post-war arrangements designed to contain Soviet
expansion, we must be vigilant against the exploitation of existing ecclesiastical disagreements
for the sake of ephemeral political interests and nationalist projects. We must avoid the ethnic
and political rivalries that have beset the Orthodox Church and fragmented it into national
churches from the time of the Greek Revolution, which led to the Church of Greece declaring its
autocephaly, an example that was followed as more countries gained their independence. The
Orthodox churches must collectively address the notion that “every independent state has the
right to an autocephalous church” and that “the borders of the church must change with changes
in the political situation", not only because this idea subordinates the Church to political
vicissitudes and fragments her into warring tribes, but also because it has never been the rule in
the Orthodox world, since it is contrary to the nature of the Church.

The Ancient Patriarchates of the Orthodox Church have since ancient times transcended nations
and ethnicities and they continue to do so. At the present, there are autocephalous churches
whose territory only covers part of a state, as is the case for the Church of Greece. Other
autocephalous churches extend over more than one state, as in the cases of the Church of Serbia
and the Church of Czechia and Slovakia, which remained one church after being divided into
different countries. We must also remember that the system of autonomy as an ecclesiastical
arrangement does not mean the subordination of a church to another church or another state. It in
no way detracts from the sovereignty of a state in which an autonomous church exists. The
autonomy enjoyed by the Churches of Finland and Estonia within the Ecumenical Patriarchate
has never been regarded as detracting from the sovereignty of those two states, just as the island
of Crete’s autonomy within the Ecumenical Patriarchate has never been considered a violation of
the sovereignty of the Greek state, despite the disagreements between Turkey and Greece. The
ecclesiastical, canonical and even political situations of these churches differ little in principle
from the situations of the autonomous Ukrainian Church dependent on the Patriarchate of
Moscow and the Macedonian Church dependent on the Patriarchate of Serbia.

347
The Orthodox Church must pay heed to the dangers that result from feeding nationalist
sentiments and tying the future of the Church to political considerations. The greatest
responsibility in this regard lies with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In order to fulfill its canonical
role, it must put to use the primacy of service that it enjoys in order to assist the Churches of
Russia and Serbia in healing the wounds caused to them by the Ukrainian and Macedonian
schisms. This can only happen by recognizing the boundaries of the Orthodox churches that have
been established for decades and following the principle that the Mother Church is the church
whose Holy Synod includes the bishops who are requesting autocephaly.

Jad Ganem

Notes on Arab Orthodoxy

9/30/2018

Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna:

Constantinople’s Position Willl Lead to the
Fragmentation of the Pillars of Orthodoxy
Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna Romanova

In early September, during a meeting of the Council of Bishops of the Church on Constantinople
in Istanbul, His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew announced that he is taking the initiative to
overcome the Ukrainian schism, “since Russia, being responsible for today’s strife in Ukraine,
is unable to solve the problem.” The Patriarch said that the reason for this was the appeal by
the Ukrainian government and the leader of the self-declared “Kiev Patriarchate.” Soon
thereafter, the Patriarch of Constantinople appointed two exarchs to Kiev “within the
framework of preparations for granting autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.” In
response, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church called it a “crude trampling of canon law”
on the part of the Constantinople Patriarchate. According to the Synod, the actions of Patriarch
Bartholomew lead to an impasse in the relationship between the Russian and Constantinople
Churches and “establish a real threat to unity of world Orthodoxy.”

In connection with this matter, Interfax asked Her Highness Grand Duchess Maria
Vladimirovna, Head of the Russian Imperial House, to comment on the statement of Patriarch
Bartholomew, whom she knows personally.

348
    

- Your Imperial Highness, what is your opinion of the latest news on the situation of the
Church in Ukraine and the announcement of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople?

- I heard reports of the radical steps taken by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who is
meddling in Church matters in Ukraine, with sorrow and alarm. I see that this has provoked a
sharp increase in tension, both in Ukraine and in the entire Orthodox world. I had great hopes
that after the visit made by Patriarch Kirill to Constantinople and the meeting of the two
primates, that concord between the Constantinople and Moscow patriarchates would strengthen.
Instead, Constantinople delivered a demarche, completely ignoring the position of the Russian
Orthodox Church and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This step could not but evoke
in me sorrow and extreme bewilderment.

- Do you have detailed information on the situation of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine?

- Yes, I follow official statements, discussions and publications in the press. My chancery keeps
me informed on historical, legal matters and news.

- Judging by what you just said, you are clearly on the side of the Russian Orthodox
Church. Don’t you think that you only get one-sided information? Are you familiar with
the arguments of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the proponents of autocephaly in
Ukraine?

349
- I never hid the fact that I am a faithful daughter of the Russian Orthodox Church, I trust its
hierarchy and to the best of my ability serve towards the preservation of the canonical unity of
the flock of the Moscow Patriarchate and the traditions developed in the Russian part of the
Orthodox world.

At the same time, our House always had spiritual connection with the hierarchies of other Local
Churches. During the persecution of the faith in the USSR and our forced isolation from our
Homeland, many of them offered us invaluable help. One need only remember that it was thanks
to the Church of Constantinople that my grandfather, grandmother and parents were able to
preserve and legalize the Orthodox community they established in Madrid. For many years,
when they did not allow Russian churches in Spain, we frequented the Church of SS Andrew and
Dimitry, built by this community and belonging under the omophorion of the Constantinople
Patriarchate.

That is why our relationship with the primates and clergy of all Churches, which comprise the
fullness of Orthodoxy, is so dear. If I hear that there are conflicts between sister Churches, I do
not deem it possible to express my position, especially to make any statements, until I examine
all arguments first.

My attitude towards church life in Ukraine is not only founded on my belonging to the Russian
Orthodox Church, but on an understanding of history and the personal experience I gained while
participating in peace-making efforts.

- Patriarch Bartholomew claims that the Church of Constantinople since the time of the
Ecumenical Councils has the right to decide all disputes of Orthodoxy throughout the
world…

- I am not a canon expert, and won’t assume the responsibility of analyzing the positions in
detail. This should be left to experts. I will only talk about commonly-known facts, and what
should be drawn from Christian love and sound mind, without in-depth specialized analysis.

The Constantinople Patriarchate occupies the first place among all the Orthodox Churches. It is
“first among equals.” No one argues this fact. But in the Orthodox world, in contrast with the
Roman Catholic Church, where they teach the infallible leadership of the Pope, there is no such
supremacy. All matters are decided on the basis of collegial agreement.

The canons which grant the Church of Constantinople certain functions of arbitration and
coordination are established exclusively on conditions that have not existed for over 500 years.

This stemmed from the fact that the See of Constantinople was located in the “Royal City,” the
“New Rome,” the spiritual and political center of the Roman Empire. It was this factor that was
emphasized in all the canons adopted by the Ecumenical Councils with regard to the Church of
Constantinople as the reason for granting it certain additional authorities.

Only the existence of a direct connection between the bishop of Constantinople and the emperor,
who was revered as the sacral and legitimate ruler of the “oikoumen” [the entire inhabited world

350
—transl.] gave these hierarchs not only a titular but the real status of being “Ecumenical.” There
was no other basis for this.

But in 1453, the Eastern Roman Empire ceased to exist. The reality which gave the basis of
granting the patriarchs of Constantinople the right of a supreme and final arbitrator for Orthodox
Christians who were not directly in the jurisdiction of the Constantinople Church suddenly
disappeared.

The traditional primacy and honor and even title “Ecumenical” have remained with the patriarch
of Constantinople, and all Orthodox Christians are in agreement on this. Still, the symphony
between church and royal power, which existed at one time at the highest level in Constantinople
and was the basis for legal processes within the undivided Church and Empire, was lost in the
15th century.

- Still, Rus in 988 received its baptism from Constantinople. Russian metropolitans were
for many years appointed by the Ecumenical patriarchs. The autocephaly of the Russian
Church was recognized by them, and the first Russian patriarch was appointed by the
Constantinople patriarch. Doesn’t this mean that the Russian Orthodox Church must
consider the Constantinople Church as its Mother Church and obey her?

- You know, at one time the cathedra of Constantinople was under authority of the Antiochian
Church. That is, the Antiochian Church is historically the Mother Church of the Constantinople
Church. But this does not mean that Antiochian patriarchs have any right to meddle in the affairs
of the Church of Constantinople.

Of course, there are pious traditions that hold that the Constantinople Church was founded by
Apostle Andrew the First-Called. But the same tradition applies to the Russian Church. It can’t
be proven historically. It is an object of faith. But the extant legal acts clearly demonstrate the
ascent of the Constantinople cathedra.

When the first Rome lost some of its influence, the new capital founded by Constantine the Great
became the “Royal City,” and the prestige of the Constantinople cathedra grew. In some ways
this is similar to our own history, when power moved first to Vladimir, then to Moscow.

The Russian Church obtained autocephaly during the period that Moscow dominated. The
patriarchate was in fact established in Moscow. By the way, the Moscow patriarchs were
recognized as fifth in honor, right after the patriarchates whose succession is in the diptychs
established by the Ecumenical Councils. This was because the Russian tsars considered
themselves the spiritual heirs to the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and this was recognized not
only by their own subjects, but by many in the rest of the Orthodox world. One can argue at
length about the degree and the scope of this recognition, but it is recorded in many official
documents.

Of course, we will never forget about the maternal aspect of the Church of Constantinople with
regard to the Russian Church. In any case, whenever one Church or another is granted

351
autocephaly, it moves from being a “daughter Church” to a “sister Church.” And the right to full
independence in addressing its internal affairs is granted to her.

- The Constantinopolitan and Ukrainian advocates for separation from the Moscow
Patriarchate say that the Kievan Metropoliate remained under authority of
Constantinople, and in the 17th century was given to Muscovite control under political
pressure and only temporarily. That is why today, when Ukraine has become an
independent nation, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in their opinion, must restore her rights
and take upon herself the responsibility to “overcome schism.”

- The Kievan cathedra has for over 300 years been in the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox
Church. There is no mention on a temporary nature of this situation in Church documents. If it
were so, it would be enough to quote such a canonical document. But no one is able to do this.
Even if, at the end of the 17th century, someone in Constantinople or Little Russia [present-day
Ukraine—transl.] was unhappy with the situation, then the status that was preserved by all for so
long has legitimized it.

In the 1990’s, the Orthodox Church in the Ukrainian state, which obtained independence,
received from Moscow broad autonomy, but maintained unity with it. In this canonical
Ukrainian Orthodox Church, recognized even now by the Constantinople Church and all other
Local Churches, there are far more parishes and parishioners than in the other “alternative,”
uncanonical jurisdictions not recognized by universal Orthodoxy. Yes, there are among some
clergymen and faithful of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church proponents of autocephaly.
But they are in the minority. In any case, the official position of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
is to preserve unity with the Russian Orthodox Church in the form it exists today. To decide on
church matters in the Ukrainian government without taking heed of the position of the lawful
hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and against it is uncanonical, unfair and is fraught
with disaster.

- Patriarch Bartholomew did not yet formalize, but only, in his words, began preparations
for the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. For this purpose, two exarchs were
appointed. Many consider this intermediate role to be proper, since for so many years, the
Orthodox in Ukraine themselves could not overcome the schism, and the Moscow
Patriarchate has also not resolved this issue.

- We shouldn’t forget that the Church is not just a collection of rules, traditions, holy buildings
and objects, but first of all it is comprised of people of faith, clergymen and laity, who confess
the faith in Christ and who follow His commandments of Love. Even correct and well-founded
decisions cannot be enacted through the use of force, or under intense pressure, which can only
lead to new confrontation. One especially cannot force people, to put it mildly, to accept
debatable decisions whose basis is far from clear.

The efforts of the Constantinople Patriarchate to mediate could be useful only under certain
conditions. Most important, first of all, is that such efforts should be approved by all sides, and
not imposed from without. Secondly, the mediators should enjoy great authority in the Orthodox

352
world, have a reputation of being objective, experienced, spiritual and wise hierarch, not to have
been previously drawn into conflict.

Both conditions are absent. “The preparation of autocephaly” was initiated despite the wishes of
the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, and entrusted to two bishops whose
independence and objectivity is not even a matter of discussion.

At the same time, in the very declaration of Patriarch Bartholomew, the motives were not
ecclesiastical but political. He expressed the point of view that today’s political instability in the
Ukrainian state is the fault of Russia. I must remind you that the instability was caused by the
coup in Kiev in 2014, when the lawfully-elected president was overthrown. This was clearly not
caused by pro-Russian political forces. And however future events unfolded, firstly, you cannot
call one side to blame for everything and the other innocent, and secondly, the Church must not
pour gasoline on the flames, but do everything towards reconciliation.

I know that in churches of the Russian Orthodox Church, at every Liturgy, a prayer for the
suffering Ukraine and her people is read. Even if someone makes claims towards one politician
or another, neither Patriarch Kirill nor Metropolitan Onouphry, nor other hierarchs of the
Russian and Orthodox Churches has given any reason to doubt the earnestness of their striving
for peace. They pray and expend efforts for the Ukrainian people to return to ecclesiastical,
national and civil peace.

- That is, you think that the position of Patriarch Bartholomew is dictated not by
ecclesiastical but political reasons?

- Unfortunately, I cannot find any other explanation. For world Orthodoxy, the steps leading to
an unavoidable rift between the Church of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church are
truly catastrophic.

The spiritual bonds between the brotherly peoples of Russia and Ukraine have ancient roots.
Kiev is called the “mother of Russian cities” in the chronicles. The ancestors of Ukrainians and
Russians died side by side, defending their one Fatherland. Efforts to destroy this civilized unity
and the sowing of discord is of course a political plan aimed at subjecting Ukraine to the
geopolitical rivals of Russia and the weakening of the international standing of our nation.
Within the framework of this project is activity aimed at fracturing the Orthodox Christian pillars
erected in Kievan Rus and further developed in the Moscow regime and the Russian Empire,
which endured even in the epoch of the most brutal militantly godless persecutions in the USSR.
The people who lead this effort are, let’s be clear, very far from the Church.

- But the history of the Russian Orthodox Church and her relationship with the
Constantinople Patriarchate is also far from being smooth and objective.

- Yes, there is nothing ideal in earthly life. And it is impossible to fully separate spiritual life and
politics, lofty goals and self-interest, care for others and egotism, sincerity and guile.

353
In the history of Russia and the Russian Church, there have also been various situations
connected to sin, craftiness, abuse of privilege, the use of force, blackmail and corruption. We
shouldn’t assume a “Hottentot morality” [“what’s good for me is good, what’s bad for me is
bad”—transl.] and think that we are always right in all things, and others wrong only because
they have their own interests distinct from ours.

But history is given to us not only so that we seek out justification for new abuses and for
revenge for insults from three hundred years ago, but so that we can learn its lessons and at least
consciously and persistently avoid repeating that which brought us and others sorrow in times
past.

If the Patriarch of Constantinople feels that Russian Tsars or bishops of the Russian Church were
not entirely fair and tactful in dealing with him, this does not give him an excuse to permit
himself an analogous or even worse injustice on this new page of history, and make millions of
people hostages of such dubious revanchism.

And if, for example, the Church of Constantinople always solemnly and consistently condemned
phyletism (the tendency in ecclesiastical circles of some countries to place narrowly-national
interests above overall Church interests), then in Ukraine’s situation, she cannot in any way
support this blatantly phyletic politicized scheme.

- Do you know Patriarch Bartholomew personally?

- Yes, I know His All-Holiness for a long time. I met him in his residence in Phanar during my
visit to Turkey. Our conversation centered on questions of overall Church unity, the brotherly
bonds of the Churches of Constantinople and Russia, cooperation between Orthodox Christians
and in general, between all those who believe in God in the face of the perils caused by the
spread of atheism, immorality, cynicism, the sacrifice of spirituality and dignity of individual life
to political or economic egotism.

I hold very warm memories of this meeting, of the person of Patriarch Bartholomew, his spiritual
manner, his lofty intellect, his good will and restraint. That is why it is especially painful for me
to see how inter-Church bonds are being torn, brotherly relations ruined and the Orthodox world
being weakened.

- Do you intend to communicate your opinions to Patriarch Bartholomew?

- I am prepared to do this if I feel that such a step would serve towards Church peace. But I need
to know the opinions of Patriarch Kirill and Metropolitan Onouphry of the efficacy of such a
communication. One of the main, underlying ideas preserved by the Imperial House is the
principle of symphony. According to this principle, the Church hierarchy and those who bear the
burden of Royal service support each other, but do not directly interfere in the work of the other
side in the absence of consent or a request. The oath of the physician should be applied here:
“first do no harm.” I very much hope that the wellsprings of direct inter-Church dialog have not
run dry.

354
- What could the consequences of a de-facto legitimization of schism be for Ukraine?

- I don’t doubt that if events continue along this path, it will only deepen the crisis and will
prolong this new dire and tragic period in the history of Ukraine, Russia, the Orthodox world,
and in general it will have a negative effect on the international situation.

Of course, the Church will survive until the end of times, and the unity of civilization between
Russia and Ukraine will be reestablished. The period of enmity will be replace by a period of
reconciliation and forgiveness. This has happened many times in past epochs. This is a law of
History. But the sooner we can cease inflicting wounds upon each other, and instead, heal them,
the less suffering there will be in the near and foreseeable future. I pray for everyone, so that the
spirit of Christ’s love and justice prevail in our hearts.

Interfax.ru

Translation by the ROCOR website

Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna Romanova

9/29/2018

We Support the Need For Dialogue at Every

Level
Primate of the OCA issues Archpastoral Letter concerning
recent developments in Ukraine
Metropolitan Tikhon of All America and Canada

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Tikhon addressed an

Archpastoral Letter to the clergy, monastics and faithful of the Orthodox Church in America in
reference to recent developments with regard to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

Archpastoral Letter of His Beatitude, Metropolitan Tikhon in Reference to Recent Developments

Regarding the Orthodox Church in Ukraine
To the Clergy, Monastics, and Faithful of the Orthodox Church in America:

355
Christ is in our midst!

I write in reference to recent developments respecting the Orthodox Church in Ukraine which
have received much media attention. The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in
America has been closely following these developments inasmuch as they have an impact in our
own communities. Many of our parishes have been affected by the painful historical
ecclesiastical divisions that have existed in Ukraine for decades. In recent years, these
ecclesiastical divisions have been overtaken by significant violent geopolitical conflict and our
Church has consistently called for the offering of prayers for the healing of such division and the
peaceful and just resolution of all conflict.

Our Holy Synod has been apprised of initiatives by His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew, to address this painful situation and has noted the various preliminary responses
offered by other Orthodox Churches. In particular, we have received with sorrow, yet with
understanding, the decision of the Moscow Patriarchate to cease liturgical commemoration of the
Ecumenical Patriarch and suspend concelebration and participation by bishops of the Moscow
Patriarchate in inter-Orthodox contexts.

We are deeply aware of the pain and trauma in the life of Orthodox people caused by ecclesial
schism which weakens Orthodox witness and evangelism in society. Such pain and trauma have
been wounds in the life of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine for several decades. Schism, division,
and mutual antagonism are not only canonical problems—they are pastoral and spiritual
challenges demanding the healing power of Christ and Christian faith. We are mindful of the
Russian Orthodox Synod’s call to the local autocephalous Churches to “understand the common

356
responsibility for the fate of world Orthodoxy and to initiate a fraternal all-Orthodox discussion
of the church situation in Ukraine.”

The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America supports the need for regular
dialogue at every level and appeals to all local Orthodox Churches to address the current crisis in
Ukraine through the convening of a Pan-Orthodox synaxis, or similar conciliar process, wherein
an authentic solution can be found to this problem. We are prepared to participate in such
fraternal discussions and will be reviewing the on-going developments of this situation at our
Fall Session.

In the meantime, we call on our clergy, monastics, and faithful to offer their support and fervent
prayers for His Beatitude, Metropolitan Onufry, and all the bishops, clergy, monastics, and
faithful of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. May the Lord grant them continued
strength and wisdom in their endeavor to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”
(Ephesians 4:3). Relying on the healing power of Christ, we exhort all in the Orthodox Church in
America to be steadfast in faith, hope, and love, maintaining collaboration and eucharistic
communion with both the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Moscow, thus offering
a sign of unity in the face of current threats to unity.

May our Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the
Comforter and Spirit of Truth, grant to all parties the wisdom, peace, and humility to solve the
problems that exist in Ukraine, so that working in unity all may turn their energy and attention to
the singular and true mission of the Church, the preaching to the world of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+ Tikhon

Archbishop of Washington
Metropolitan of All American and Canada

Metropolitan Tikhon of All America and Canada

OCA.org

9/27/2018

The Church is Not a Political Organization

An Exclusive Interview on the Ecclesiastical Events in
Ukraine
Metropolitan Onuphry (Berezovsky)

357
    

In this interview with the program “Morning With Inter,” His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry
speaks about his position on the latest Church events connected with the actions of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople in regard to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The Ukrainian
primate calls on the people of Ukraine to fear nothing, to preserve the purity of the Orthodox
faith, and to live with God.

Today we are being dragged into the format of a political party, so that Christ would not lead us,
but politicians. If I had wanted to be a politician I would have gone straight to politics. Although
I had such chances in my youth, I rejected them. Having put on spiritual clothes, I must take care
of the spiritual and do spiritual things. Those who have put on riassas but are actively engaged in
politics are developing geopolitical plans—they are just dishonest people who couldn’t become
real politicians, but turned into shapeshifters to attract human attention to themselves with the
help of a spiritual image. It’s dishonorable. These people will have to answer before God for it.

We are an autonomous Church and we have all the attributes of independence that are necessary
today for the normal service of God and the people. We have our own Synod, dependent upon no
one, and we have our own Bishops’ Council, dependent upon no one. The decisions of our
Council are final and no one can challenge them or veto them. We have our Ukrainian Orthodox
Church ecclesiastical court, which is the final authority. We have economic and administrative
independence. A tomos would restrict the freedom we have today. If someone needs it, please,
they are welcome. We don’t need it. We have independence, autonomy, we have all the
attributes of a free life that are necessary for successful ecclesiastical service to the people.

358
We have spiritual, prayerful, canonical, and cultural ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. That’s
normal, as it should be. The Church is not a political organization that loves someone today and
hates someone else, and tomorrow vice versa. The Church loves everyone! We love Russians,
we love Americans, we love Africans, we love Asians. We have no enemies. We have
counterparts who oppose us, but they are not enemies. We pray for them.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has sent its two exarchs to Ukraine. Such actions—sending
their legates, their exarchs to our independent Church—are anti-canonical.

It was once a powerful Church that covered the entire civilized world; it identified itself with the
Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire covered the world, and the Church was equivalent to
the empire. But that empire does not exist today. They are living in the past.

Today the great empire of Byzantium has become Turkey and the faith there now is not
Orthodoxy. You can count the Orthodox believers there today on your fingers. Those who
brought their homeland to the point that it turned from an Orthodox power into a Muslim state
want to command us and teach us how we should live. They also want to lead our Ukraine to the
same state they led their own homeland to. Thus, they have neither the moral nor canonical right
to appoint exarchs here and interfere in our affairs.

Interference in the affairs of another Church is an anti-Church, anti-canonical action and it’s a
sin, and sin leads to the division of people. Interference in the affairs of our Church could create
a schism in the Orthodox Church on a global scale.

The Church cannot live according to the standards of secular life. Secular life, especially
political, is mixed with intrigues, deceptions, and betrayals—a collection of all evils. The Church
cannot live according to such measures and norms. The Church lives by the commandments of
Christ. We have our own methods for fighting evil: prayer, repentance, patience, humility before
God and one another—these are the powerful weapons that destroy evil.

Priests are called to be peacemakers, not politicians who divide the people. The ideology that’s
being promoted today is not a godly ideology. And that special “morality” that’s being planted in
our society will not become Christian, but anti-Christian. New rules are being introduced: gay
marriages, abortions, murder, and the like. It is contrary to Christ; God does not bless it.

The Church fulfills its mission—it leads man to God. It reminds people that we are all creations
of God, and calls us to love one another, to be patient with one another, and to help one another.
I know that the Church will exist until the end of the world because the Lord said that the gates
of Hell shall not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18).

I would like to address all the Orthodox faithful of Ukraine: Fear nothing, be firm in your love
for God, and preserve the purity of the Orthodox faith that is the road leading to God. Love one
another, suffer one another, help one another. Evil will pass, but good will live eternally. If we
endure everything and live in love for all, then no evil will defeat us. God is the God of strength,
but evil has no power. Live with God! Be joyous, happy, and blessed!

359
Metropolitan Onuphry (Berezovsky)
Translated by Jesse Dominick

Ukrainian Orthodox Church

9/16/2018

"Patriarch Bartholomew will be remembered

as a teacher of schism"
Alexander Shchipkov

The First Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Department of the Moscow Patriarchate for relations
with Society and the Media, and member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation,
Professor of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University – Aleksandr Shchipkov, in an
exclusive interview with RIA Novosti, commented on the latest actions of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, and in light of them – the theme of Ukrainian Autocephaly. Interviewed by
Sergey Stafanov.

360
    

—Aleksandr Vladimirovich, just recently, on August 31, we witnessed the meeting of

Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew in Istanbul, and in the follow-up to the meeting, it was
described as being of a fraternal character, which passed in the spirit of mutual
understanding.

However the very next day, the Council [Synaxis] of the bishops of Constantinople began
its work, and Patriarch Bartholomew made rather harsh statements with relation to the
Moscow Patriarchate. How can this be put together and understood?

On the part of Patriarch Kirill, the attitude to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was and
remains fraternal. The calm, patient behavior of Patriarch Kirill testifies to this brotherly attitude.
And up until the very last moment, Patriarch Kirill tried to solve the existing problems in
fraternal dialog, which, in his words: “occurs within a single body – the Body of the One Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church <…> and imposes on us a certain accountability and duty, but
also gives us strength and inspiration.”

—After yesterday’s [September 7, 2018] appointment of the Exarchs by Constantinople, is

it possible to talk about the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian church as a final
decision [by Constantinople]?

—Without a doubt, this is the first step on this path.

—Yesterday, commenting on this decision, the Moscow Patriarchate noted that this step
will not remain without response by the Russian Orthodox Church. What could this
response be?

—In order to understand what the response might be, our reader should understand the general
situation. Ukraine is the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. According to the canons
of the Second Ecumenical Council1, bishops do not have the right to transgress the boundary of
someone else’s canonical territory without an invitation. In this given situation, two exarchs—
Daniel and Hilarion—were sent to Kiev without the agreement of Metropolitan Onufry! This is a
direct violation of ancient canons!

Therefore I regard this as a direct declaration of War. Remember the words: “Kiev has been
bombed! They declared to us that the war has begun!2” Now it’s the same thing, only it’s a
religious war.

—What is lurking behind this action of Patriarch Bartholomew?

—Patriarch Bartholomew is obsessed with the idea of Eastern Papism. He dreams of becoming
the single head of all Universal [Ecumenical] Orthodoxy, analogous with the Roman Catholic
Church [and their Pope.—Trans.].

361
Bartholomew formulated the following idea: He said that Constantinople possesses a certain
mystical exclusivity in comparison with other Orthodox Churches, that Constantinople is the
“Ethos of Orthodoxy3”.

Photo: www.eurotopics.net
    

The key word is Ethos. What is it? Ethos is a certain stable, universal, and immutable character
trait of a person, a nation, a social group. Patriarch Bartholomew states that he is the holder of
the very standard of the Ethos of Orthodoxy. This immediately implies that all other churches are
imperfect and must obey the Phanar. This curious example of religious racism will certainly
enter the future textbooks of political science.

How will other churches react to this? Naturally – negatively!

On September 7, 2018, Patriarch Bartholomew went down in the history of the Orthodox Church
as a teacher of schism!

I am speaking at first about intellectual concepts and semantic things; I am speaking

theoretically. But canonical issues are extremely important, since we are not talking about
animals, but people—Christians who are living on this territory.

362
This is not the first time Constantinople has moved towards a schism; if we look in history, then
we remember it was Constantinople who initiated a transition in Orthodoxy to the New Style
calendar.

This calendar split has still not been healed to this very moment. Some parts of the Local
Churches under the influence of Constantinople passed into the New Style, some, such as in the
Russian Orthodox Church, did not. Inside the Church of Greece, in Greece, millions of believers
did not recognize this reform.

As for the relation between Constantinople and Moscow, I don’t know if our readers are in the
know, but in the 1920s, Constantinople supported the “Renovationist Schism4” in the USSR.

This schism was artificially created and supported by Trotsky and the other Bolsheviks.
Constantinople then demanded that a saint of our Church, Patriarch Tikhon, relinquish his
authority and retire. At that time, our church, under the most difficult of conditions preserved the
purity of Orthodoxy.

So what do we end up with today? It is known that Constantinople preaches a liberal trend in
Orthodoxy. There is talk of joint prayers with Protestants and Catholics, which, to put it mildly,
is not welcome in Orthodoxy.

Bartholomew just now allowed for second marriages for clergy—which is also forbidden by the
canons of the Holy Fathers of the Church. They are constantly releasing semi-transparent hints
and signals about the permissibility of unconventional sexual orientations and so forth.

Moscow, on the contrary, embodies the conservative, traditionalist path of development in

Orthodoxy, and defends the purity of dogma. But scientific-theological discussions are one thing,
while the direct invasion of someone else’s home is a totally separate matter.

The 7th of September will go down in history as a lamentable date. On this day, the Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew proclaimed and signaled a schism in Universal Orthodoxy, along the
liberal and conservative lines. And he is officially headed in a liberal direction.

—What kind of reaction can this cause in the Orthodox World? How might events develop
further?

—Undoubtedly, this will cause a very harsh reaction in different Churches. Patriarch
Bartholomew will develop his “Eastern Papism”; the Russian Church will not be able to agree
with this liberalization of dogma and the disintegration of the ecclesiastical system of life.

First, in my personal opinion: it is necessary to form an inter-Orthodox ecclesiastical court, and

make judgments about the anti-canonical actions and heretical ideas of Patriarch Bartholomew.

Second, in my opinion, inevitably the question of ecclesiastical eucharistic communion will

arise. There is a high probability this will happen. Proceeding from this, certain practical actions
will follow. A huge number of our flock is outside their fatherland, and particularly in Turkey.

363
Today, they [can] go to the Churches of the Constantinople Patriarchate, and have the ability to
confess and take communion there.

In the event of the interruption of this communion, they will no longer have such a possibility.
Consequently, our Church will have to take some steps to take care of the Russians abroad. We
will have to open parishes there, build churches, and send clergy there. We cannot abandon our
children.

The actions of Patriarch Bartholomew carry with them very far-reaching consequences, which
will take decades to heal.

—Earlier, the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the Moscow
Patriarchate expressed similar views—that Patriarch Bartholomew is engaged in political
games. In your opinion, how great is the influence of foreign political forces on the Primate
[Bartholomew], in reference to certain foreign states, and was it decisive in the case of
Ukrainian Autocephly?

—Turn your attention to the origins of the exarchs sent to Kiev. Bishop Daniel of Pamphilon
arrived in Kiev from the United States of America; Bishop Hilarion of Edmonton was sent from
Canada. These circumstances alone cause us to reflect on who is behind Bartholomew.

There is a great suspicion among many, that it is not Bartholomew who rules Bishops Daniel and
Hilarion, but rather Bishops Daniel and Hilarion who are controlling Bartholomew. And who
controls them… we can only guess.

The US, as we see, is now ramping up the military-political situation in Syria and Ukraine, using
all sorts of methods—from false flag chemical attacks [in Syria.—Trans.], to instigating religious
wars.

I believe that there are many participants in this game, among them: Patriarch Bartholomew, the
Pope of Rome, and the American “deep state”. I think that in the near future, we will also talk
about this.

Alexander Shchipkov
Translation by Matfey Shaheen

RIA-Novosti

9/13/2018

There is Nothing New Under the Sun

Metropolitan Luke’s Wartime Notes
Metropolitan Luke (Kovalenko) of Zaporozhye and Melitopol

364
    

Christ is in our midst, my dear readers!

We do not choose the time we are to be born in this world, but we do choose how we will spend
our time in the world. We choose how to leave this world—either holding on to Christ’s hand, or
hooked onto the devil’s tail. This is our choice of where we will live in eternity. We can call a
man happy who by God’s Providence was born after the Savior’s coming into the world—after
all, from that time, the Kingdom of God became accessible to all. This path demands ascetic
labors and suffering from us, but it is precisely thanks to it that we enter the Heavenly mansions.

Recall the history of the ancient Christian Church. Were the arenas filled with Jews? Did they
throw masses of pagans to the lions? No, you could freely believe in whomever you wanted
however you wanted, only not Christians in Christ. They were supposed to be destroyed; and in
order to justify innocent deaths, ridiculous lies were conjured up to slander followers of Christ.

What has changed since then? Very much. “Openness” and “democracy” have come into the
world. The entire international community watches with an eagle eye so that human rights and
freedom of conscience be observed everywhere. Could anyone have supposed that in a
democratic country, trampling on the Constitution, human and religious rights, a multi-million-
strong confession would have its lavras, churches, and monasteries taken away from it? That just
like in the times of Nero, Diocletian, Stalin, Khruschev, and other persecutors, Christians would
again be harassed due to the most ridiculous slander? As it turns out, it’s possible. And this is

365
happening in the very center of Europe. Only recently we thought that the physical annihilation
of Orthodox Christians was not possible in any civilized countries. But we can see that in our
country [Ukraine] the media has become analogous to the “free radio and television of the
thousand hills” of Kigali in 1993–94. By all appearances the same lot is being prepared for the
UOC as was prepared for the Tutsi in Rwanda.1 But this doesn’t bother the international
community in the least, and we understand perfectly why not.

Why is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church being persecuted? Because thousands of our parishioners
are now defending our Motherland? Because we give aid to the Ukrainian armed forces,
refugees, and families left without a roof over their heads? Because the UOC has remained
faithful to its country and people? No, not for all this. But because we have remained faithful to
Christ and the Gospel. Because we have not agreed to be led by the world that hates God, we
have not agreed to compromise our conscience, the canons of the Church; we have not given in
to heretics, schismatics, and the godless. This is our main crime. And we are in agreement with
it. Glory be to God for all things!

Metropolitan Luke (Kovalenko) of Zaporozhye and Melitopol

Translation by OrthoChristian.com

Telegram

3/22/2023

Schism: What Is It?

Stanislav Minkov, Valery Sinilshchikov

366
     

Rebellion against the rightful authority is a sin to the

utmost degree, according to Prophet Samuel: For rebellion
is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity
and idolatry (1 Kings 15:23).

Bishop Vissarion (Nechaev)1

The events of the recent years clearly demonstrate what bitter consequences the Church is to face
as a result of the sin of schism and attempts of its legalization.

Why do people refuse to see themselves as schismatics? Because many people

simply have no idea what schism is about.

We are witnessing a disastrous kind of dual consciousness, when those who accepted the
Ukrainian schismatics into communion are saying that no “Kiev Patriarchate” has ever existed
(which is essentially true!), while the ones they communed with are serving panikhidas for
“Patriarch Vladimir” (Romanyuk).

367
Why do people refuse to see their schismatic state? The fact of the matter is that beyond certain
spiritual reasons that are to be resolved by spiritual fathers, many of them simply don’t know
what is schism.

We present an opportunity to decode it.

The first definition of schism is offered in the First Canon of Holy Hierarch Basil the Great:

Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical causes and,
remediable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves.

As an example, Holy Hierarch Basil cites “Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatae, and
Apotactitae,”—all those who not only fell away from the Church but also stuck to certain
heretical opinions.

In a different sense, schismatics are described in the Rules 13-15 of the First-Second Council:

So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize

from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter’s name in
accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a
conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgment against him, creates a
schism, the holy Council has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every
priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the
law.

Summarizing the two definitions above, the renowned Patriarch Dositheos (Notaras) of
Jerusalem says that the first rule describes heretics in schism, whereas the latter speaks of schism
as “pure apostasy.” What unites them is that “any schism has to do with disobedience.”2 It is also
confirmed by the respected canonist, Holy Confessor Nikodim (Milaš):

“Schism consists of the refusal of certain people to be in obedience to lawful hierarchy…

for instigating the schism, (the canons) subject the clergymen to defrocking while the
laity are excommunicated for falling into schism.”3

This definition, as confirmed by many practical experiences in the life of the Church, raises the
following issues for us to consider:

1. What is obedience to the lawful hierarchy specifically?

2. Who is specifically the lawful hierarchy?
3. What are the consequences, from the perspective of being a part of the Church, of falling
into schism?

A question of obedience

368
In essence, it is already defined in the above-mentioned canonical rule of Holy Hierarch Basil as
it speaks of “opinions on church matters.” The Russian Synod needed to describe it in greater
detail in the Ecclesiastical Regulation dated 1721.

The Decree states that, above things obligatory for the Christian, and others, unacceptable to the
Christian, there are also other things – secondary in nature:4

As for the things secondary in nature we here-hence perceive: Anything contained in the
Holy Scripture and important decisions of the councils of the Holy Church or the well-
known Church tradition is neither legalized nor repudiated.

These secondary matters are the ones that are subject to transformation and direction on the part
of Church hierarchy: They are established and revoked “by the higher clergy, the councils, and
conciliar gatherings with the grace of the Church authorities.”

This specific regulation’s immediate task was to explain what the schism of the Old Believers
was about and why Patriarch Nikon’s revision of the service books was within the law. But it is
not too difficult to see that the schisms of today, motivated by nationalistic sentiment and zealous
instincts, cannot possibly claim that if they are in disobedience, it has to do with something
“legalized, based on Scriptures and significant councils.”

The lawful Church authority

The canons clearly denote that the power within the diocese belongs to the bishop. Who is
superior to the bishop?

Canon law as a whole is permeated with the principle called synodality

Many will say that Patriarch is the one who is superior to the bishop. This is not exactly so. All
of canon law is permeated with the principle of synodality and it comes down to the fact that the
assertions on levels higher than a diocese are not to be adjudicated single-handedly (Canon 34 of
the Apostolic Canons):

But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all.

It is important to underline that the canons suggest the participation of all bishops, not all the
faithful in general.

In the Churches headed by Metropolitan (for example, in the Church of Poland, the Church of
the Czech Lands and Slovakia, as well as de facto the Church of Cyprus, even though its head
bears the title of Archbishop), the decisions appertain to the Council of Bishops of the
Metropolia.

In the Patriarchates, the Patriarch and the Holy Synod or fully-convened Bishops’ Council is
ranked higher than Metropolitans (comp.: First Universal Council, Rule 6, Fourth Universal
Council, Rule 9, and Rules 5, 6, 17 of Chapter 3 of the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church).

369
Before the creation of the orderly system of Patriarchates, Metropolitans were judged by the
Metropolitans from neighboring jurisdictions—so that the principle of synodality wasn’t violated
(Third Universal Council 1, comp: Carth. 11).

Finally, the Universal Church is above the patriarchates and all Local Churches. As Holy
Hierarch Meletius (Pigas) the Patriarch of Alexandria writes,

The Patriarchal throne yields to no one but the Universal Church.5

This principle applies to all Churches and, against Roman Catholic objections, in the first
millennium (while the West was still Orthodox) the Eastern and the majority of Western Church
fathers viewed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome within the framework of this particular
principle.

Thus, Blessed Augustine, speaking of the trial of Pope Melchiades of Rome, says:

Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good
judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these
judges themselves might be put on their defense so that, if they were convicted of
mistake, their decisions might be reversed.”6

The proceedings against Patriarch Nikon illustrate the point well.7 The Eastern patriarchs asked
Nikon: “Who will judge the bishop—and who is the patriarch’s judge?” Nikon replied: “A
bishop will be judged by twelve bishops, while a patriarch will be judged by the whole universe!
(or, obviously, the Ecumenical Church).” But this was exactly what the Eastern patriarchs were
waiting for him to say! Upon hearing his response, they immediately accused him of single-
handedly condemning Bishop Paul of Kolomna. It is worth noting that the two patriarchs who
judged Nikon took heed to get the consent of two remaining patriarchs so that Nikon was
practically judged by the “whole universe” (including, by the way, the Russian bishops).

The fact that it was so hard to bring a patriarch to justice was one of the reasons for the abolition
of the Patriarchate and the establishment of the Holy Synod in Russia. “The Ecclesiastical
Regulation” that was to determine the life of the Russian Church for the next two hundred years
has expressed it quite candidly: 8

Why should there be a need to summon the Universal Council for such a wicked autocrat
presenting such great difficulty and to incur a considerable expense for our homeland
when, in current times (when the Eastern Patriarchs live under Turkish rule, and the
Turks are wary of our State—even more today than before), that it is deemed nearly
impossible.

The Bishops’ Council is the supreme authority for a Local Church and the only
authority ranking higher is the opinion of the Universal Church

In summary, the Bishops’ Council of the Local Church is its supreme authority with the
exception of the opinion of the Universal Church, which ranks higher. Therefore, our bishops,

370
who are not condemned by either the Bishops’ Council or the collective decision of the Local
Churches, are the lawful Church authority on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox
Church. By contrast, the condemned bishops and former bishops such as Filaret (Denisenko),
Diomid (Dziuban), and more recently, Simeon (Shostatsky), possess no canonical authority by
becoming the schismatics.

The consequences of schism

The first and the most obvious consequence of schism is that a schismatic falls away from the
Church.

“Do not err, my brethren! If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he
shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” warns Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer as
early as the beginning of the second century (To the Philadelphians, 3).

Hieromartyr Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, the disciple of the Apostles’ disciple, says:

“Christ will judge those who create a schism, who have no love of God and look after
their interests more than the unity of the Church, and, either for reasons of little
importance or random causes, split and tear the great and glorious body of Christ.”9

Holy Hierarch John Chrysostom spoke even more powerfully about it:

Truly, I say and testify that to cause divisions in the Church is no lesser evil than falling
away into heresies… What Gehenna befits the one who slaughters Christ Himself and
tears Him up to pieces? Is it the one by whom we are menaced? It seems to me it is
another Genenna, even more vehement than that.10

Correspondingly, prayer (let alone full communion) with schismatics is prohibited. A question of
punishment for entering into prayerful and liturgical communion with the schismatics, on a
stand-alone basis, has not been addressed in the canons of the Church, but what we face today is
a single case of a general matter—prayer or full communion with those who were
excommunicated or defrocked:

 Apostolic Canon 10: “If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an
excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.”
 Apostolic Canon 11: “If any clergyman shall join in prayer with a deposed clergyman, as
if he were a clergyman, let him also be deposed.”
 Synod of Antioch Canon 2: “If any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any
one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him
also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.”

The departure from the Apostolic canon—entering into communion with schismatics—was what
has led to the current turmoil in universal Orthodoxy

371
We can see that it was exactly the departure from this Apostolic canon—entering into
communion with schismatics—that has led to the current turmoil in universal Orthodoxy. On the
other hand, the principle of non-participation in mutual prayer with heretics and schismatics,
driven to extremity, is often used as an excuse for new schisms.

Thus, we can often hear things like: “Whoever prays with a heretic is heretic himself!” or
“Whoever prays with a schismatic is a schismatic himself!” This principle sounds simple
and quite tempting—yet it is false!

If we address Apostolic canons 10 and 11, we will see how, on the one hand, they imply that a
guilty person should be “excommunicated” and “deposed,” but on the other hand, these words
are preceded by the “let him be” in the imperative case. In canon law, it indicates the necessity of
delivering them to lawful judgment by the corresponding ecclesiastical court.

The second canon of the Council of Antioch affords grounds for breaking communion with a
bishop who entered into communion with the schismatics and heretics, yet in this instance, the
culpability of the one who entered into communion with the excommunicated is phrased as,
“bringing confusion on the order of the Church,” but not “schism” by any means. Please note
that the third canon of the Council of Antioch uses an identical notion of “disorder” describing
the situation when either a presbyter or a deacon has forsaken his own parish and does not return
upon the bishop’s urge to do so. Likewise, in the thirteenth canon, the same term is used to
describe a situation when the bishop proceeded to conduct the ecclesiastical affairs and ministry
in another diocese without a local bishop’s consent. It is apparent that these cases cannot be
assumed to be equivalent to schism.

Here is another illustrative example: Holy Hierarch Ambrose, bishop of Milan, wrote in defense
of Maximus the Cynic, calling him a bishop of Constantinople.11 Meanwhile, just a year later, the
Second Ecumenical Council ruled that Maximus was not only not the bishop, but he had never
been one, remaining a member of the laity and a schismatic (besides, he was in schism together
with St. Gregory the Theologian, one of the greatest archpastors of the Church).

Clearly, Holy Hierarch Ambrose was mistaken in defending Maximus. But wouldn’t it be too far
a stretch to say that he fell away in schism?

Therefore, with all harshness of the canonical sanctions for mutual prayer with heretics and
schismatics, they don’t initiate a “chain reaction.” For this reason, the Russian Church,
protecting itself by its rule against communion with those who concelebrated with the
schismatics, has justifiably preserved communication with the Local Churches (and even
separate hierarchs) who concelebrate with those concelebrants (all the while not having any
communication with the schismatics themselves).

372
    

Archbishop Elpidophoros (Patriarchate of Constantinople) concelebrating with Metropolitan

Joseph (Patriarchate of Antioch), Bishop Irinej (Serbian Patriarchate), Metropolitan Tikhon
(Orthodox Church of America). October 2021.12

On divisions

It is worth noting that, once in a while, by extension, the word “schism” has come to mean such
situations when each divided party remains a part of the united Church.

For example, the Slavic translation of the canon 114 of the Council of Carthage refers to the
argument among the bishops of Rome and Alexandria as “schism”13 even though all Byzantine
exegeses unanimously call it simply a “dissension.” Holy Hierarch Ignatius (Brianchaninov)
calls the Edinovertsy or Old Believers (that is, the members of the Church who, with the
permission of the Synod, hold to the liturgical practices in use before Patriarch Nikon’s reforms)
and the “Churches officially under the authority of senior priests” (that is, churches on military
bases) as schismatics.14 Understandably, what he means here is the disobedience of such parishes
to bishops of its diocese, but not to the Church as a whole.

373
Accordingly, what in fact is meant here isn’t “schism” but “division”, when two parties remain
in a canonically abnormal relationship: There is neither full communion between equals nor
commemoration and obedience from the dependent. However, there is no decision in this regard
on the part of the lawful Church authority.

It would be also fair to say that among such divisions was the pre-war dissociation of Patriarch
Sergius and the so-called “right opposition” in our Church. The canonicity of the election of
Patriarch Sergius was hardly in evidence. When, with the obvious consent of the majority of
bishops, Alexiy I took his place, St. Athanasius (Sakharov), a Confessor of the faith, responded
in the following manner: 15

No lawful supreme hierarchical authority has condemned Patriarch Alexiy… This is why
in 1945, while still in prison, I and those priests with me who did not commemorate
Metropolitan Sergiy, after learning of the election and enthronement of Patriarch Alexiy
unanimously agreed that since there was no other lawful First Hierarch of the Russian
Orthodox Church besides Patriarch Alexiy, who was recognized by all the Ecumenical
Patriarchs, resolved to commemorate him in our prayers as our Patriarch. And since that
day, I continue to do so without any hesitation.

It becomes clear why Holy Hierarch Athanasius is speaking here about the recognition by “all
the Ecumenical Patriarchs.” Because all of them collectively voice an opinion of the Universal
Church that served for Patriarch Alexiy I, just as for any other patriarch or pope, “the lawful
supreme hierarchical authority.”

Subjection to the lawful Church authority is more important than any political
differences of opinions

We can only imagine what St. Athanasius, a bishop who endured bonds and hard labor for his
beliefs, felt when he was writing about it. Holy Hierarch Athanasius wasn’t basically in schism.
Yet, we hope that his example can show something to those residents of Ukraine who
unfortunately remain in schism about the importance of being subject to the lawful Church
authority, which is more important than any political differences of opinions.

Stanislav Minkov, Valery Sinilshchikov

Translation by Liubov Ambrose

Pravoslavie.ru

12/8/2021

“We are witnessing an extraordinary surge of

spiritual strength in Ukraine”
A talk with Bishop Victor (Kotsaba)
374
Bishop Victor (Kotsaba) of Baryshevka

We talked with Bishop Victor (Kotsaba) of Baryshevka, head of the Representation of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (the UOC-MP) to European International Organizations, on the
visit of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to Kiev, the establishment of the “Laity”
(“Miryane”) Public Union and other recent events.

Bishop Victor (Kotsaba) of Baryshevka     

—Your Eminence, Orthodoxy is going through hard times today. The uncanonical actions
of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople have led to a crisis in the Church and the
severance of Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, along with
some bishops from other Local Churches who supported these actions. Please tell us about
the current situation of the Church in Ukraine.

—Today, the state of affairs in Ukrainian Church life is a graphic illustration of the words of the
Apostle Paul that God’s strength is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). As before, openly
hostile acts are being committed against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This includes the
interference of State officials in the Church sphere, a slander campaign in the media, and
arbitrary behavior by local authorities engaged in the illegal re-registration of the UOC-MP
communities to the OCU. And the most illustrative example of this enmity is of course the

375
raiding of churches by the OCU supporters. These raids are accompanied by violence against
parishioners and sometimes even clergy, threats and intimidation against the faithful, and so on.

It is especially sad that some supporters of the OCU who call themselves Christians even
persecute children, sometimes resorting to direct violence. For example, in the village of
Zadubrovka of the Chernivtsi region, a ninth grader named Kristina Velushchak at a parent
meeting was banned from the graduation ceremony because she is a parishioner of the UOC-MP.
And in the village of Sadov of the Volhynia historic region some followers of the OCU beat a
sixteen-year-old son of the church rector. The doctors diagnosed him with severe head injuries,
hemorrhages and numerous hematomas.

On the other hand, we are witnessing an extraordinary surge of spiritual strength in the faithful
and clergy, the unity of communities with their priests, people’s faithfulness to Christ and His
Church, and the awareness that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. The whole Church
responds to the pain and suffering of each individual community and each person. It may seem
surprising and incredible, but in almost every village where a church was seized (over 100
places, mainly in the western regions of Ukraine) a new one has already been built, or is under
construction, or funds are being raised for its construction. Moreover, both monetary support and
aid in the form of building materials, church vessels and liturgical items are coming from all over
our country.

376
    

—The surge of spiritual strength you talk about was clearly and vividly illustrated by the
Great Procession in late July this year, the day of the Baptism of Rus’. Its scale and
magnificence reaffirmed the Savior’s words that the powers of hell cannot prevail against
the Church (cf. Mt. 16:18).

—Yes, that’s true. The number of participants in the Great Procession is growing every year.
This year there were 350,000 participants, last year the procession was not held due to the
pandemic, in 2019 there were about 300,000 participants, and the year earlier, about 250,000.
Interestingly, the Kiev police, who “traditionally” reduce the number of participants by almost
ten times on orders from higher-up, testify to the fact that ever more believers are participating in
the Great Procession. This clearly indicates that, in spite of any sponsored “opinion polls” and
“statistical studies”, the UOC-MP remains the largest Church in Ukraine.

—Nevertheless, the OCU is not ashamed to declare in every corner that their “Church” is
rapidly growing thanks to all the new adherents...

—I’d like to ask: Where are all these supporters? Why don’t we see them at processions, in the
OCU churches, which stand empty? Cross processions are an important part of the spiritual life
of Orthodox Christians. I by no means want to brag about the multitude of participants in the

377
Great Procession and many other prayer actions throughout Ukraine arranged by our Church, but
they all testify that the Lord is with us.

—Against this background, the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Kiev looked very
pathetic. What can you say about this visit?

—Firstly, this visit took place at the invitation of our country’s secular authorities. Therefore, the
status in which he was received in Ukraine is unclear. If he came as a cleric, then it was a
violation of the constitutional principle of the separation of Church and State. If he was received
as a political leader, then—unlike the Vatican, Phanar is not a state.

Secondly, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church not only didn’t invite Patriarch Bartholomew to our
country, but also urged him to refrain from such a visit, rightly fearing that it would provoke a
new wave of seizures of churches and violation of the rights of the faithful, which did happen in
some UOC-MP dioceses. Thus the visit of the primate of the Church of Constantinople cannot be
regarded otherwise than an illegal invasion of our canonical territory.

—Nevertheless, by supposedly revoking the 1686 decision to transfer the Metropolis of

Kiev to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, Patriarch Bartholomew declared
Ukraine his canonical territory?

—Yes, you quite rightly qualified your statement as “supposedly.” Because the decisions of the
Synod of the Church of Constantinople of October 11, 2018 on the revocation of the 1686 decree
and the reception of the Ukrainian schismatics to Church communion are not just a violation of
the Church canons. They also create some fictional “reality” to which the Phanar is inviting
everyone, to stay.

By his visit to Ukraine Patriarch Bartholomew has once again demonstrated his persistence in
delusion and, despite the obvious failure of his project of the OCU, he continues to insist that this
organization is the canonical church in Ukraine, and its head, Epiphany Dumenko, is
“Metropolitan of Kiev.” No wonder that the leader of the Ukrainian schismatics, Philaret
Denisenko, after leaving the OCU rightly noted that if he himself was under anathema, then
Epiphany, “ordained” by him, was not even a priest.

378
 Patriarch Bartholomew and Epiphany Dumenko, the head of the OCU schismatics     

It is sufficient to recall his reaction to the prayer vigil of the UOC-MP’s faithful outside the
Verkhovna Rada (the Parliament of Ukraine). Patriarch Bartholomew refused to meet with the
Orthodox flock and listen to the position of the Orthodox in Ukraine. While 10,000 people were
waiting for him by the Verkhovna Rada, he, surrounded by police cordons, entered the Rada
building from the side entrance and left it through the courtyard. All this demonstrates that
Patriarch Bartholomew doesn’t want to know the opinion of millions of Orthodox citizens of
Ukraine and is simply hiding from them. In his behavior we can clearly see the style of a militant
schismatic. History shows us that most schisms were orchestrated with the support of political
forces, and the religious situation in Ukraine demonstrates this as well.

—Vladyka, the prayer vigil outside the Verkhovna Rada was organized by the “Laity”
Public Union. Can you tell readers about this movement?

—The “Laity,” as its name implies, is a non-governmental structure that has united believers of
all the UOC-MP dioceses, realizing that the future of the Church and its place in Ukrainian
society largely depends on their active position. The activities of the “Laity” received the
blessing of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry. It was received with great enthusiasm by the
Orthodox community and within a short span of time, the local “Laity” branches were officially
registered in almost all diocesan centers; the new Orthodox organization continues to grow in
members.

—Can we speak of any specific results of the “Laity”‘s activity?

379
—It depends on what we call “specific results.” Anti-Church laws have not yet been repealed in
our country, raids on churches haven’t stopped, the propaganda against the UOC-MP in the
media isn’t decreasing in intensity. But the emergence of the “Laity” Public Union has
demonstrated to the enemies of the Church that a huge number of believers, including
representatives of the arts and science, politicians, journalists, and ordinary citizens of the
country are ready to defend the Church of Holy Prince Vladimir, to serve it with their faith,
talents and abilities.

The first action of the “Laity”, which took place on June 15 this year, gathered over 20,000 of
the faithful. On that day some activists arrived to the Verkhovna Rada and the Office of the
President to submit two bills developed by the All-Ukrainian Union of Orthodox Lawyers to help
MPs amend the adopted laws that violate the constitutional rights of Ukrainian citizens.

The prayer vigil of UOC-MP believers outside the Verkhovna Rada on August 21, 2021     

Even before Bartholomew’s visit to Kiev, the “Laity” sent an official letter to the Phanar office,
in which they invited the Patriarch to a meeting with the UOC-MP faithful. They also prepared a
response “tomos”, in which they expressed their disagreement with the actions of the Ecumenical
Patriarch in Ukraine. The faithful planned to hand this document to Patriarch Bartholomew
during the meeting.

—Did they manage to hand it over to Patriarch Bartholomew?

—No, they didn’t, but this text in Greek was published by Greek Church news agencies. So there
is no doubt that Patriarch Bartholomew was informed—the stance of the laity of our Church was

380
conveyed to the Greek-speaking public, and the staff of the Patriarchate of Constantinople must
have familiarized themselves with it.

—The establishment of the “Laity” Public Union reminds us of the religious situation in
the seventeenth century when Orthodox brotherhoods were founded to oppose the Unia in
Ukraine. Can we say that the “Laity” is reviving such brotherhoods in the contemporary
environment?

—Brotherhoods appear when the Church is persecuted and under pressure from the authorities.
In the seventeenth century, brotherhoods played a very important role in the very fact that
Orthodoxy in Ukraine was not destroyed under pressure from Catholics and Uniates. The
brotherhoods defended the rights of the Orthodox population, were engaged in the publication
and distribution of Orthodox literature, the education of people, charitable work, etc. Today the
“Laity” is doing practically the same thing, only using modern methods to protect their rights,
and modern means of communication.

But there are also several significant differences. At the turn of the sixteenth century, the
overwhelming majority of bishops of the Kiev Metropolia entered into the Unia with Rome.
They did it openly or secretly, thus losing the confidence of the faithful. As a rule, the
brotherhoods received broad rights from the Patriarchate of Constantinople—they were beyond
the local bishops’ control and even exercised a sort of oversight to prevent the Orthodox bishops
from joining the Unia.

The current situation in Ukraine is, in this respect, completely different. Only one ruling bishop
and one vicar bishop of the UOC-MP defected to the OCU, while all the other bishops remained
faithful to the Church without succumbing to threats and persuasion. So, the “Laity” Union
doesn’t act independently, but with the blessing of the Church hierarchy.

—Many people compare the situation in Ukraine with that of Montenegro. In your opinion,
are they similar?

—They are very similar in many ways. In both Montenegro and Ukraine the authorities are
opposing the canonical Church. Since the early 1990s, there has been in Ukraine a Church
schism instigated by the authorities; in Montenegro, the so-called “Montenegrin Orthodox
Church” appeared as well. The Ukrainian Government adopted anti-Church laws; and in
Montenegro they went even further—they passed a law according to which the State was entitled
to seize most church buildings and property of the canonical Church and transfer them to the
schismatics.

381
 The cross procession in Budva on January 28, 2020     

In both our countries the faithful stood up for the Church in large numbers. Our bishops,
including His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry, visited Montenegro and participated in
processions there. The fact that on some days in Montenegro up to half of the country’s
population walked in religious processions was very impressive and served as an example for us
in defending our rights.

Another significant point is that both in Montenegro in the parliamentary elections and in
Ukraine in the presidential elections the forces that had placed their bets on enmity with the
Church suffered a defeat. However, there is also a difference. During the 2020 election campaign
in Montenegro, the reposed Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and the Littoral had to
openly call on the citizens of the country not to vote for the political forces that were hostile to
the canonical Church. This was a forced measure, although it is not typical for the Church to
interfere in political life. Today in Ukraine we don’t deem it possible to meddle in political
battles or call on the UOC-MP members to vote for certain parties. We hope that new
governments won’t interfere in the affairs of the Church and will contribute to the normalization
of religious life in Ukraine.

—In conclusion, please tell us about your activities as the head of the Representation of the
UOC-MP to European International Organizations.

382
—We live in a world in which international organizations have a serious impact on domestic
policy in different countries. In some cases, this impact occurs as a result of specific legal
mechanisms, in other cases it is a softer, informational and ideological influence. Experience of
recent years suggests the following: When the UOC-MP representatives speak at international
human rights platforms, such as the UN and OSCE, where we present documented facts citing
violations of the rights of the faithful in our country, an information environment is created,
against the backdrop of which it isn’t so easy for our Establishment to brush aside the statements
and complaints brought to the attention of the foreign public. The authorities are simply obliged
to react somehow.

The session of the XXV Jubilee Inter-parliamentary Assembly of Orthodoxy. Athens. June 25,
2018     

And it is very important not to give up. A drop wears away the stone. For example, OSCE
representatives come to the scenes of interfaith conflicts and can directly monitor the situations.
On the UN and OSCE websites one can find systematized information on violations of the rights
of the UOC-MP’s faithful and religious communities.

Deacon Sergei Geruk

spoke with Bishop Victor (Kotsaba) of Baryshevka
Translated by Dmitry Lapa

383
Pravoslavie.ru

10/12/2021

Orthodoxy in Ukraine after the “Euromaidan

Revolution”
Part 1: Misinformation and biased education
Metropolitan Kliment (Vecherya)

Despite the change of government in Ukraine in the spring of 2019, the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church (the UOC-MP) continues to feel pressure from the central authorities, and remains a
target of propaganda attacks. According to information that was made public by head of the
NGO “Public Advocacy” Oleg Denisov, between 2015 and 2018 about 700 negative articles
about the UOC-MP appeared in Ukrainian media. The anti-Church laws of 2018–2019 are still
in force, placing the UOC-MP under obligation to change its name (supposedly indicating its
relationship to an “aggressor state”) and defining the procedure of “changing its jurisdiction.”
However, even the new statutory provisions are not mandatory for anti-Church raiders:
churches of the UOC-MP are regularly seized and transferred to another jurisdiction without
compliance with any laws, simply at the request of “public” and local authorities.

But even in the current situation, the UOC-MP remains the largest Church in Ukraine. We
talked with Metropolitan Kliment (Vecherya), Chairman of the Educational Committee and the
Synodal Information and Educational Department, editor-in-chief of the UOC-MP’s official
website and the ruling hierarch of the Diocese of Nizhyn and Priluki, on how one must live and
act under the difficult conditions existing in his country seven years after the “Euromaidan
Revolution.”

384
 Metropolitan Kliment (Vecherya)     

Information policy

—We monitor publications in the media and observe the media situation. But the general trends
are obvious, and they don’t surprise us. In Ukraine (and not only in our country), today's mass
media are by no means an independent “fourth estate”. As a rule, the media is a part of business,
and this business is supported by certain political processes. All this is reflected in the content of
publications or TV programs. Of course, if we come across groundless accusations that entail
negative consequences, we demand that this misinformation be withdrawn.

—Do you informally “rank” the media coverage of the UOC-MP—say, from “sympathetic”
to “sharply negative”?

—There are some media cooperating with the UOC-MP’s Information Department—for
example, the Inter TV channel. Not only do they broadcast church services, they also prepare
various programs, films and interviews. At the same time, the 1 + 1 TV channel takes the
opposite stance toward the UOC-MP. At one time, in every Sunday newscast they had some
critical (and often false) story about our Church. It was as if that TV channel had become a sort
of “Orthodox Messenger”; they were always broadcasting Church news, only with a minus sign.

385
But I am not surprised, since this TV channel serves the interests of one well-known person who
made the struggle against the UOC-MP part of his election campaign. I have sent nine letters to
the 1 + 1 channel demanding withdrawal of false information. However, I never received a
single answer. When they come to us for comment, we say, “We will comment and cooperate
with you if you answer at least one of our letters.” But it’s useless. If the UOC-MP doesn’t exist
for them, there is no sense in cooperating with them.

—In any case, the appearance of false (and sometimes slanderous) material requires a
certain response, doesn’t it?

—We try to respond, but our lawyers agree that in our country, in order to secure the withdrawal
of inaccurate information you need to undertake a lot of actions. Church-related information
often has a short-term value, so there is no point in seeking any withdrawal of inaccurate
information, because it will at best be made public six months after the original publication. Of
course, we report on any false information, especially when it involves high-profile events.

For example, several years ago, information that the UOC-MP’s synod had allegedly changed
our Church’s the statutory documents suddenly “came to light.” A serious problem arose here
causing negative public response. We wrote to that media outlet, asking them to withdraw the
false information. There was no reply. Then we convened several press conferences to convey
the necessary information... But, as I said earlier, most of the media outlets in our country are not
independent. For instance, they won’t talk about how the UOC-MP helps people and distributes
humanitarian aid, but will look instead for any provocative information. Cooperation with such
media makes no sense. I personally don’t think that if we give more interviews or more media
outlets are present at our press conferences, it will somehow improve the portrayal of our Church
in the media.

—Vladyka, sometimes the media that are ill-disposed to the UOC-MP give the floor to its
representatives, but sometimes add their own ideologically motivated comments to their
answers. One example is the interview given to the Ukrainska Pravda newspaper by Priest
Alexander Klimenko, whom the editors called the “unofficial speaker” of the UOC-MP. I
was astounded by the following point in the interview: Fr. Alexander said that in the village
of Pasechnaya (the Kiev region) a priest who had voiced his “pro-Russian” views in a
sermon was “replaced.” Ukraine seems to have officially recognized democracy and
freedom of speech. How was it that a priest was removed for his “pro-Russian” views,
moreover in the Church under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate?

—Another question is how Ukrainska Pravda presented Fr. Alexander’s words. I can only note
that priests are not persecuted for their political opinions here. And I really doubt that a priest can
be removed only because of his political statements. But in any case, I think that priests should
minimize their speeches on political topics, since the task of a clergyman is to preach the Gospel,
to preach about the Church of Christ. Whem the Gospel words become the focus of preaching,
there will be no room for politics. Besides, now opponents of the UOC-MP are looking for any
excuse to reproach us. Our clergy understand that any words they say and any careless
statements can have a negative effect on a particular parish, diocese, and even the whole Church.

386
Moreover, some professionals are working to create provocations, “leaking” some information,
including in social media.

—Apparently, such informational-provocative “support” is important in order to

ideologically justify seizing the UOC-MP’s churches. Judging by information from
different regions of Ukraine, seizures of churches continue. Maybe more efforts are needed
on the part of the UOC-MP to stop such lawlessness?

—It is obvious that the Church as an institution should do everything in its power to ensure the
possibility of exercising the right to freedom of conscience for its members. This is not our whim
—this is the constitutional right of Ukrainian citizens. We have relevant structures in the UOC-
MP, legal services that provide assistance. There is a structure that informs European human
rights organizations about what is going on. People who seize churches, violate laws, and
trample on people’s fundamental rights and freedoms must clearly understand that by doing so,
among other things, they tarnish the image of Ukraine on the international level.

In practical terms, as the Chairman of the Information Department and the diocese’s ruling
bishop, I see that in most cases when churches were taken over, there were some nuances and
problems at the level of parish life. But after such stressful situations their parish life not only
survived, but considerably improved. Our faithful saw the behavior of the of the Orthodox
Church of Ukraine (OCU) supporters, aggression, use of physical force, and blasphemy. And
they drew the appropriate conclusions. In most places where our churches were taken from us we
have already built new ones. Three small churches were seized in the Nizhyn Diocese. In a year
the faithful themselves have built two new churches.

—Surprisingly, this problem arose even in the Nizhyn Diocese in the Chernigov region—
far from Western Ukraine.

—After the establishment of the OCU in 2019 there was an instruction from above—local
authorities had to report almost every two weeks on the number of meetings they held and the
parishes that were “transferred” from the UOC-MP to the OCU. Then they took over two
churches (there are 250 parishes in the diocese). Recently there was a conflict: An old hut
converted into a church was taken away from us. But no one serves there because there are
simply no OCU representatives locally. To come on Independence Day is not enough. You must
attend every Sunday, and it is desirable that you come on Saturday evening and on the great
feasts. But the OCU has never had such zealous believers.

Meanwhile, our faithful saw the difference between canonical Orthodoxy and schismatics. All
this can have an unexpected effect. In one village in the Nizhyn District our church life was very
weak. On one patronal feast, no one came to church. But after the OCU had taken over this
church, the people were transformed. They bought a house, cleared the area, rebuilt everything
and equipped the church. And now several dozen people come to the services in the UOC-MP
church there—they have become much more zealous for the faith. This was wonderful event for
us.

The Church and education

387
In Ukraine, unlike Belarus, the Orthodox Church didn’t sign any special agreements with the
Ministry of Education. The reasons are clear: Until January 2019, the State had recognized
three Orthodox jurisdictions (the UOC-MP, the “Kyiv Patriarchate” and the “Ukrainian
Autocephalous Orthodox Church”—the UAOC). Basically, the cooperation of the Churches with
the Ministry of Education was carried out through the Public Council, in which both Christian
denominations and non-Christian religions are represented. On the one hand, this limited the
opportunities of the UOC-MP; but on the other hand, the Ministry listened to the
recommendations more closely if they were backed not only by Orthodox, but also by other
denominations and faiths. Metropolitan Kliment has been a member of the Public Council at the
Ministry of Education for over ten years.

—Perhaps our greatest achievement was the recognition of theological educational institutions
degrees. True, this regulation was valid only until 2018. Now educational institutions can apply
for state accreditation. But the political situation is such that the Synod and the Educational
Committee have decided not to use this opportunity, since we may lose what we have now.

—For all that, now the recognition of degrees is being brought to the level of higher educational
institutions. For example, if a student receives a bachelor's degree in theology and wants to study
for a master’s degree at a secular university, this university has the right to recognize his
bachelor’s degree and admit him to a master’s course.

—Good. But employers cannot “automatically” recognize such a degree. If a graduate of a

theological academy wants to get a job as a teacher at a school or as an employee of the
Committee for Religious Affairs, his degree won’t be recognized.

—Right. But that has both advantages and disadvantages. I have been connected with theological
education for most of my life. The Church invests vast human, financial and spiritual resources
in the process of theological education, hoping that there will be some fruits—but not “fruits” as
in getting a job in a secular organization or leaving for Poland. A graduate of a theological
educational institution must fulfil himself in the Church. When degrees are not recognized, you
have to make a decision before your studies and understand your role in the Church environment.
I have diplomas awarded by secular educational institutions but I don’t know where they are
because I don’t really need them in my work. But I am absolutely satisfied with the diploma I
received at the seminary.

—Vladyka, let me touch upon the issue of the “Fundamentals of Christian Ethics” courses
taught in secondary school in Ukraine. They are optional, aren’t they?

—Yes, moral courses are included in the “variable part” of the school curriculum. That is,
schools and parents are free to choose certain subjects. But there are problems. If parents opt for
the subjects that contain spiritual and moral content for their children, the parents themselves
often have to pay for these. In the current economic situation, this frightens away many. But our
Public Council is constantly setting up new working groups for programs related to the
introduction of such subjects into school curricula.

388
These processes are very complex, largely due to funding problems. We are now working to
ensure that these subjects are included in the “invariable part” of the curriculum (the compulsory
part). Even the Minister of Education said that the task of revising curricula and introducing a
spiritual and moral component is on the agenda. This concerns literature, but we have also
suggested physics and biology. There are still Soviet-era approaches, such as the dominance of
the theory of evolution.

—I’d like to know your opinion not only as a bishop, but also as a holder of a master’s
degree in biology. Do you think modern textbooks attempt to present any points of view
other than Darwin’s theory?

—In my opinion, these are clumsy attempts. They talk about evolution for a whole year and then
devote fifteen minutes to creationism., Nothing has changed fundamentally since the Soviet era.
Students are told that the amoeba evolved into the ape in a natural way. Although if you look at
the characteristic features and properties of these organisms, you will draw entirely different
conclusions.

—Vladyka, how many schools in Ukraine have introduced spiritual and moral education
classes into the “variable part” of the curriculum?

—I don’t have exact figures, but much depends on subjective factors and on each region in
particular. If we take Western Ukraine (The Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil or Lviv regions), even
before the adoption of the relevant laws (from the 1990s on) these subjects were compulsory, not
optional. School students were allowed not to learn mathematics, but they were obliged to study
the Law of God.

—In a regular high school?

—In a regular high school. However, everything there serves the interests of the Greek Catholics
(Uniates). There was even such a story in Ternopil. The children (second graders) who were
taught the subject “Communion” were taken to a Catholic church to receive Communion. But
one boy refused: he is Orthodox and goes to our cathedral. The teacher gave him a bad grade for
refusing to receive Communion in a Catholic church. Can you imagine how stressful that was for
a second grader? Curiously enough, there were no consequences for the teacher. If I in Nizhyn
were to force some Catholic to take Communion in an Orthodox church, half of Europe would
have known about me! And this was not an isolated case...

—Over two years ago, the Ukrainian Ministry of Education developed regulations on how
to present the process of the establishment of the OCU in schools. These recommendations,
as I noticed after reading them, are ideologically biased and don’t take into account other
opinions, including the position of the UOC-MP. Have you tried to somehow change their
content?

—Yes, I have. But we have had a succession of Ministers of Education over these years, so there
was no result. We talked about this with the previous minister, but he was removed. Then there

389
was an acting minister for a long time. Now we have a new minister. He promised to amend the
regulations. It is important to resolve all issues long before the start of the new school year.

To be continued…

Sergei Mudrov
spoke with Metropolitan Kliment (Vecherya) of Nizhyn and Priluki
Translation by Dmitry Lapa

Pravoslavie.ru

10/7/2021

The Lord Has Entrusted Us With a Church

That Has Existed for 1,000 Years
An interview by Kathimerini with Metropolitan Hilarion
(Alfeyev). Part 1
Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev)

Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, the Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department

for External Church Relations, answered questions from the Greek newspaper Kathimerini on
the breaking off of Eucharistic Communion, Russian Church unity, and the Council of Crete.

390
 Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev)     

—How do you assess the situation in world Orthodoxy after the Cyprus crisis? It seems the
Russian Orthodox Church is planning to cut off communication with those Churches that
recognize the autocephaly of the OCU. What will happen?

—I consider the situation in world Orthodoxy to be very dangerous, critical, and sad. A schism
of world Orthodoxy has occurred. It was initiated by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople,
and, unfortunately, we see that this schism is still deepening.

I would like to emphasize one thing that is very important for us: The Russian Orthodox Church
is observing the development of this schism with regret and sorrow, but it does not participate in
it—the schism is happening outside its canonical limits. And when they say to us, “Let’s think of
compromise solutions,” we first of all ask ourselves: The Lord has entrusted us with a Church

391
that has existed for more than 1,000 years—it is one Church, the canonical jurisdiction of which
extends to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and other neighboring states. We received this Church as an
inheritance from our ancestors—so what right do we have now to squander this heritage, or, as
we say in Russia, to tear it apart?

On the contrary, we are concerned with the strengthening of the unity of our Church, and we can
see the striking unity of the episcopate, clergy, and laity throughout its canonical territory. We
see the unity of the episcopate of Russia and Ukraine despite the difficult relations that presently
exist on the political level between the two countries. And when they tell us to give autocephaly
to the Ukrainian Church and then all problems will be resolved, I want to ask: First, what
problems can be solved this way, and second, why should we impose autocephaly on the
Ukrainian Church if it doesn’t want it?

The Ukrainian Church has very clearly stated through the mouth of its own episcopate that it is
fully satisfied with the self-governing status it has today. The idea of autocephaly is very
unpopular among the Church people, especially since it is completely discredited by the
schismatics. How can we talk about autocephaly in this situation?

We will continue to strengthen the internal unity of our Church, and what our brothers in the
Cypriot, Greek, and Alexandrian Churches do—let it remain on their conscience. They will
answer for it before God. And we in the Russian Church will give an answer before God for
whether we preserved or destroyed the unity of our Church.

There’s something else I’d like to say. We are not breaking communion with the Churches—we
remain in communion with all hierarchs of the Local Orthodox Churches who stand guard over
the canonical Tradition of the Church and do not recognize the Ukrainian schismatics. This is
what we will continue to do. We break communion only with those primates and hierarchs who
enter into communion with the schism, and we do this because the holy canons command us to
do so. We cannot recognize people who have no canonical consecration as people with whom we
can enter into Eucharistic communion.

—Can this question be solved as conflicts between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the
Russian Orthodox Church have been solved in the past? In particular, there is the example
of Estonia immediately after the collapse of the USSR. There are also voices, including
those of well-known figures such as Archbishop Anastasios of Albania, calling for certain
initiatives to find a compromise. Is there such hope? You met with Archbishop
Elpidophoros in New York— was that the beginning of a dialogue?

—We are open to dialogue, but the Patriarch of Constantinople closed the door to it. When
Patriarch Kirill went to Constantinople in August 2018 to personally meet with Patriarch
Bartholomew, they spoke for more than two hours. I was present at this meeting, where Patriarch
Kirill laid out the real situation for Patriarch Bartholomew.

Patriarch Bartholomew was misinformed, first by the Ukrainian schismatics, second by the
Ukrainian authorities of that time, and third, by his incompetent advisers. For some reason he
was sure that as soon as the “tomos of autocephaly” was signed, many hierarchs of the Ukrainian

392
Church would immediately join the newly-created “church.” Patriarch Bartholomew told us that,
according to their information, twenty-five hierarchs were already prepared to do this. Patriarch
Kirill responded that one or two bishops would switch. And indeed, out of nearly 100 hierarchs,
only two—one diocesan and one vicar bishop—moved into this so-called church created on the
basis of schismatics.

Among the disciples of Jesus Christ were the twelve apostles, one of whom was Judas. We had
nearly 100 hierarchs in the Ukrainian Church (now there are more than 100), and two of them
turned out to be traitors. So, the percentage of betrayal in our Ukrainian Orthodox Church is
much lower.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has always existed. It is a huge Church with 12,500 parishes,
more than 250 monasteries, thousands of clerics, more than 100 hierarchs, and millions of
faithful. The episcopate, clergy, and laity are a very close-knit community, and none of them
want to join any supposedly autocephalous “church” created on the basis of schismatic
structures.

If we talk about a compromise and compare the situation with Estonia, we have to keep in mind
that the situation was somewhat different there. In Estonia, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in his
words, “recreated” the jurisdiction that existed in the interwar period, and not on the basis of
schismatics who had no canonical consecrations—some clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church
entered the “recreated” jurisdiction, and a bishop with a canonical consecration from the
Patriarchate of Constantinople was sent to head it. Therefore, the initial conditions for
negotiations were different from the very beginning. Negotiations were held and a compromise
was reached. At the same time, it must be said that Constantinople still has not fulfilled the
agreements that were reached during the negotiations. Nevertheless, we managed to stop the
division that had arisen, and the problem, although not resolved, did not prevent us from having
Eucharistic communion with Constantinople in recent years.

In Ukraine, we see something completely different. The Patriarchate of Constantinople invaded

the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. Now Constantinople tells us, it turns out
that for more than 300 years, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was part of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople and was only temporarily transferred to the jurisdiction of Moscow. But we have
published a whole volume of documents that testify to the contrary. Metropolitan Nikiforos of
Kykkos and Tellyria in Cyprus recently published a book with documents that, again, clearly
testify that during these more than 300 years, the Ukrainian Church was part of the Moscow
Patriarchate.

393
 Photo: news.church.ua     

Look at the calendars of the Church of Constantinople in 2018, 2017, 2016, and all the preceding
years—you’ll see the Ukrainian Orthodox Church headed by His Beatitude Metropolitan
Onuphry as part of the Moscow Patriarchate. There is no mention of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. Then suddenly Patriarch Bartholomew declares that, it turns out, it’s the
canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Imagine you have a house where you live with your children, where your parents lived, and your
grandparents, and all your ancestors for more than 300 years. And suddenly someone comes and
says: “You know, many years ago, our family gave this house for your family to use temporarily.
We have found some documents, so get out of the house, and we’re going to settle new people
here.” This is basically what happened in Ukraine.

Now the Patriarchate of Constantinople says that he only “condescends to tolerate” the presence
of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry and the Church he heads in Ukraine. It’s impossible to
imagine a more absurd situation.

—Let’s focus a little on the situation in Ukraine. What is the position there of the
canonical, as you say, Church (which belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church) in
comparison with that which was created by the Ecumenical Patriarch? You refer to the

394
fact that the majority of believers recognize Vladyka Onuphry. You also talk about
oppression, which the general public knows little about. Perhaps you’re just exaggerating
the situation with the nationalists and the supporters of autocephaly? Could you say more
about this?

—I’ll start with the official statistics published by the Ukrainian state authorities. According to
this information, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, a self-governing Church within the Moscow
Patriarchate, numbers 12,500 parishes, while the two schismatic jurisdictions together have about
6,000. As for monasteries, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has more than 250, and all the largest
monasteries—the Kiev Caves Lavra, the Pochaev Lavra, the Svyatogorsk Lavra—are in the
canonical Church. The schismatic jurisdictions have, in the best-case scenario, a few dozen
monasteries. And all you have to do is visit these monasteries to see where there are monastics
and where not. Monasticism in Ukraine actually exists only in the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox
Church—the schismatics have almost no monasticism as such.

    

To understand the situation with the faithful going to church, I think it’s enough just to go to
Kiev, to go to the Kiev Caves Lavra on a Sunday and see how many people are there. I’ll also
mention this fact: Every year, on the eve of the feast of the Baptism of Rus’, there is a large cross
procession organized by the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church without any pressure from
outside—to the contrary, the faithful are pressured to not join in this procession, to not go to
Kiev. You can look at the photos, the videos—there are tens and hundreds of thousands of
people. About 300,000 faithful gather in a cross procession on this day. Therefore, only wishful
thinkers could say that we’re exaggerating something. We have the numbers, the video footage,
the official Ukrainian statistics. So, we rely on reality, not on some fantasy.

395
If we talk about the persecution of the clergy of the canonical Church, such persecution
definitely took place during the time of Poroshenko’s presidency. There were raider seizures of
churches and priests were attacked. Again, this is all documented: There are numbers, videos of
these attacks and the beatings of clerics. As we’ve heard in the media, Patriarch Bartholomew is
planning to go to Ukraine next year. I hope that in his undoubtedly very busy schedule he will
find half an hour to meet with the families of priests who were thrown out of their churches. Let
him meet with them himself and hear what really happened.

—You systematically criticize the Ecumenical Patriarchate for initiating the autocephaly
and, moreover, the schism within Orthodoxy. Perhaps there is at least some fault on the
part of the Russian Orthodox Church? I’m thinking about how Constantinople accuses you
quite often of not going to the Crete Council, although you participated in the preparations
up to the last minute.

—I think that part of the blame indeed does lie with us, and I must confess that we made one
very big mistake. The topic of autocephaly was discussed throughout the entire pre-conciliar
process, but we didn’t manage to find complete harmony on this topic. Basically, we agreed that
in the future, autocephaly would not be granted solely by decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch,
that the granting of autocephaly would be possible only with the consent of all the Local
Churches. It remained only to agree on the form of the signatures under the tomos of autocephaly
—no agreement was reached on this point. So what happened next? Patriarch Bartholomew sent
a letter to the Local Orthodox Churches with a proposal to remove the topic of autocephaly from
the agenda and to hold the pan-Orthodox Council. We agreed with this proposal, and that was
our great mistake.

We believed Patriarch Bartholomew, who publicly, in front of all the delegations of the Local
Churches said: “We recognize Metropolitan Onuphry and welcome him as the sole canonical
head of Orthodoxy in Ukraine.” Those were his words, and we believed his words. We thought:
“Since the Ecumenical Patriarch says this, let’s hold a council, and then, as he promised, we will
continue to discuss the topic of autocephaly.” We shouldn’t have believed him; he deceived us.
This was our great mistake.

As for our non-participation in the Crete Council, you well know how events unfolded. First the
Bulgarian Church refused to participate, then the Antiochian Church, then the Georgian Church.
Then the Serbian Church said the Council should be postponed. In a situation where four
Churches have practically refused to participate, what are we to do?

We always insist that a pan-Orthodox Council should be truly pan-Orthodox, and if any decision
is made in the absence of even one Church, it won’t be legitimate for the fullness of Orthodoxy.
And suddenly we hear that one Church refuses, another, a third, and the fourth says the Council
should be postponed…

Then Patriarch Kirill wrote a letter to Patriarch Bartholomew with a request to hold an urgent
pre-conciliar meeting to resolve the existing issues and still invite these Churches to the Council.
He received an answer from Patriarch Bartholomew—I have it before me right now—No. 676
from June 9, which says: “The new, extraordinary pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar meeting proposed

396
by your holy Church is considered impossible, because there is no regulatory framework for its
convocation.” Who considered it impossible? Why was it impossible? There were still two
weeks before the council. Why was it impossible to adopt measures so everyone could
participate in the Council?

Having learned that three Churches were not participating, we said then we weren’t going either.
Now they tell us, had you gone to the Crete Council, none of the subsequent events would have
happened. I heard it from practically every Greek bishop I met with. Excuse me, but why
wouldn’t it have happened? It means Patriarch Bartholomew wanted to take revenge on us this
way? He decided to give “autocephaly” to the schismatics and “legalize” the anathematized
Philaret Denisenko out of a sense of revenge? If you think this is really the case, then what can
be said here?

Had we gone to the Crete Council, then, first of all, we would have said that the Council had no
legitimacy, because three Churches were absent. So the Council would have fallen through.
Having arrived, we would have had to leave.

I would like to remind those who claim that we didn’t want to go from the very beginning that
we had been preparing for the pan-Orthodox Council since 1961. A list of 100 topics for the
Council was compiled that year, and we worked on all of them. Then they said the list has been
reduced to ten topics, and we accepted this. Later they said the topic of diptychs was being
dropped because it was too difficult; we also came to terms with this. In the end, they told us the
topic of autocephaly also had to be removed because we hadn’t come to an agreement on it.
Again, we reconciled ourselves to this. The whole time, we made concessions, obeying the
decisions that were made without our participation. As the aforementioned letter said, it was
“considered impossible.” But who considered it so? The Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Throughout the entire pre-conciliar process, we proposed to create an inter-Orthodox secretariat

of the Council, but this was not done—all the preparation was carried out at the Phanar. And
when we went to these meetings, they gave us prepared documents and we began to discuss
them. The preparatory process itself was very poorly organized—in reality, the Local Churches
were only invited for passive participation. And the poorly-prepared Council ended poorly.

Part 2: A Political Structure, and an Unwanted Autocephaly

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev)

Translation by Jesse Dominick

DECR Communication Service

12/21/2020

397
Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, 2008:
Creating Parallel Jurisdictions Will Not Heal
the Schism
Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan)

His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan)

of Kiev and All Ukraine, the predecessor of the current primate of the Ukrainian Church, His
Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry, addressed the following letter to Patriarch Bartholomew of
Constantinople in 2008 to thank him for participating in the celebration of the 1,020th
anniversary of the Baptism of Kievan Rus’ and to elucidate his thoughts on how to overcome the
ecclesiastical schism in Ukraine, asking the Patriarch for his support in the efforts made by the
UOC.

A similar letter was sent to the primates of the all the Local Churches.

It is worth noting that Patriarch Bartholomew visited Ukraine at that time by invitation of His
Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II of Moscow and All Russia, as Ukraine is the canonical territory of
the Russian Orthodox Church.

398
During his toast at the official banquet hosted by Metropolitan Vladimir on July 27, Patriarch
Bartholomew addressed the Ukrainian primate, saying, “Most reverend beloved brother
Metropolitan of Kiev, our presence here after the generous invitation of His Beatitude, Patriarch
Alexiy and His Excellency, President YUSHCHENKO…” The text of this speech has either been
moved or removed altogether from the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s website.

During the same trip to Ukraine, he also explicitly acknowledged that Ukraine is the canonical
territory of the Russian Church, explaining that Ukraine “was under the Ecumenical
Patriarchate's canonical jurisdiction for seven centuries, that is, from the baptism of the Grand
Duchy of Kiev (988) until her annexation under Peter the Great (1687) to the Russian state.”

In justification of the anti-canonical invasion of the ecclesiastical territory of Ukraine in 2018,

the Patriarchate of Constantinople has revised this history, claiming that Patriarch
Bartholomew visited Ukraine without any invitation, and that the Kiev Metropolis was never
transferred to the Russian Church.

In his letter, Metropolitan Vladimir strongly denounces any idea of creating parallel
jurisdictions in Ukraine, as this would only increase nationalistic sentiments and strengthen the
ugly battle for Church property. And in any case, it would not heal the schism, he writes. He also
expresses the UOC’s readiness to participate in a Churchwide discussion on the matter.

As we see from events in Ukraine since Patriarch Bartholomew created the “Orthodox Church
in Ukraine” in 2018, against the plea here expressed by Metropolitan Vladimir and the fullness
of the UOC, Metropolitan Vladimir was completely correct in his foresight.

This letter was recently shared on Facebook by His Eminence Archbishop Jonah of Obukhov of
the UOC, who notes that people today try to make Metropolitan Vladimir out to be a champion
of Ukrainian autocephaly, whereas this letter reveals that he held the same view as the UOC
today—that the schism in Ukraine must be overcome first.

Furthermore, a document recently published online by Alexander Drabinko, previously a

canonical bishop of the UOC who joined the OCU at the “unification council” in December
2018, who was personally very close to Metropolitan Vladimir, shows that Patriarch
Bartholomew was already in negotiations in 2008 to create a parallel jurisdiction in Ukraine by
making the “Kiev Patriarchate” an autonomous Church. In fact, the document is dated July 27,
2008—exactly the same time that Patriarch Bartholomew was in Ukraine.

***

TO HIS ALL-HOLINESS
BARTHOLOMEW
ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE—NEW ROME
AND ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH

Your All-Holiness, beloved Brother and Concelebrant in the Lord!

399
On behalf of the fullness of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, we again sincerely thank you for
participating in the celebrations held in the capital of Ukraine to mark the 1,020th anniversary of
the Baptism of Kievan Rus’. Our meeting and fraternal prayer and Eucharistic communion again
testified that we are united and that we cherish the gift of unity, following the word of the Lord:
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in
us (Jn. 17:21). Based on this Gospel commandment, the holy Local Churches develop their
relations such that the diversity of approaches to the problems of modern Church life does not
detract from the unity and love commanded by the Savior.

One of the problems that painfully affects the life of the entirety of Universal Orthodoxy is the
ecclesiastical schism in Ukraine. We are deeply convinced that this problem can only be resolved
by the conciliar mind of all the Local Orthodox Churches. For our part, we testify to our
readiness to participate in a Churchwide discussion on the question of the ecclesiastical division
in Ukraine.

Having acquired the status of a self-governing Church with the rights of broad autonomy within
the Moscow Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is now demonstrating consistently
high growth dynamics. Today, our Church numbers more than 11,000 communities, united in
forty-three dioceses governed by fifty-give bishops (forty-three ruling bishops and twelve
vicars). More than 9,000 clergy serve in obedience in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and there
are more than twenty active academic institutions (one academy, seven seminaries, and twelve
schools). About 5,000 monastics labor in more than 200 monasteries.1

The wound of schism inflicted upon the Church Body in the early 1990s is gradually being
healed. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is in dialogue with the “Ukrainian Autocephalous
Orthodox Church.” Regular talks are held with representatives of the “Kiev Patriarchate.” We
hold these dialogues with the unrecognized church communities, moved by the spirit of Christian
love, which seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in
iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things,
endureth all things (1 Cor. 13:5-7).

Following these words of the holy apostle Paul, the Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church, gathered in the Holy Dormition-Kiev Caves Lavra on December 21, 2007,
called upon the faithful children of our Church to “to treat those of our brothers and sisters who,
we believe, are temporarily outside the saving enclosure of the Church, with Christian love,
without hostility.”

Complete support for such a pastoral approach to resolving the problem of the schism in
Ukrainian Orthodoxy was also expressed by the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose
Council of Bishops “endorsed the efforts of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to overcome the
schism through dialogue with those who have fallen away from communion with it” (Definition
of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, June 24-29, 2008, “On the Unity of
the Church”).

400
Based on the above, we entreat Your All-Holiness and the holy Church of Constantinople, which
you lead, to support the efforts of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church aimed at restoring Church
unity in our country.

The problem of the schism is also a serious concern for state and political figures in Ukraine.
Several times, driven by a noble impulse to help the cause of unity, they have proposed and still
propose various models for the restoration of unity. However, these models do not always
correspond to Orthodox ecclesiology and the norms of canon law.

The Ukrainian mass media has recently been discussing a scenario for resolving the Ukrainian
ecclesiastical issue by means of creating several parallel Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine.

We dutifully declare that this method of solving the problem is unacceptable, inasmuch as it:

 contradicts the canonical principle of “one city, one bishop”

 will increase ethnophyletistic sentiments in church communities
 will aggravate the negative trends leading to the polarization of Ukrainian society
 could lead to a resumption of the fierce confrontation in the fight for churches and
Church property
 will weaken the missionary potential of Orthodoxy in Ukraine amidst the activity of new
religious movements and Uniatism
 and, finally, will not solve the problem of healing the schism, as non-canonical church
groups claiming autocephalous status will remain in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church now carries out its salvific ministry in difficult historical
conditions. At the same time, it is precisely the Ukrainian Orthodox Church that possesses the
necessary potential to unite divided Ukrainian Orthodoxy and consolidate Ukrainian society. To
carry out this mission, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church needs a united position from all the Local
Orthodox Churches on the question of how to heal the ecclesiastical divisions in Ukraine. We
hope that, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, the conciliar mind of the Universal Church will point
the way to the restoration of the God-commanded Church unity.

Placing our hope in the Lord, we entreat the prayers of Your All-Holiness for the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church, for its integrity and unity, for, according to the word of the holy apostle Paul,
we all make up the one Body in Christ, where whether one member suffer, all the members
suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it (1 Cor. 12:26).

Your All-Holiness, please accept our sincere wish of good health and God’s abundant aid in
Your primatial labors for the benefit of the holy Church of Constantinople. With unwavering
brotherly love in Christ for Your All-Holiness,

on behalf of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

His Beatitude Vladimir
Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine,
Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

401
Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan)
Translation by Jesse Dominick

Patriarchia.ru

10/30/2020

Biggest problem for Orthodoxy today is

erroneous ecclesiology of Patriarchate of
Constantinople—Ukrainian Holy Synod
Kiev, March 19, 2020

Photo: tsn.ua     

While the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as the first among equals, is meant to serve as a
guarantor of Orthodox unity, the biggest problem facing the Orthodox Church in fact comes
from Constantinople, the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church believes.

The Synod met yesterday at the Holy Dormition-Kiev Caves Lavra under the chairmanship of
His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine, the primate of the canonical
Church in Ukraine.

Among other things, the Synod heard a report from Met. Onuphry about his recent trip to
Amman, Jordan to take part in the meeting of primates and representatives of Local Orthodox
Churches organized by the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, reports the Information-Education
Department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

402
The members of the Synod noted the importance of the meeting as a first step towards resolving
the crisis facing the Orthodox world today.

Moreover, “The Synod stated that the main problem for Orthodoxy today is the erroneous
ecclesiology of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, resulting, in particular, in the non-canonical
actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine.”

“The Synod also noted the urgent need for world Orthodoxy to resolve the Ukrainian Church
issue,” the report reads.

The Amman gathering was attended by the primates of the Churches of Jerusalem, Moscow,
Serbia, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia and representatives of the Churches of Romani and
Poland, while several primates—of Alexandria, Cyprus, Greece, and Albania—rejected the
invitation of their brother primate His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem precisely
because of the ecclesiology of Constantinople, which posits that only the Patriarch of
Constantinople has the right to gather bishops to address issues facing the Church.

Concerning Ukraine, the press release from the fraternal gathering in Amman stated that “the
participants also recognised that a pan-Orthodox dialogue is necessary for healing and
reconciliation.” Met. Onuphry later stated that he had hoped for more concrete decisions from
the gathering.

In his presentation at the Amman gathering, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow also
pinpointed what he views as the 6 most acute problems facing the Church today, all of which
stem from the ecclesiology of Constantinople:

“1. The problem of understanding primacy in the Church; attempts to justify the claims to
universal leadership through specially created theological argumentation; the absence of a
system of conciliar control over the actions of the primatial see, the need for consensus in
decision-making on the pan-Orthodox scale.

2. The threat to the institute of autocephaly in the Church; the lack of a common
Orthodox mechanism, indisputable for all, of granting autocephaly; attempts to introduce
inequality among “senior” and “minor” autocephalous Churches.

3. Attempts to challenge the canonical boundaries of autocephalous Churches, to review

and revoke the once adopted documents of historic importance defining these boundaries.

4. The claims of the first among equals in the family of Local Orthodox Churches to a
right to receive appeals from any Church, the threats to use these appeals as an instrument
of interference in the internal life of other Local Churches, which, I believe, demand
comprehension and discussion.

5. The development of an abnormal situation in which the primatial hierarch, contrary to

the basic principles of canon law, acts as a judge in a matter in which he is one of the
sides and presents himself as the last instance in considering the matter, and

403
 6. The problem of creating the so called ‘stavropegial structures’ in the territories of other
Local Churches without their consent or against their will.’”

Pat. Kirill’s last point concerns the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s present attempts to establish
a monastery-association in the Czech Republic without the consent of the Holy Synod of the
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Vkontakte, and Telegram!

3/19/2020

Reunification of the Kiev Metropolitanate

With the Russian Church: How Did it
Happen and Why
Sergei Kravets

The Orthodox Encyclopedia Religious Scientific Center has published a unique collection of
works entitled, The Reunification of the Kiev Metropolitanate with the Russian Orthodox
Church. 1676–1687. Research and Documents. It includes many new important archival
documents that contain additional information on the circumstances of this reunification. We are
discussing the immediacy of this book and its irrefutable conclusions with Sergei Leonidovich
Kravets, the director of Orthodox Encyclopedia Center.

404
 The first page of the letter of monarchs Ivan Alekseyevich and Pyotr Alekseyevich to hetman
Ivan Samoilovich, mid-November 1685. © Orthodox Encyclopedia     

—Sergei Leonidovich, allow me to congratulate you for completing such a unique research
project and publishing a massive 900-page volume that was prepared, as far as I know, in a
very short period of time. Why was this book published and what questions does it answer?

—Thank you very much. Indeed, the timing of this publication was critical for us. We started
working on the book in the fall of 2017. A lot of time was dedicated to locating the materials in
various archives, including the Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents, the State Historical
Museum, the Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, and
some others.

A unique team was assembled to work on the volume. The team was headed by Boris
Nikolayevich Florya, Doctor of Historical Sciences, a corresponding member of the Russian
Academy of Sciences. Other members of the team included Dmitry Evgenyevich Afinogenov,
Doctor of Philological Sciences, priest Mikhail Zheltov, Candidate of Theological Studies, and
K.A. Kochegarov, N.P. Chesnokova, and M.R. Yafarova (all Candidates of Historical Sciences).

405
 The Reunification of the Kiev Metropolitanate
with the Russian Orthodox Church. 1676-1687. Research and Documents. – Moscow, Orthodox
Encyclopedia Religious Scientific Center, 2019. – 912 pages. ISBN 978–5–89572–074–5 The
book contains a total of 246 documents. About 200 of them have never been published before.
The continuum of documents regarding the background, circumstances and details of the mission
sent to Istanbul to negotiate the reunification of the Kiev Metropolitanate1 with the Russian
Orthodox Church has never been analyzed in its entirety before. This book provides a daily and
sometimes even hourly breakdown of certain related processes and events. These detailed,
heretofore unpublished reports contain many materials, and all the conclusions that we reached
in the course of studying these texts can be backed up by dozens of other documents written by
various people in various locations and sent to various addressees.

As to the reasons for publishing this book, it can be said that its publication is a proper historical
and canonical response to the Constantinopole Orthodox Church’s decision to grant the so-called
Tomos2 of Autocephaly3 to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and to rescind the Synod’s resolution
of 1686 on the transfer of the Kiev Metropolitanate to the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox
Church. When we began working on this book a year and a half ago, our goal was to find the
documents in the Russian archives that would shed some light on the true background,
circumstances and reasons for adopting this decision. Our research exceeded our expectations as
we found a great number of never-before-published documents on the subject.

406
We found a great number of never-before-published documents.

—What did you discover in the course of working on the book?

—Studying the documents that we found, we undeniably established several important facts. I
will briefly list them first and then discuss them in greater detail.

First, the decision to transfer the Kiev Metropolitanate to the jurisdiction of the Russian
Orthodox Church was the only possible solution at that time to ensure preservation of Orthodoxy
in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Second, this transfer was initiated by the Ukrainian clergy, nobility and the hetman.4

Third, the Russian government understood the enormous responsibility of making a commitment
to protect the Orthodox Christians in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and was fully aware
of the associated political and financial risks and costs.

Fourth, the tomos did not have any scope or time limitations. As such, any attempt to debunk or
somehow undermine it is premised on present-day political trends rather than historical or
canonical criteria.

We needed to make these facts public and substantiate them. That was why we prepared this
900-page book, 700 pages of which contain documents that irrefutably prove our conclusions.

—When did the matter of reunification become critical?

—In the early seventeenth century. It should be mentioned, though, that initially the position of
the Russian government was, “We would rather not do it”, because its relations with the Polish-
Lithuanian Commonwealth and Turkey were very complicated. The reunification would imply
assuming additional responsibility for the Orthodox people in the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, which consequently meant that the Commonwealth would have another tool to
exert pressure on Russia.

The reunification idea was revisited after the Pereyaslav Council,5 but the Russian government
still thought that although the idea was good and we didn’t resign from the responsibility to
protect the Orthodox people all over the world as we were the only Orthodox country at that
time, and our Tsar was the only Orthodox monarch in the world, there were some circumstances
that had to be taken into consideration.

For a long time, the situation was very tense, yet nothing much was happening. Therefore, when
we were working on this book our goal was to figure out and explain to our readers what had
happened and why the issue of reunification had become critical again. It had become so urgent,
that the decision had to be made in a hurry, so to say. It was indeed made in a hurry, which is
evidenced by the fact that only one emissary was sent to Constantinople to resolve this matter.

407
Why did they send only one emissary instead of organizing a full-blown diplomatic mission?
This was done because preparing a mission would have been a lengthy process, which would
have involved gathering many people and traveling for a long time in a formal way and many
other complications. During the time when the decision on reunification was being made, an
unusual political situation developed. Russia and Turkey had reached a temporary truce, which
was about to expire. In the spring of 1686, Russia was going to enter into an anti-Turkish treaty
with Poland. Consequently, it was expected that Russia might begin military operations against
Turkey as early as the summer of 1686. In other words, the window of opportunity was very
narrow as the reunification document had to be received from Istanbul before the war with
Turkey began. In the meantime, another opportunity popped up: A provision entitling the
Russian Monarch to protect the Orthodox people in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth could
be incorporated into the Russian-Polish Treaty of Perpetual Peace. Before that, all our efforts to
ensure protection of the Orthodox people in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were always
met with the same answer: “This is not your business, because these people are not your subjects,
they are the subjects of the King of Poland. This is not your Church, so you have no right to
interfere in these matters.”

Sergei Kravets   

—From whom or from what did we need to protect the Orthodox people of the Polish-
Lithuanian Commonwealth?
408
—We needed to protect them from being forced into the union with the Catholic Church, which
up to the 1670s had been happening on the quiet. However, in early 1670s, Poland adopted a
state political program with respect to the new Unia. This program had the unequivocal objective
of destroying the core of the Orthodox Church in the next few years, initially targeting its
archbishops and bishops and eventually moving on to clergy to make sure that there wouldn’t be
any Orthodox priests left in this area.

—Why did they need to do that?

—It was done so that nobody could get baptized, wedded, etc. Nowadays people may decide to
have a church wedding or not at their own discretion; but the situation was different back then,
and if you weren’t wed in the church, your children were considered illegitimate and had no
rights of inheritance. To have a civil status, one had to be baptized and relevant records had to be
made. The goal of the new policy was to deprive the Orthodox of this right.

To have a civil status, one had to be baptized and relevant records had to be made. The goal of
the new policy was to deprive the Orthodox of this right.

It was a devious policy on the part of the Polish state. Its first edict banned any contact with the
Constantinopole Patriarchate. As a result, the Orthodox were separated from their central
authority which, most importantly, had the power of appointing bishops. According to the King’s
decree, any contacts with the Constantinopole Patriarch were punishable by death and
confiscation of property, because Poland was at war with Turkey, and any communications with
the Constantinopole Patriarchate were considered espionage and hostile acts.

The expulsion of the Orthodox bishops from Western Ukraine began. Numerous complaints
about that were received and many requests were sent to Russia asking for help and protection.
People started leaving those areas, and not just common people, but the Orthodox nobility, the
supporters who maintained Orthodox churches, monasteries and convents. The situation was
getting worse day by day. Meanwhile, the King of Poland began appointing the priests who
secretly accepted the Unia with the Catholic Church to act as the leaders of Orthodox
organizations. One of them, Joseph Shumlyansky, was appointed the metropolitan of the Kiev
Orthodox diocese.

The last straw was when the last Orthodox hierarch was forced to flee to Russia in 1684. The
King sent him a letter threatening to imprison him for life if he didn’t join the Unia with the
Catholic Church. After that, not a single Orthodox bishop was left in the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth. This meant that soon there would be no priests left either.

—Why did the matter of reunification of the Kiev Metropolitanate and Russian Church
have to be resolved with the Ottoman government?

—Posolsky Prikaz’s6 perception about the situation in Constantinople was fairly idealistic at the
time. We thought that all we had to do through the government channels was to make sure that
the vizier who represented the Ottoman government didn’t impede the Constantinopole Patriarch
or put up unsurmountable obstacles for him. We also believed that the negotiations would be

409
only be conductecd with the Constantinopole Patriarch; for how could an Orthodox Patriarch’s
Church-related decisions depend upon an infidel?

However, when our emissary arrived in Istanbul, he was told that the Patriarch wouldn’t make
any decisions without consulting with the vizier. At that time, the Constantinopole Patriarchs
were fully dependent on viziers. As a rule, a new Patriarch would be appointed whenever a new
vizier came to power. This was a good moneymaking enterprise for viziers as they would receive
large amounts of money for appointing a Patriarch. So would-be Patriarchs had to borrow money
to pay baksheesh7 to the vizier, and then had to collect the money to repay their debt. In the
Ottoman Empire, the Constantinopole Patriarchs, in addition to managing Church affairs, were
also performing official duties, including in particular collection of taxes from the non-Muslim
population. In other words, they were employees of the Ottoman Empire.

Our emissary Nikita Alekseyev first went to the vizier and asked if he could meet the Patriarch.
After obtaining the vizier’s permission, Alekseyev went to the Patriarch, but the Patriarch
unexpectedly told him to go to the vizier first to resolve the matter of the metropolitanate. The
Patriarch also asked him not to mention the gifts the emissary brought lest the vizier take them
all for himself.

Nikita Alekseyev went to the vizier thinking of a delicate way to present the problem, but the
vizier already knew everything because the Patriarch had already advised him of the issue at
hand. The vizier said that there wouldn’t be any problems. Good relations with Russia were
currently very important for Turkey, so the vizier told the emissary to go the Patriarch and he
would do all that was necessary. Only after that did Nikita Alekseyev get a real opportunity to
talk to the Patriarch.

I should note that I am not inclined to ridicule or make fun of the situation existing at that time in
the Constantinopole Patriarchate. Naturally, it was absolutely unacceptable in terms of Church
law and Church ethics, but the Constantinopole Patriarchate was in a very difficult situation as it
was controlled by and totally dependent on non-Orthodox officials.

Some believe that the Russians, to put it bluntly, bribed the Patriarch and the Greek hierarchs
who were poor and always in need of money. That was why, they allege, the latter agreed to the
reunification. But this is not true. First, the money that Nikita Alekseyev brought wasn’t that
much. He brought the usual gifts that were normally taken there. In Moscow the emissary was
instructed to give money to the Constantinopole Patriarch even if he rejects the reunification
idea, but in that case the emissary was supposed to give him only a portion of the amount.

An interesting historical anecdote comes to mind. Dositheos, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote a
whole tirade against our Tsars for supposedly connecting their requests with gifts. He said that
they should send the gifts without any reason, as patriarchates were in straitened circumstances
and needed succor. He said that it was wrong when an emissary said that the gifts from the
Russian Monarch would be given only if a certain decision was made. Send the gifts, he said, it
goes without saying, but my decision would be based on my ability to make the right choice,
rather than on the gifts.

410
As a result, an interesting story developed. Dositheos really wanted to receive the gifts that were
sent to him personally. He summoned Nikita Alekseyev, gave him the sealed envelopes and said
that he did everything as the Monarch requested. Then the patriarch asked for the Monarch’s gift
and left right away after receiving it. When his letters were translated, it turned out that rather
than doing what was requested of him he repudiated the idea. Still, nothing changed in Russia’s
relations with him, and he had been receiving gifts from the Russian Monarchs for many years to
come and sending them letters, mostly anti-Ukrainian in nature, postulating that ethnic
Ukrainians couldn’t be appointed to any Church positions. According to him, they weren’t true
Orthodox, as he believed that only Russians could be truly Orthodox. In any way, what I mean to
say is that if Russian Monarchs presented the gifts to him only to influence his decisions,
Russia’s relations with him wouldn’t have remained the same.

—What happened next?

—Our emissary was still in Istanbul. The decision regarding the transfer of the Kiev
Metropolitanate to the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church had not yet been received,
when Russia and Poland signed the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in Moscow. After that, the
decision on reunification had to be obtained in a matter of days.

Nikita Alekseyev and Ivan Lisitsa, the hetman’s emissary, finally received the required
documents and left Istanbul, but when they were travelling through the Crimean Khanate, they
were arrested in Ochakov at the behest of the Crimean khan. They were kept in prison for more
than a month. However, the Turks still weren’t sure if Russians were actually going to attack
them. They thought that the fact that Russia had signed the peace treaty with Poland might not
necessarily mean that Russia was going to start the war with them, and because they had those
doubts, they eventually let Alekseyev and Lisitsa go. Alekseyev went to Moscow and delivered
the documents to the Monarch, the Patriarch, Prince Golitsyn and Tsarina Sophia, while Lisitsa
delivered them to the hetman and the Kiev Metropolitan. They also brought a special address of
the Constantinopole Patriarch to the Ukrainian laity. The mission was a success, but the window
of opportunity was indeed very narrow. If we had delayed a little bit, we wouldn’t have been
able to get the consent to reunification as no vizier would ever agree to satisfy the request of a
country that was at war with Turkey. This was indeed good timing as in 1687 the Russian and
Ukrainian Cossacks launched the offensive against the Crimean khan.

Meanwhile, Article 9 was added to the Treaty of Perpetual Peace with Poland. Using a technique
that was new at the time, our diplomats printed the excerpt containing this article and when they
travelled to Warsaw to participate in the negotiations, distributed it among the Orthodox people.
This was the document whereby the King of Poland guaranteed the rights of the Orthodox. In the
end of our book, we even included the list taken from the mission’s report that contained the
names of the recipients of those documents, including parish priests and abbots of monasteries.
As they say nowadays, it was made available to those “whom it may concern”.

Transfer to the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church was initiated by the Ukrainian
clergy.

411
Interestingly, transfer to the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church was initiated by the
Ukrainian clergy. It wasn’t us who suggested it, it was the Ukrainian clergy who grudgingly
agreed to this idea because they were afraid to lose their privileges. However, under the
circumstances the only way the clergy of the Left-bank Ukraine8 could safeguard their privileges
was by eradicating Orthodoxy in the Right-bank Ukraine9. Nobody was willing to do that. So,
that was why, despite their dependence on funding and viziers, the Constantinopole hierarchs
ultimately decided to reunite with the Russian Orthodox Church.

—Do you mean that they rose above their narrow selfish interests?

—Exactly. The situation was desperate, and it was the only solution available.

Did Constantinople want to do this? No. But it was the only acceptable solution. Did the Kiev
clergy want it? Not really, because everybody knew that the clergy didn’t have such privileges in
Russia and that despite the Monarch’s promise to keep most of the privileges, some of their
benefits would be lost. Yet they weren’t willing to agree to eradication of the Orthodox
community of their compatriots in order to maintain their privileges.

Did Russia want to assume such responsibility? Didn’t it understand that that would involve
spending tons of money and regularly sending church accessories and books to Ukraine? Russia
was also well aware of the fact that it was assuming responsibility for a nearly destroyed
Orthodox community in a hostile country. But this was the only way out of the situation, the only
way to protect the Orthodox people of the Right-Bank Ukraine.

However, the spirit of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate has significantly changed over the last
three centuries. I have to say that when the issue of granting the tomos to the Kiev
Metropolitanate surfaced, I was well prepared for those torrents of lies.

—In what sense?

—A few years ago, we published a book called Orthodoxy in Estonia that contained documents
concerning annexation of a part of the Estonian Orthodox Church by Constantinople. Even back
then it was clear to us that the Estonian Orthodox Church was a testing ground. The peculiar
qualities of Patriarch Bartholomew manifested themselves even at that time. For example, I was
stunned by one very blunt letter Patriarch Bartholomew wrote to Patriarch Alexiy. In that letter,
Patriarch Bartholomew said that their Church would be the true Church of the citizens of
Estonia, rather than that of occupants and non-citizens. He also wondered if Orthodox Estonians
didn’t have the right to have a head of the Church who was ethnically Estonian. “Your
Cornelius10”, he wrote, “is half-Russian and half-German” (Incidentally, so was Patriarch Alexiy
[Ridiger]). Nevertheless, when after some time Patriarch Bartholomew appointed the head of the
Estonian Orthodox Church, he chose an Africa-born Greek who admitted that he first learned
about Estonia’s existence from his appointment letter.

That is why those familiar with the Constantinopole Patriarchate’s tactics were psychologically
prepared for such a turn of events and knew that they couldn’t hope that arguments would be

412
heard, and agreements honored. They understood that the Patriarchate’s decision would be based
on purely political considerations and circumstances of the day.

Ideally, research projects like ours must be started in advance, rather than in the wake of
imminent danger. There were several crucial points in the history of our Church that merit
interest. The same research must be carried out with respect to the establishment of the institute
of Patriarchate in Russia in 1589. All the documents related to this matter must be collected to
tell the whole story.

It is also necessary to research the idea of Russia being Byzantium’s successor. We need to study
Greek, rather than Russian documents for that. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
Constantinopolitan Patriarchs kept writing letters to us in which they said that we were the
successors of Byzantium and that supporting Orthodoxy was our responsibility.

Now we have the experience of such intensive research work, which includes commissioning the
required specialists and focusing on one specific task. The bulk of the document identification
process (more than 1,000 pages were found) was completed in less than a year! That was why
Patriarch Kirill during his meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew in late August 2018 said that we
had a great number of pertinent documents and suggested that our and their scholars analyze
them. Patriarch Bartholomew refused. Still, for the reasons described above, I think that we
should take advantage of having the experience of such focused work.

This situation with Kiev, the way it is developing now, smacks of Grecocentrism.

This situation with Kiev, the way it is developing now, smacks of Grecocentrism. They show
their true colors when they say, “Only we have the right to decide which documents are
canonical.” They insist that only their point of view may be valid. Orthodox Encyclopedia
Religious Scientific Center sees this tendency in many Regional Orthodox Churches, as the
materials for our Orthodox Encyclopedia are prepared not only in Moscow, but in Tbilisi,
Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia. What do we see when we translate the works of the authors from
these cities into Russian? One Serbian archpriest once told me quite bluntly, “There is a
tradition: Wisdom from Greeks and money from Russians. You’re breaking this tradition with
your encyclopedia.”

—Did he say if this was good, or bad?

“For Serbs it is good, because Serbian authors also contribute to the encyclopedia. Meanwhile,
the Georgian authors used the articles they wrote for us as a basis for their own Georgian
Orthodox Encyclopedia. They have published the first volume already.

We support these developments. Albeit slowly and with great difficulties and complications, our
modern Church scholarship is being established. Maybe not on a full scale yet and not in all
areas, but it is happening in historical sciences, church archeology, and history of theology. This
poses a great danger for the Constantinopole Patriarchate—the main advocate of Grecocentrism.
The idea of Greek dominance that took root in the minds of many Orthodox people is based on
the assumption that only the Greeks have the knowledge and understand what needs to be done

413
and how. While our position in Orthodoxy was always, “We are not really in the know, so we
came here to give you money and ask you how to pray and how to set up our education system
so we can follow you.” The Greeks have been pushing this idea for centuries.

The Constantinopole Patriarchate has grown increasingly dependent on this idea in the minds of
the Orthodox, that is the idea that the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate is the only authority that
can establish rules and interpret the Church canons, and that they are the primary holders of
knowledge. The numbers of their laity are shrinking, so there are no other reasons for the
Constantinopole Patriarchate’s superiority claims.

As soon as an anti-Russian government is formed, it immediately starts negotiations with

Constantinople regarding creation of the Church that would be independent of Moscow.

Furthermore, as events in Estonia and Ukraine demonstrate, as soon as an anti-Russian

government is formed, it immediately starts negotiating with Constantinople regarding the
creation of the Church that would be independent of Moscow, and looking for clergy who would
be amenable to the non-canonical transfer to the jurisdiction of the new Church. That was how
the Estonian, Latvian, Finnish and Polish Orthodox Churches of the Constantinopole Patriarchate
were formed in the 1920s. At that time, it was done on the back of the anti-Communist
movement, now this process is fueled by anti-Russian sentiments.

This is a well-established mechanism that turns religion into a battleground for political
confrontation and uses it as a tool of political leverage. However, this is not an area that can be
fully controlled by politicians. Some time ago, they realized that in Europe and after violent and
devastating religious conflicts the Peace Treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648, promulgating
the idea of separation of religion and politics. This was the only possible solution to save Europe.
Now they are trying to mix religion and politics again, using the religious factor to inflame
political controversies. Did they forget how dangerous it is, or don’t they care about the Eastern
outskirts of Europe? An old saying about the Russian nouveau riches of the 1990s springs to
mind: “They freely give away anything that we have.”

Yuri Pushchaev
spoke with Sergei Kravets
Translation by Talyb Samedov

Pravoslavie.ru

3/11/2020

A Cheap Imitation of World Orthodoxy is

Being Built Before Our Eyes
Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanich) of Boryspol and Brovary

414
    

Recent events in Cyprus bear witness to a fact that is unfortunately no longer in doubt: Pan-
Orthodox unity no longer exists. Moreover, the Orthodox world is facing a new and very
dangerous schism. Its basis is the thirst for individual power, and its main tool is the willingness
to ignore the canons, the truth, and the conscience in the process of achieving this goal.

A defective and malicious copy of world Orthodoxy is now being built before our eyes. In this
parallel system, such aspects as the perversion of the canons, the legalization of schismatics,
concelebration with people who have no valid ordination, and the trampling of the conciliar
format of Church governance are considered natural and normal.

That is, everything that until only recently seemed unthinkable and impossible.

But behind this reality, new landmarks are already looming. We are talking about the further
erosion of Orthodox ecclesiology, open concelebration with representatives of other confessions,
agreement with the imposition of LGBT culture, and so on.

Do the leaders who are guiding their Churches into this cheap imitation of world Orthodoxy
understand that it will be simply impossible to avoid further decline? After all, if you’re already
jumping into the abyss, you certainly won’t be able to stop on the way down.

415
Do the leaders of these Churches understand that taking part in big geopolitical and political
games has its price? For example, will they be able to refuse certain external forces if they
demand that they guarantee Church support for the promotion of LGBT interests? Will they have
enough courage to say “no?” I doubt it very much, given how some primates have already caved
on the question of recognizing the schism.

Therefore, we must speak of the crisis taking place in world Orthodoxy not as some kind of
confrontation between the “Greek” and “Slavic” worlds, or as a battle for ecclesiastical
administrative boundaries.

Everything is much more complicated and more acute. In fact, a great schism is taking place,
which is dragging more and more Local Churches into the funnel of this system that runs parallel
to the real Orthodox world.

That is why the essence of the current crisis can be reduced to the struggle of those who want to
create their own comfortable version of Orthodoxy that corresponds to their own interests with
those who want to remain faithful to Orthodoxy.

This should be understood by every cleric and every believer in any Orthodox Church, and on
the basis of this understanding they must make their choice—to remain among those faithful to
God or to compromise with their conscience and become a member of the imitation of
Orthodoxy.

Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanich) of Boryspol and Brovary

Translation by Jesse Dominick

Vesti.ua

12/1/2020

The End of the Calm

Alexander Koval

416
    

After Vladimir Zelensky’s victory in the presidential elections in Ukraine, a relative peace
reigned; against the background of his predecessor Petro Poroshenko, the actor and comedian
looked like a nice guy. That was in fact part of his politics—non-interference in Church matters.
And beginning in the summer of 2019, a time of calm came for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church;
if their churches were seized here or there, it was on a select basis. The anti-Church laws were
set aside on a far shelf.

It seemed that a normal person had finally come to power in Kiev.

However, recent events, primarily in the political scene, speak to the fact that the period of calm
is ending. And so it would make sense to present a chronology of events in the area of politics.

On the whole, Zelensky came to power on his moderate rhetoric and promises to stop the conflict
in the Donbass. Nevertheless, the conflict is not over, it is only frozen, and the negotiation
process has been put on hold. Meanwhile, relations with Russia have begun to erode even
further.

Against this background, the “Soroslings”1 have actively begun to put pressure on Zelensky.
These are the stooges of Western structures that are now occupying a large number of key posts
in the Ukrainian government. The vice chairman of the President’s office, Kirill Timoshenko, is
called a “Sorosling”.

417
And so, from early September [2020] events have speded up sharply. At the beginning of
September, NATO war planes fly over Ukraine not far from its border with Crimea. This was a
symbolic step within the framework of the USA’s “show of muscle” before Russia. In Moscow it
was announced that this was a missile strike drill, and objections were expressed.

On October 6–7, Zelensky makes a visit to London and meets there with the head of the
intelligence service M16, former ambassador of Great Britain to Turkey Richard Moore. After
the meeting, the Ukrainian leader announces the creation of two military bases in Ukraine.

On October 16, Zelensky meets with Turkish president Recep Erdogan, after which an
announcement appears about creating a certain “Crimean platform”, which is supposed to
facilitate the return of the Crimea to Ukraine. Besides that, an announcement appears about
Ukraine’s willingness to work with Turkey in producing military strike drones.

On October 25, during elections in Ukraine, Zelensky conducts a parallel survey containing the
question: “Should Ukraine raise the question on the international level of making use of the
security guarantees determined in the Budapest memorandum?” The Budapest memorandum,
according to which Kiev renounced its own use of nuclear weapons whereas all the other
countries were to be the guarantors of its security, was signed in 1994 between the leaders of
Ukraine, Russia, USA, and Great Britain. The memorandum is periodically used by the
Ukrainian “war party” in order to activate the idea of Western support.

Later, when a journalist asked Zelensky why Ukrainians were surveyed about the memorandum,
Zelensky' answer was intriguing: “I really need that opinion. What I’ll do beyond that I won’t
say, because this is complex work that I’m engaged in. I am working on reviving a militarily
competent Ukraine.”

In the final analysis, according to information from representatives of the Presidential faction,
the majority of Ukrainians answered “yes” to this very convoluted issue in the memorandum. It
could potentially provide an opportunity to address the USA or Great Britain with requests to
provide military security to Ukraine, which considers Russia an aggressor state.

All these actions speak to an increase in military and anti-Russian mood in Ukraine. One would
think, what does the Church have to do with it? However, if we look more closely, we can trace
renewed attention to Church matters in all of these actions.

First of all, we are talking about Zelensky’s meeting with Constantinople Patriarch
Bartholomew. This is now the second meeting. We wrote about the first one earlier, wihch was
quite a cool meeting. But the second meeting, which took place before the meeting with
Erdogan, was much warmer. Zelensky thanked Bartholomew for his “personal support in the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine” and invited him to Kiev in 2021, around
Independence day, August 24.

Many experts in Russia interpreted this as a pre-election move; however, certain things point to
the fact that that’s not the case.

418
On September 13, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visits Cyprus, and at the same time
arrives Patriarch Theodoros of Alexandria—the head of a Church that has recognized the
Ukrainian “OCU” [Orthodox Church of Ukraine, the structure non-canonically formed by Pat.
Bartholomew out of two schismatic groups.—OC.]. Meetings go on between secular authorities
and metropolitans, and a certain “center for the defense of the island’s borders” is announced in
Larnaka. The reason for Theodoros’s visit is not completely understood. And on October 24,
Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus commemorates the head of the “OCU” Epiphany
Dumenko. The Orthodox author Alexander Voznesensky wrote about this.

On September 30, the US Secretary of State says at a meeting with Prime Minister Kiriakos
Mitsotakis:

The prime minister and I have agreed to discuss means of closer cooperation in order to
overcome the challenges created by Russia through its activities that have a harmful
effect—such as spreading disinformation on the pandemic and attempts to take over the
Orthodox Church.

From these actions it is clear that the USA, despite its own internal political problems, has not
abandoned its support for the schismatic “OCU” project. And judging from all this, it will
continue its support one way or another.

On September 23 a legislative bill appeared in the Ukrainian parliament on military chaplain

services, which specifies that candidates for chaplains be approved by the Ukrainian Military
Service and military counterintelligence. And this despite the fact that in the Ukrainian military
there is only one chaplain from the canonical UOC, while all the rest are either from the “OCU”,
the Uniates, or other confessions.

On September 30, the ex-chairman of the Department of Religious Affairs and Nationalities
Andrei Yurash, a fierce enemy of the Church, announced the creation of a Department of
Religious Affairs in the Secretariate of the Cabinet of Ministers. According to information from
the Union of Orthodox Journalists, Yurash was aided in the creation of this structure by Cabinet
Minister Oleg Nemchinov, who is close to Prime Minister Denis Shmygalo. Earlier Nemchinov,
as an member of the Ministry of Youth and Sport, participated in events conducted by Uniates in
Lvov.

Thus, all of the above points to the fact that Ukraine is gradually rolling back to the same
Russophobic politics it had under Poroshenko. And in this situation the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church will play the role of one of the “enemy’s” faces—an internal enemy upon which it is
easiest to pour out all their rage; and by passing anti-Church laws for the confiscation of
churches from the faithful, it is easy for the Russophobic portion of society to create an illusion
of victory.

Even the front deputies from the presidential faction “People’s Servant” have taken note of this
tendency. For example, Deputy of Parliament from the ruling party Maxim Buzhansky noted on
his Telegram channel:

419
 Just a little further in this vein, and if you compare the texts of declarations by officials in
2020 with those of 2017, it will be impossible to find any difference between them. I
remind you that this tendency decisively turned away the electorate a year ago. We don’t
need to explain everything by the enemies’ machinations, thereby hiding the
machinations of our friends; we’ve already been through that.

That is how he responded to the declaration made by the head of the Council of National
Security and Arms Alexei Danilov, who accused the judges of the Constitutional Court of
working for the Kremlin.

It also must be remembered that pressure on the Local Churches from the USA in the matter of
recognizing the “OCU” has not ended. No, it’s not going so quickly, but it will still go on,
regardless of who heads the White House next.

The Telegram channel “Labarum” spoke about how the next candidate for pressure from the
USA to recognize the “OCU” will be the Jerusalem Church:

The Jerusalem Patriarchate is dependent on the Israeli government in certain property and
administrative matters. As we understand, Israel is extremely dependent upon the USA
today. This is truer under Trump than it was under Obama. And through the Israeli
government, the Americans are pressuring Patriarch Theophilos. There is likewise
pressure through the governments of Palestine and Jordan, because there is also the factor
of dependence on American financial aid.

To Patriarch Theophilos’ honor, it is worth saying that he has held out courageously all this time
and hasn’t given up his position. But there is a problem: Although it doesn’t recognize the
schismatics and does not give them access to the Sacraments in the Holy Land, and it organized
the Aman Assembly, the Jerusalem Patriarchate has nevertheless not officially rejected the
“OCU”.

But we would like to wish the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and first of all its primate
Metropolitan Onuphry, God’s blessing and strength of spirit; after all, to be the head of a
persecuted Church is a great spiritual podvig. And it is the Christians of the persecuted Church
who show us the true podvig of strength of spirit and faithfulness to Christ.

Alexander Koval
Translation by OrthoChristian.com

Pravoslavie.ru

11/10/2020

We Commune, Aware That We Are the Dust

of the Earth
420
An Interview with the Ukrainian Primate, Metropolitan
Onuphry
Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine

How can we restore unity to world Orthodoxy and overcome the schism? What do the schism of
1054 and the current Church rupture have in common? What is needed to restore Eucharistic
communion between the Phanar and the Russian Orthodox Church? Is there a threat to
Ukrainian Orthodoxy from the Muslim world? How should the Church and its clergy carry out
their mission today, and how do today’s trials affect the spiritual life of the faithful?

The Information-Education Department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church recently published

an interview on these topics with His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine
originally published in the UOC’s official magazine, “Pastor and Flock.”

   

—Your Beatitude, people often compare the break in Eucharistic communion between the
Churches due to the actions of the Phanar with the Great Schism of 1054, when Rome
broke away from the Church. Is this former unity of the Orthodox Church possible, or is
this actually a new schism?

—If you make a spiritual analysis of the break in Eucharistic communion between the Eastern
and Western parts of the one Orthodox Church that occurred in 1054 and the break in Eucharistic
communion that occurred in 2019 between the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church and the
Church of Constantinople, we will find much in common.

The spiritual break in 1054 was preceded by Church discussions about the purity of the holy
faith. The East and West hotly debated about the heresies that appeared in the Christian world
and, oddly enough, in most cases, it was the bishops of the Western part of the Church who
421
defended the purity of the faith. The Eastern part was stricken by the heresies of the heresiarchs
Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople (condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council),
Archimandrite Eutychus of Constantinople (condemned by the Fourth Ecumenical Council), and
the Emperors of Constantinople Heraclius (Monothelitism) and Leo III the Isaurian
(Iconoclasm). From this spiritual division in the one Church began the administrative and
political division. The East and West moved further and further away from each other, and what
happened in 1054 was simply the conclusion of a wicked process of division that had begun long
before.

In our times, what happened in 2019 also had its spiritual background—the propensity of some
important representatives of the holy Church of Constantinople for-free thinking and liberalism,
who have repeatedly tried to justify and accept laws that disagree with the Holy Gospel, which
the secular world actively tries to implement in our lives today.

The disputes between the Russian Orthodox Church and Constantinople have taken place on
various levels—from the sidelines to highest tribunes. This spiritual relaxation from
Constantinople in preserving the purity of the holy Orthodox faith is the root cause of the schism
that occurred in 2019. I think that Constantinople’s attempts to give to Caesar not only what is
Caesar’s, but also what is God’s, caused the fall of Constantinople and the destruction of the vast
Byzantine Empire. And today, the ecclesiastical authorities of Constantinople are ready to accept
any custom and law forbidden by God that the world offers, just to return Constantinople (now
Istanbul) to its former glory, and to regain the authority the Church had in the heyday of the
Byzantine Empire.

Theoretically, the break in Eucharistic communion, which occurred in 2019, could be healed.
But for that, the respected Patriarch of Constantinople should behave with all as the first in honor
and equal in authority. Unfortunately, His Holiness acts as the first both in honor and authority,
but this is alien to the Orthodox spirit of conciliarity, by which the Orthodox Church has lived
and lives. And what’s even more said, is that there is no indication to be seen for an Orthodox
change in this tendency toward estabishing an Orthodox papacy.

422
    

—In Turkey, they turned Agia Sophia and the church in Chora Monastery into mosques,
and Turkey is financing the construction of a large-scale mosque in Kiev. Is there a
connection between these events, and do you see any threats for Ukrainian Orthodoxy from
the Muslim world?

—Indeed, the ancient Church of Agia Sophia and the church in the former Chora Monastery
have been turned into mosques. It’s a spiritual tragedy, and we express our sympathy and
compassion to His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople. We have not only prayed and are
praying about it, but we also expressed our protest in an address to the Turkish Parliament.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t brought any positive results yet.

At the same time, the position of the His respected Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople, who
did not express a single word of protest against what happened, is incredibly surprising. It’s
rather strange and incomprehensible.

There is a spiritual expression: Because of our sins, the Lord does not spare the holy things. I
don’t want to reproach anyone, but for the sake of the love of truth I will say that as the
revolution and destruction of the holy places in the Russian Empire occurred because of our
ecclesiastical-spiritual distortions, so the fall of the Byzantine Empire occurred because of the

423
incorrect spiritual leadership that the Byzantine Church exercised in relation to its country and its
people.

If the respected leaders of the Church of Constantinople couldn’t bring spiritual benefit and
preserve their country and their people, how can they bring spiritual benefits and preserve those
countries and peoples where they are interfering in their spiritual affairs?

About the funding of the construction of an Islamic mosque in Kiev, I’ll say that this is an alarm
bell, calling us to look for and correct our ecclesiastical-spiritual mistakes and shortcomings that
exist in the personal life of every one of us. Someone may object and say: You’re talking about
correcting Church mistakes, but you’re calling for the correction of human mistakes. The fact is
that when we speak about the Church, in this case, we mean the human component of the
Church. The Church consists of angels, the saints who are in Heaven, and those living on Earth;
in other words, the Church consists of two parts: the Heavenly Church and the earthly Church.
The Heavenly, or Triumphant Church, is holy and infallible, and the earthly, or Militant Church,
which we are a part of, can err and sin, but it can also be corrected. The only way to improve the
quality of the human component of the earthly Church is for every one of us to make an effort to
make ourselves more morally and spiritually perfect. The means for improving your personal
spiritual life are prayer, fasting, good deeds, humility, patience, forgiveness, and love. May the
Lord help us.

424
    

—Many churches are being built in our Church today, and there is active social work
being carried out. But statistics show that despite all our efforts, the number of active
Church members is no more than five to seven percent, and it’s not really changing. What
should priests do—focus on spiritual work with those who are already in the community,
or try to attract as many people as possible to their church?

—Indeed, the percentage of active Church members in Ukraine is not high, and can be increased.
But to do this, we have to pay spiritual attention to ourselves. This isn’t self-love—it’s humility.
A man with self-love looks at himself with admiration, but a humble man looks at himself with
reproach. Humble attention to ourselves is critical attention—attention that seeks our flaws,
shortcomings, and weaknesses, and tries to amend them through repentance.

A priest should first and foremost try to fervently and patiently labor over his own spiritual
prosperity, and then hearken to and spiritually help his flock; and when all of this is going well,
then he can do everything possible to missionize among the non-Churched people. But to be fair,
I must say that not every priest can be a missionary in his ministry, but every priest should be a
missionary with his life; that is, he should live so that people see the spiritual fruits of love, joy,
peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, mercy, faith, meekness, and temperance (cf. Gal.
5:22) in his example of a pious life. If non-Churched people see this in a priest, sooner or later

425
they will enter within the Church’s yard to acquire these spiritual fruits for themselves—because
everyone wants these fruits. Parishioners also become such spiritual missionaries if the priest
constantly nourishes them and carefully guides them along the path of a pious life.

—The introduction of electronic passports, the supersedure of cash, the appearance of

digital identifiers: Many things indicate that in the coming decades, human life (including
religious life) may fall under the complete control of the state. How will all of this affect the
spiritual life of the faithful? Will the Church become weaker or stronger?

—Indeed, the changes in the life of humanity in recent times testify that we are entering a new
historical era, which in Church language is called apocalyptic. This is spoken about in the New
Testament, especially in the book of the Revelation of St. John the Theologian. This era brings
people new challenges and trials, but those who try to live with God will be under a special cover
of grace that will strengthen them to bear all his difficulties with dignity.

Where God is, there is blessedness, and whoever tries to cleave to God will be blessed even in
the most serious trials. The most powerful spiritual weapon for a man in the coming trials is
prayer and humility. He who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. I think that in terms of
numbers, the Church will become weaker, but in terms of the spiritual life of the faithful, the
Church will become stronger.

426
    

—Many have refused to participate in the Mysteries during the pandemic out of fear of
getting sick. Is it possible to get sick through the Mysteries and how important is it for us to
participate in them, regardless of the position of the world?

—We’re talking about communing of the Holy Mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which He gives us for our spiritual purification and for eternal life. Christ is the
Fountain of life; He is our life—the meaning of our life and its beauty. Whoever partakes of the
Holy Body and Blood of Christ receives the power of eternal life. The fear that some people have
of getting infected when communing of the Holy Mysteries in the Church is in vain. The power
of life that enters a man when he communes of the Holy Mysteries of Christ cannot be overcome
by any virus or disease. We receive Communion unto the healing of soul and body.

But there is one reason why someone can get sick or even die from Holy Communion—when
they commune with proud madness, cynically, contemptuously, or to work some kind of sorcery,
or with some other wicked intentions. People get sick and even die from communing this way.

But if someone approaches the Holy Mysteries, discerning the Lord’s Body (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29),
that is, aware that he is the dust of the earth, and approaches his Creator, Who is the Fount of life

427
and immortality and Whose love wants to unite men to eternal, blessed life, then such a man
communes unto the remission of sins and unto life eternal.

However, there are some Orthodox who have not come to the measure of this understanding and
are overcome by fear of being infected from the single spoon the priest uses to distribute Holy
Communion. A priest should condescend to such parishioners and make a concession to their
infirmity, communing them with a disinfected spoon.

This does not contradict the sacred laws of Divine love, which descended to our infirmity,
bringing to Earth the Son of God, the Second Hypostasis of the Holy Life-giving Trinity, in order
to redeem, purify, sanctify, and raise us fallen men up to Heaven. God condescends to us, and we
should condescend to one another.

Participating in the Holy Mysteries of the Church, especially in the Mystery of the Holy
Eucharist, not only strengthens us and gives us a pledge of eternal life, it gives us the strength to
endure, to forgive, and to love, that is, to do what adorns a man and what the world so needs
today.

Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine

Translation by Jesse Dominick

Information-Education Department of the UOC

11/25/2020

Metropolitan Onuphry: Constantinople’s

secularism and liberalism is root cause of
break in communion
Kiev, November 12, 2020

428
 Photo: frontnews.eu     

The Great Schism of 1054 and the break in communion between the Churches of Russia and
Constantinople today have much in common, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and
All Ukraine believes.

In a recent interview with the Pastor and Flock journal of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, His
Beatitude explains that the break that occurred in 1054 was long overdue and was provoked by
the administrative and political division that reflected the already-existing spiritual division
between parts of the Church.

As Met. Onuphry notes, there were often disputes between the East and West over the purity of
the faith, and, in fact, most of the early heretics arose in the East. And these spiritual disputes led
to an administrative and political division.

Likewise, the creation and “autocephaly” of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” and the resulting
split in communion have their backstory, the Metropolitan said.

The reason for the current division is that some representatives of Constantinople who are
inclined towards free thinking and liberalism “have repeatedly tried to justify and accept laws
that disagree with the Holy Gospel, which the secular world actively tries to implement in our
lives today,” the Ukrainian primate notes.

429
“This spiritual relaxation from Constantinople in preserving the purity of the holy Orthodox faith
is the root cause of the schism that occurred in 2019,” he continues.

His Beatitude also points to the desire of the Phanar to give “to Caesar not only what is Caesar’s,
but also what is God’s,” which was the cause of the fall of Constantinople and the destruction of
the great Byzantine Empire.

“And today, the Constantinople ecclesiastical authorities are ready to accept any custom and law
forbidden by God that the world offers, just to return Constantinople (now Istanbul) to its former
glory, and to regain the authority the Church had in the heyday of the Byzantine Empire,” the
Ukrainian archpastor continued.

“Theoretically, the break in Eucharistic communion, which occurred in 2019, could be healed,
but for that, the respected Patriarch of Constantinople should behave with all as the first in honor
and equal in authority. Unfortunately, His Holiness acts as the first both in honor and authority,
but this is alien to the Orthodox spirit of conciliarity, by which the Orthodox Church has lived
and lives,” His Beatitude concludes.

Archpriest Nikolai Danilevich, the Deputy Head of the Ukrainian Church’s Department for
External Church Relations, also recently spoke of Constantinople’s liberal theology and how it is
stuck in its glorious Byzantine past.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Vkontakte, and Telegram!

11/12/2020

Metropolitan Onuphry: Future of Orthodoxy

in Ukraine depends on us
Kiev, October 28, 2020

430
 Photo: news.church.ua     

An international academic conference was held at the Kiev Theological Academy at the Holy
Dormition-Kiev Caves Lavra yesterday, dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the granting of the
Gramota of Independence and Autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by His Holiness
Patriarch Alexiy II of Moscow and All Russia.

To open the conference, His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony of Boryspil and Brovary, the
Chancellor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, read out an address from His Beatitude
Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine. The full text is published on the site of the
UOC.

The gramota from Pat. Alexiy was “a prerequisite for the full fulfillment of our Church’s saving
mission in an independent Ukrainian state,” His Beatitude writes.

The 30 years since the granting of the gramota have been marked by both achievements and
unfortunate losses. “It was a time of great spiritual rebirth,” His Beatitude writes, with thousands
of churches and monasteries being restored, and numerous educational institutions and charitable
organizations being created from scratch. The Church has also been active in radio, television,
and internet ministries.

But at the same time, the development of Orthodoxy in an independent Ukraine was also
“marked by the severe wound of the Church schism,” forcing the UOC to constantly defend the
canonical principles of the Church structure in polemics with those who have moved away from
Church unity.

And, unfortunately, the schism has only worsened in recent years, as the Church has had to face
the violent seizure of its churches and the “openly discriminatory policies of the state
authorities.”

431
“The Church conflict in Ukraine has become one of the central problems of the entire world
Orthodoxy. The actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople in relation to Ukraine only gave rise to
new disputes and divisions between the Local Orthodox Churches,” Met. Onuphry writes.

The UOC bears a huge responsibility, His Beatitude writes:

The future of Orthodoxy in Ukraine depends on our stability in faith, on our loyalty to the
Church, to its teaching and canonical tradition. In spite of all adversity, we must bear
witness both by our word and by our life to Christ, to love and forgiveness, to holiness
and moral purity, and we must carry the word of God to our people. We must offer a
sincere prayer to God for our Church and for our country.

The Metropolitan thus calls on all students of theological schools to remember that that future of
the UOC depends on them, and above all to remember that “Christ is our life. Everything else is
secondary.”

“A pastor of the Church is one who has given his life to Christ and is ready to follow Christ to
Calvary. Pastoral service is self-sacrifice. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep
(John 10: 11). We must always be ready for sacrificial service,” the Ukrainian primate exhorted
in conclusion.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Vkontakte, and Telegram!

10/28/2020

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

432
    

His Eminence Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus recently
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 four Cypriot hierarchs that openly rejected Archbishop
Chrysostomos’ unilateral decision to recognize the schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine.”
The witness of Met. Nikiforos and the other Cypriot hierarchs 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

433
Constantinople and the Greek people within the Church, but rather, it is a question of fidelity to
the Orthodox canons and theology.

Though several Greek primates have fallen in line behind Constantinople after being heavily
pressured financially and politically, the heart of the matter is theological—that is, fidelity to
Jesus Christ.

Met. Nikifors’ book, The Modern Ukrainian Question and its Solution According to the Divine
and Sacred Canons, examines several 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?

It is expected that the 233-page book will be translated from Greek into other languages of the
Local Orthodox Churches.

In the meantime, the Department of External Church Relations of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church has published the main conclusions from the book, with the permission of Met.
Nikiforos.

Below are Met. Nikiforos’ ten conclusions:

“Summing up all the presented ecclesiastical, theological, canonical, and historical

materials on the Ukrainian question, we can draw the following conclusions:

1. The revocation of the Patriarchal gramota of 1686 and the appropriation by the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople of jurisdictional rights to the ecclesiastical
territory of Ukraine is a unilateral, self-declared, anti-canonical, and therefore, invalid
action. The ecclesiastical consciousness of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Russian
Church, and also the universal pan-Orthodox consciousness (that is, of all the Local
autocephalous Orthodox Churches) has always accepted without doubt or hesitation the
fact that the Orthodox Church in Ukraine has been under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of
the Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate for the past 332 years (1686-2018) and was its
canonical territory. This pan-Orthodox Church consciousness was constantly manifested,
without objections or warnings, through pan-Orthodox concelebrations and events,
during irenic visits, as well as at international conferences and many other events.”

***

It is worth recalling that in terms of the Crete Council in 2016, which Patriarch Bartholomew
believes to be of a binding, pan-Orthodox character, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was
unanimously acknowledged to be within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, as openly
declared by Pat. Bartholomew himself at the Synaxis of the Primates in Geneva in January 2016.

434
If Ukraine were truly within the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Crete would
have been the time to step up and truly take responsibility for Ukraine. However, Pat.
Bartholomew made no claim then to be representing Ukraine, and so he acknowledged on the
pan-Orthodox level that Ukraine is within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

His Beatitude Metropolitan Rastislav of the Czech Lands and Slovakia reminded Pat.
Bartholomew about this in a letter from October 2018:

The Orthodox world recognizes the only canonical primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church—His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine. This fact was
repeatedly mentioned and confirmed by the primate of the Great Church of Christ His
Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on behalf of all present at the Synaxis of the
Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches that was held in Chambésy (Switzerland) from
January 21 to 27, 2016. Therefore, any attempt to legalize the Ukrainian schismatics by the
state authorities should be strongly condemned by all the primates of the Local Orthodox
Churches.

Thus, following the Patriarch’s logic, he either does not truly believe Crete to be binding, or he
believes himself, as Ecumenical Patriarch, to be above even the Councils.

***

2. Granting pseudo-autocephaly to schismatic groups in Ukraine without prior notification

to and the consent of all autocephalous Orthodox Churches, as well as the Mother
Church, which in this case is the Russian Church, is an action that completely contradicts
the age-old canonical tradition and age-old Church practice and cannot be justified from a
canonical point of view.
3. The removal of the excommunication from the excommunicated and anathematized
without their sincere and deep repentance, as well as the anti-canonical assertion that the
Ecumenical Patriarch once had and continues to have the right to accept appeals from
clerics not only of his Church and his jurisdiction, but also of all Orthodox Patriarchates
and autocephalous Churches—all this completely contradicts the canons, which were
grossly violated. Therefore, granting the status of autocephaly to Ukraine cannot have
valid canonical force, and should not be accepted by the Local autocephalous Orthodox
Churches.
4. The anti-canonical granting of pseudo-autocephaly to the schismatic structures of
Ukraine in no way led the Ukrainian people to canonicity, as the Ecumenical Patriarch
claims, since the vast majority of the Orthodox Ukrainian people remain faithful to the
canonical Church under the omophorion of Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and all
Ukraine. On the contrary, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s actions led to painful
consequences—a catastrophic division of the Ukrainian Church and a great division of its
Christian fullness with a disastrous consequence, leading to a terrible schism that
threatens the body of world Orthodoxy.
5. The Ecumenical Patriarch’s unilateral, self-imposed and anti-canonical decision to grant
an autocephalous church structure to the Ukrainian schismatic groups also creates a major
Church problem and threatens pan-Orthodox unity with a terrible schism, as well as

435
 irrevocably undermining the pan-Orthodox authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as a
coordinating center for the Orthodox Patriarchates and autocephalous Churches.
6. The termination of Eucharistic communion between two Churches, when it comes to
dogmatic reasons or violations of the canons, is not only permitted, but also required by
the canons themselves, as well as by age-old Church Tradition. 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.
7. In this process of the development of the Ukrainian question, another anti-canonical
opinion emerged, according to which the Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical
Patriarch is not “first among equals,” but “first without equals” in world Orthodoxy. This
replaces the “ministry of primacy” with a “ministry of authority,” which violates the
principle of conciliarity that has existed in the Orthodox Church for centuries.
8. In this very dangerous and unjustified crisis that was caused in the bosom of the
Orthodox Church by the Ukrainian issue, a new dogma has also emerged, according to
which the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the head of the Orthodox
Catholic Church. Close collaborators of the Ecumenical See, distorting the meaning of
the 34th Canon of the Holy Apostles, are trying to prove that the Ecumenical Patriarch
should be considered the first and head of all primates. In other words, all other
patriarchs, primates, and all bishops should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch of
Constantinople as the head of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church. However, this newfound
theory has no historical, canonical, dogmatic, or ecclesiological grounds, because the
Orthodox Catholic Church has no other Head than our Lord Jesus Christ. The only
Eternal and Immortal Head of the Church is its Founder, Savior, and Redeemer, Christ.

***

The development of this teaching was examined in Pavel Darovsky’s three-part series, “The
‘Tomosology’ of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” See Part 1 here. As a culmination, the
tomos of autocephaly granted to the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” no longer speaks of Christ,
but rather the Ecumenical Patriarch himself, as the Head of the Church.

***

9. There can be no doubt and no objection that the principle of conciliarity, which is the
main principle of governance in the Orthodox Church, was violated in Ukraine in favor
of the arbitrary and despotic power of one person—Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,
who, ironically, only four years ago convened, headed, and coordinated the work of the
Holy and Great Council in Crete (June 18-25, 2016), who declared in his address that
“the Orthodox Church expresses its unity and conciliarity through councils. Conciliarity
inspires the organization and the way in which decisions are made and determines the
path that the Church follows.”

436
 10. In conclusion, we also emphasize that “the Greek-speaking Churches, based on historical
truth and canonical Tradition, and in order to avoid a final schism, must support the
historical and canonical rights of the Russian Church, and they must not explicitly or
through silence support the anti-canonical invasion of Constantinople into someone else’s
jurisdiction. If they do otherwise, supporting the Greek Patriarch because of love for the
nation and patriotism, they fall into the heresy of ethnophyletism, which was condemned
by Constantinople itself in 1872” (quote from the article of Fr. Theodore Zisis,
“Ukrainian Autocephaly: The Concealment and Misinterpretation of Documents”).

Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos and Tellyria

Translation by Jesse Dominick

Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Department of External Church Relations

11/18/2020

“The Strength of Ukraine is in its Orthodox

Faith”
A Talk with Abbess Seraphima (Shevchik) for the 30th
Anniversary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Deacon Sergei Geruk

437
    

2020 is a jubilee year for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Thirty years ago, in late October
1990, Patriarch Alexiy II signed a gramota granting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
independent status with broad rights of autonomy. Since then, the canonical Church in Ukraine
has faced all sorts of trials, including a bloody schism and open persecution from the powers
that be.

Our conversation with Abbess Seraphim (Shevchik), a member of the Inter-Council Presence of
the Russian Orthodox Church and head of the Ukrainian Church’s Synodal Church and Culture
Department, concerns this difficult, sometimes dramatic period. Mother Seraphima is the author
of more than twenty books and monographs dedicated to the life of the UOC and the history of
Orthodoxy in Ukraine, the organizer and director of the Orthodox Ukraine and Christian
Odessa museums, and numerous exhibitions and conferences, the latest of which was dedicated
to the thirtieth anniversary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Thirty years ago…

438
 The gramota of His Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II
granting independent governance to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Before our conversation
with Matushka Seraphima, we would like to remind our dear readers of some historical and
political fragments of that distant period that preceded Patriarch Alexiy II’s granting of the
gramota, or as it is called now, the tomos, granting independence and self-governance to the
UOC.

In late 1989, after Mikhail Gorbachev’s visit to the Vatican at the request of Pope John Paul II
(1978-2005), the first Polish-born pontiff, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church, which
cooperated with the German occupiers during the war and ceased to exist in the USSR in 1946,
was reanimated. A wave of seizures of Orthodox churches and cathedrals swept throughout
western Ukraine; Orthodox clergy and their families were driven out of Church rectories onto the
streets and were subject to violence and persecution.

In February 1990, Archbishop Makary (Svistun; † 2007) of Ivano-Frankivsk locked himself up

in Holy Resurrection Cathedral in protest of the raiding by the Greek Catholics and declared an
indefinite hunger strike, which caused a mixed reaction in the Council for Religious Affairs of
the USSR—Vladyka was removed from the cathedra by decree of Philaret Denisenko, at that
time a lawful hierarch of the UOC.

439
 Metropolitan Makary (Svistun) Also in 1989, the
Council for Religious Affairs of the USSR registered the “Ukrainian Autocephalous Church of
the Kiev Patriarchate,” which emerged in Ukraine in the early twentieth century, born in the
scum of the revolutionary upheavals of 1919-20 and popularly known as the “self-consecrators—
Lipkivskyites” (after the name of the leader of the Ukrainian schism Vasily LIpkivsky)—
supported by the Bolsheviks to weaken the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, and which
ceased to exist in the USSR in 1937.

Among the activists of the Ukrainian schismatics was the future “Patriarch” of the UAOC
Mstislav (Skrypnyk, 1898-1993), then still the layman Stepan Ivanovich Skrypnyk who was the
nephew of Simon Petliura and served in the latter’s Ukrainian National Republic troops as a
personal adjutant, who was “ordained” in 1942 during the nazi occupation, and fled to Canada
and American after the war.

On June 5, 1990, at the 1st Council of the UAOC in Kiev, Mstislav was elected the “Patriarch of
Kiev and All Ukraine,” and in October of the same year, he returned to Ukraine and visited Kiev
and Lvov. On November 18, 1990, with the kind permission of the authorities, he was
“enthroned” in St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. Mstislav became the first “Patriarch of the UAOC.”
After the fall of the USSR in 1991, he arrived in Kiev from the U.S. again in July 1992, and by
order of the first president of Ukraine, he was generously provided with the former sanatorium of
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine in Puscha-Voditsa, near Kiev, where
Mstislav met with Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk on July 2.
440
 Mstislav Skripnik Additionally, public national-
patriotic movements became active in Ukraine, the radical representatives of which waged an
open campaign against the Ukrainian Exarchate of the ROC, and after the exarchate was granted
independence—against the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

In 1992, Ukrainian Orthodoxy suffered a new calamity in the person of the schismatic Philaret
Denisenko, a formerly lawful hierarch who was the exarch of the Ukrainian Exarchate of the
ROC for many years. Accepting the gramota of independence and self-governance from the hand
of His Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II, Philaret hoped to achieve full autocephaly in the future, with
the title of “Patriarch of All Ukraine.”

Fulfilling the duties of Locum Tenens after the death of Patriarch Pimen († 5/30/1990), he could
not bear defeat in the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia at the Local Council of
the ROC in June 1990. The author of these lines, then working in the Metropolia of the UOC as
editor of an Orthodox newspaper, witnessed how the klobuk of the Patriarch of Moscow was
sewn for Philaret and how containers full of his things were prepared for moving to Moscow.
But the future schismatic suffered a crushing defeat in the Patriarchal election, receiving only 66
votes in the election held at Danilov Monastery in Moscow, against 139 for the future Patriarch
Alexiy (Ridiger), and 107 for Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan), the future primate of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

441
 Leader of the Ukrainian schismatics, the former Metropolitan Philaret Denisenko     

As we can see, even on the eve of gaining independence and self-governance, and in the
subsequent period of its activity, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has born the cross of great
trials.

“The people of God united around their hierarchs”

We found Mother Seraphima in her office at the Odessa Archangel Michael Convent, which she
has led for twenty-five years now.

She was negotiating the selection of exhibits for the next exhibition just then. Having finished
her conversation, despite being so busy, she kindly agreed to speak with some Kiev journalists.

***

442
 Despite being so busy, Mother kindly answered our questions     

—Mother Seraphima, recalling the events of thirty years ago, tell us: How do you think the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church today evaluates its reception of independence in 1990? After
all, you were a novice at the famous Kiev Holy Protection Convent then, founded by St.
Anastasia—the Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna Romanov, and which was among the
monasteries of Ukraine that protested against the dictatorship of Philaret.

—All of us, the children of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, are clearly convinced today of how
right a step it was for the Holy Synod of the ROC and His Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II to grant
the UOC the status of independence and self-governance in 1990. We can confidently say now
that this historical act took place by the ineffable providence of God; that is, the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church has taken its rightful place in the Orthodox world and is truly autonomous,
independent, self-governing, and unique in its structure. I think not even all the Local Churches
that were granted autocephaly by Constantinople possess the same scope of rights as the UOC.

—But now we have a new trial: the interference of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the
life of the UOC—a new schism, now with the participation of the hierarchs of Istanbul.

—These non-canonical and immoral actions of Constantinople have caused pain in the family of
the Orthodox Churches. As you know, many of them have showed unanimity with our Ukrainian

443
Orthodox Church. They recognize His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry as the sole lawful
primate of the UOC and the majority are opposed to the politics of Istanbul.

—Matushka, let’s go back to the swashbuckling 1990s.

—Yes… Our Church received an impetus towards independent development, but from the very
first days of the early 1990s, it found itself in the extremely difficult conditions of all kinds of
provocations from the former Metropolitan Philaret and from the authorities, who strongly
supported the schismatics.

Philaret wanted to become Patriarch of Ukraine any way he could, and he went to every length to
achieve his goal: He deposed dissenting bishops and committed many unseemly deeds. But the
healthy forces of the Church united and cured this disease. This is the value of the process of
Church recovery and self-purification.

Despite internal vicissitudes, the actions of schismatics, and political attacks, life itself has
testified that the canonical Church has a healthy core that the gates of hell cannot overcome (cf.
Mt. 16:18). The people of God are united around their hierarchs, including Metropolitan
Onuphry, Vladyka Agafangel, Vladyka Alypy, and others. An historical Bishops’ Council of the
UOC was held in Kharkov in May 1992, which gave a canonical evaluation of Philaret’s actions,
elected a new legitimate primate—His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan, † 7/05/2014),
and placed a limit on the Church turmoil and unrest. In fact, the Church had reached a new
historical milestone, passing through the fiery trial of schism and persecution.

His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan)

led the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from 1992 to 2014 —However, the Verkhovna Rada
[Parliament] issued a resolution on the illegality of the Kharkov Council, so the authorities

444
at that time supported Philaret. Even the Bolsheviks didn’t do that. You had your
obedience then in Holy Protection Monastery and witnessed these events. As far as we
know, not a single monastery in Ukraine supported the schism. Do you remember how the
sisters and you personally reacted?

—Monasticism showed its strength then and gave a weighty word. For example, the monks of
Holy Dormition Monastery in Odessa sent a letter to His Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II in which
they categorically rejected Philaret’s idea of autocephaly and expressed unity with the Moscow
Patriarchate. Other monasteries did the same, unanimously expressing unity with the Mother
Church.

If we recall Holy Protection Monastery at that time, Matushka Margarita (Zyukina, † 2005)—her
memorial falls right on November 10—our blessed eldress and abbess, was very worried and
increased her prayers together with all the sisters. This conciliar prayer of the monastics, bishops,
and laity gave a way out of the intolerable situation created in the Church by Philaret’s ambitions
and authoritarian actions.

And when Metropolitan Vladimir arrived in Ukraine, I think you could say it was a national
assembly: Representatives from every diocese in Ukraine and a crowd of thousands of lay people
came to meet Vladyka, blocking all the streets by the station; and there was a grand procession
from the station to the Lavra. Then the primates of every, I emphasize every, Local Church in the
world sent written greetings to the newly-elected primate of the UOC Metropolitan Vladimir,
thereby confirming that world Orthodoxy recognizes only our Church as lawful in Ukraine, as
part of the Russian Orthodox Mother Church.

—The Church has endured and still endures great trials coming from the political elite of
the country, various parties, and radical nationalist forces’ interference in its life.

—Absolutely true. Let’s recall at least 2008, when President Viktor Yushchenko invited
Patriarch Bartholomew to Ukraine without informing Metropolitan Vladimir. And he came,
knowing that it violates the canons of the Church, which state that a hierarch of any Church
cannot visit the territory of another Church without an invitation [from the local first hierarch].
But Patriarch Bartholomew came to Ukraine anyways, positioning himself as the rightful
hierarch of this land, and he met with President Yushchenko. He received attention at the highest
level of government. Already then, without the participation of the UOC, the presidential
administration was holding separate negotiations on autocephaly, about giving the “Kiev
Patriarchate” the status of legality, of creating an Istanbul dependency in Kiev, and so on. Oh,
but what a reaction from the faithful to the visit of the guest from Istanbul!...

445
 Viktor Yushchenko welcomes
Patriarch Bartholomew, 2008     

Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Alexiy met on Vladimir Hill on the day of 1,020th
anniversary of the Baptism of Rus’. The people of God, who crowded the slopes of the park
around the hill, received the guest from Constantinople coldly, but joyfully applauded His
Holiness [Patriarch Alexiy]. I was standing not far away and could see how Patriarch
Bartholomew bowed his head low and was looking at the ground. And when the people started
chanting: “Our Patriarch is Alexiy!” he winced, lowered his head, and hunched his shoulders.
Then the state project failed. Yushchenko himself left the Divine Liturgy after the first
exclamation, so affected was he by the shouts of the people and the absolutely clear expression
of the position of the many thousands of the flock of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Yushchenko was as
if carried away from the square…

And one other detail: Our Church didn’t participate when the protocol for Patriarch
Bartholomew to serve in St. Sophia Cathedral for the 1,020th anniversary of the Baptism of
Kievan Rus’ was drawn up, by no fault of our own—we were simply cut out, and Yushchenko
demanded that Philaret serve with Bartholomew. But Bartholomew was forced to reject this
scenario, shamefacedly explaining to Yushchenko that the schismatic Philaret had no right to
serve with him. So Yushchenko asked that Philaret at least be allowed to stand nearby and pray,
either in the altar, or at least in the church. This was also refused. Bartholomew understood then
that this step could mean his condemnation by the whole of world Orthodoxy. So the service in
St. Sophia was held without the head of the “Kiev Patriarchate,” but with His Beatitude
Metropolitan Vladimir. On July 27, 2008, there was a service on Vladimir Hill, with the
participation of Patriarch Alexiy II, Patriarch Bartholomew, His Beatitude Metropolitan
Vladimir, and the primates and representatives of all the Orthodox Churches of the world. The
Lord did not allow the schismatics to participate.

Part 2. Which is Our True Mother Church, and Who is our True Father?

Deacon Sergei Geruk

spoke with Abbess Seraphima (Shevchik)
Translation by Jesse Dominick

446
Pravoslavie.ru

11/16/2020

The “Tomosology” of the Patriarchate of

Constantinople. Part 3
Pavel Darovsky

Part 1
Part 2

We continue our analysis of the tomoi of autocephaly which have been granted by the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. In Part 3 we discuss the recent tomos of the Orthodox Church of
Ukraine, and state our conclusion.

The Most Holy Church of Ukraine (The Orthodox Church of Ukraine)

   

447
In 2019, the Church of Constantinople for the first time in history provided a tomos of
autocephaly not just on foreign canonical territory, but to schismatics who did not have apostolic
succession, and did this contrary to the opinion of most Orthodox peoples.

However, our task is to consider the content of the tomos, and not the context of its appearance.

The beginning of the document, as in the case of the Czech-Slovak Church, is devoted to the
justification of the invasion of another’s canonical territory. Further, the document itself reads:

…our Modesty, along with our most reverend Metropolitans and most honorable beloved
brothers and concelebrants in the Holy Spirit, in the imperative concern of the Great
Church of Christ within the Orthodox world for healing long standing schisms and
divisions in the local Churches, unanimously determine and declare that the entire
Orthodox Church contained within the boundaries of the politically constituted and
wholly independent State of Ukraine, with its sacred Metropolitan, Archdiocesan and
Episcopal sees, its monasteries and parishes, as well as all the ecclesiastical institutions
therein, operating under the Founder of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,
our God-Man Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, shall hereafter exist as canonically a u t o c e
p h a l o u s,1 independent and self-administered, having and recognizing as its First
Hierarch in all church matters its presiding canonical Primate, who shall bear the title
“His Beatitude Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Ukraine,” without any lawful addition or
deletion to this title without permission from the Church of Constantinople. This Primate
shall preside over the Holy Synod, annually comprised of Hierarchs invited by rotation
and seniority from those serving within the geographical boundaries of Ukraine…

…Moreover, we recognize and declare this Autocephalous Church, established within the
boundaries of the sovereign territory of Ukraine by means of this signed Patriarchal and
Synodal Tomos, as our spiritual daughter, and recommend that all Orthodox Churches
throughout the world acknowledge and commemorate it by the name “The Most Holy
Church of Ukraine” …

…without being henceforth entitled to establish bishops or found extraterritorial altars in

regions already lawfully dependent on the Ecumenical Throne, which bears canonical
competence over the Diaspora, but instead restricting its proper jurisdiction within the
territories of the State of Ukraine.

…while further preserving the right of all Hierarchs and other clergy to address petitions
of appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch, who bears the canonical responsibility of
irrevocably passing judgment over matters related to bishops and other clergy in local
Churches, in accordance with the sacred Canons 9 and 16 of the Fourth Ecumenical
Council in Chalcedon.

In addition to the above, we declare that the Autocephalous Church in Ukraine knows as
its head the most holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne, just as the rest of
the Patriarchs and Primates also do, while having along with its other canonical
obligations and responsibilities, as its foremost mission, the preservation of our Orthodox

448
 Faith inviolable as well as the canonical unity and communion with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate and the other local Orthodox Churches unwavering…

…At the same time, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, through its Primate or else the
canonical locum tenens on the Throne of Kyiv, is obliged to participate in periodical
Inter-Orthodox consultations on significant canonical, doctrinal and other issues, in
accordance with the sacred custom long ago established by the Fathers…

…The First Hierarch, after being installed, must also immediately dispatch the necessary
Irenic Letters concerning his establishment both to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the
other Primates, just as he is also entitled to receive the same from these, while
commencing his irenic journey as customary from the First-Throne Church of
Constantinople, wherefrom it will likewise receive the Holy Chrism, as affirmation of its
spiritual unity with the latter…

…In the case of major issues of ecclesiastical, doctrinal and canonical nature, His
Beatitude the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine must, on behalf of the Holy Synod of
his Church, address our most holy Patriarchal and Ecumenical Throne, seeking its
authoritative opinion and conclusive support, while the prerogatives of the Ecumenical
Throne over the Exarchate and Sacred Stavropegial institutions in Ukraine shall be
preserved unmitigated…

…Consequently, on the basis of all the above and on the basis of these conditions, our
Holy Great Church of Christ blesses and declares the Orthodox Church in Ukraine as
Autocephalous… These things, then, are deemed and determined, joyfully proclaimed to
you from the venerable Center of Orthodoxy, having been ratified in synod, whereas this
Patriarchal and Synodal Tome is issued for permanent protection, being recorded and
signed in the Code of the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople, delivered in an
identical and accurate copy to His Beatitude Epifanios, the Primate of the Most Holy
Church of Ukraine, and to His Excellency the President of Ukraine, Mr. Petro
Poroshenko, for abiding verification and permanent confirmation.2

We will attempt to systematize the features and innovations of this tomos.

1. The “Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne” of Constantinople is declared as the head of the

Church,3 and not the Lord Jesus Christ, who is merely called the “Founder” of the
Church. This carries already not only canonical, but also critical dogmatic significance.
2. The title of the primate of the Church is not only fixed in the tomos, but also a ban on
changing it without the consent of Constantinople is indicated. The reasons are obvious:
to prevent attempts at forming a Ukrainian patriarchate.
3. Just like in the Czech Church, the principles of the Synod’s activity are strictly regulated.
4. The new “autocephalous church” is called a “daughter.” She is not addressed with the
title “Sister.” But at the same time, the other Local Churches are called “sisters” of the
new “Ukrainian autocephalic” church. Thus, the old terms are given a new meaning:
there is the “Mother Church,” and the rest of the Churches are “daughters” to
Constantinople but “sisters” amongst each other.

449
 5. A ban is made on the presence or founding of parishes outside of Ukraine, and the
resolution of the transfer and belonging of any and all existing Ukrainian diaspora
parishes to the subordination of Constantinople, which allegedly possesses a monopoly
on the Orthodox diaspora.
6. If in the tomos of the Czech-Slovak Church, the right of the Phanar hierarchs to interfere
in its internal affairs is defined as being the right of being the court of highest instance,
after church courts within the Czech-Slovak Church itself, then in this tomos, it is already
indicated that any bishop or priest has the right to apply directly to Constantinople who
has the right of “irrevocably passing judgment” in all situations. (The controversy of this
allegedly canonical justification deserves separate examination outside the scope of this
article.)
7. The tomos indicates that the throne of Constantinople is the “head” not only of the new
“autocephalous church,” but that it is recognized as [head] by “the rest of the Patriarchs
and Primates.” That is, the change from Christ being the Head of His Church, to
Constantinople being the head, is not selectively applied to the “OCU,” but is declared
for the entire Orthodox world.
8. The obligation (and not just the right) of the new autocephalous church is to participate in
all meetings and other events of the Church of Constantinople written into law.
Obviously, the unsuccessful experience of the Cretan Council, organized by Patriarch
Bartholomew and ignored by many Local Churches, was taken into account.
9. The obligation of each new Primate of the OCU to begin their reign with a visit to Phanar
written into law.
10. As in many other tomoi, the “OCU” requirement to receive chrism from the Patriarchate
of Constantinople is written into law.
11. If previously the Phanar claimed a monopoly and supremacy in the moderation of
external church relations of the new Churches to resolve “issues of ecclesiastical,
dogmatic and canonical nature,” then, according to the new tomos, there is no sense in
such interaction. Now the Ecumenical Throne will define all the necessary explanations
itself, without inter-church discussion.
12. In addition to the new autocephaly itself, exarchates and stavropegia of the Church of
Constantinople are being created on the territory of the OCU, whose rights are inviolable.
That is, the canonical boundaries of the new structure are functional only unilaterally:
The OCU cannot have foreign parishes; but on the OCU’s territory, the Patriarchate of
Constantinople can have its own parishes, and its rights are inviolable and sovereign.
13. In the final part, it is additionally specified that autocephaly is granted precisely on these
conditions. This clarification makes it possible to justify the abolition of autocephaly in
the event of violation of these conditions.

Conclusions

Based on analysis of the gradual changes in the content of the tomoi of autocephaly issued by the
Orthodox Church of Constantinople, we see the genesis of both its general ecclesiology and
ideas about its own role and the role of other Local Churches.

450
As early as the sixteenth century, the increase in the number of Patriarchates was perceived
organically (at least formally), and the decision was fixed in a conciliar manner, which we see
from the autocephaly of the Russian Church.

The factor of conciliarity is partially present in the granting of autocephaly to the Church of
Greece, in which, in addition to Constantinople, the Patriarch of Jerusalem takes part. But after
that we no longer see the reflection of the principle of interchurch conciliarity in new tomoi.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, some new autocephalous Churches, with considerable
effort, acquire the status of Patriarchates, even if they historically had this status in the past. And
others still have yet to receive it.

In general, the attitude of the Church of Constantinople to its role in the world and to other
autocephalous Churches changed significantly as the Patriarch of Constantinople lost power in
the Ottoman Empire. It was in the Ottoman Empire that the Patriarch of Constantinople
possessed, in contrast to Byzantium, both formal and real political power, namely the status of an
ethnarch, the head of Rum-millet4, who united all Orthodox Christians of the empire. Within the
Ottoman Empire, many ancient autocephalous statuses were eliminated and incorporated into the
Church of Constantinople, such as the Bulgarian or the Peć (Serbian) Patriarchates. But even the
ancient Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Cyprus, which retained their
autocephaly, were politically subordinate to the ethnarch (Constantinople). When the Sublime
Porte lost control of these lands, this automatically deprived the influence and power of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. Facing new challenges and demands of national autocephaly,
Constantinople was forced to look for ways to compensate for its losses. In part, this tendency
manifests itself in the nineteenth century, which we can see in the formation of the autocephaly
of the Greek Church.

This trend fully developed in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, after the final collapse of
the Ottoman Empire and the Constantinople Patriarchate’s loss of both political influence and
parishioners within the Republic of Turkey, itself a result of the Greek pogroms (the genocide
against the Pontic Greeks and other Hellenic peoples) and the expulsion of Greeks from the
country.

This tendency found its expression both in the external expansion of the Phanar, which we are
witnessing to this day and in an attempt to limit the autocephaly of new Churches and the
preservation of its power and influence within their territories.

At the first attempt to curtail the autocephaly of the Church of Greece, Constantinople touched
only on issues of chrism, the moderation of external relations and the principles of forming the
Synod. Subsequently, using the example of the Serbian and Romanian Churches, we see almost
full recognition of the new autocephalous Churches as equals (with the exception of granting
them the status of Patriarchate, which was done later). Based on this, the experience of cutting
back autocephaly in the tomos of the Church of Greece could be considered a [coincidental,
outlying] non-systemic episode.

451
In the twentieth century, everything changed. It is obvious that attempts through various tomoi to
minimize the actual independence of new autocephalous Churches, to subordinate them to the
Phanar as much as possible, or, at least, to put them in a dependent position, are connected
directly with the aforementioned loss of Constantinople’s position as ethnarch, since they all
follow the liquidation of the Ottoman Empire. And they are, most likely, an attempt to
compensate for those losses.

In fact, only the Bulgarian and Georgian Churches receive recognition of full-fledged
autocephaly in the twentieth century from the Church of Constantinople. And in these situations,
we are actually speaking about simply recognizing them after the event has taken place: both
Churches had already been independent each for seventy-three years (an amazing coincidence of
“the experience of non-recognition by the Phanar”!). In addition, both Churches were ancient
Patriarchates, once deprived of autocephaly due to the vicissitudes of history. In these cases, the
See of Constantinople claims only to moderate inter-church relations, and then in the case of the
Georgian Church, in the form of a recommendation.

But the Phanar’s position on the autocephaly of new Churches looks completely different
concerning the Polish, Albanian, Czech and even more so, the Ukrainian Churches. Here we are
witnessing a much greater “cropping” of their powers and freedoms and the legal consolidation
of mechanisms of influence on the inner life of these Churches.

In addition, there is a rethinking of the very role of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the
Church of Constantinople. We can clearly see the metamorphosis of the “first among equals”
into the “first without equals.” First, we see an unmistakable statement of the Orthodox teaching
about Christ as the Head of the Church. Then the mention of this smoothly disappears from the
documents, and as a result, in the Ukrainian tomos, we see in the place of the head of the Church,
not Christ, but the See of Constantinople. The terminology reflecting interchurch relations also
changes in the tomos: first, Constantinople is both the Sister to the rest of the Churches, and the
Mother of the new autocephalous Churches, which are separated from her bosom, then she is
only the Mother to them. And as a result, she is already only Mother to all Churches—without
exception for Churches older than herself—and only the other Local Churches are Sisters to each
other.

If in 1990, in the Georgian tomos given by Constantinople, instead of giving a “new

autocephaly,” it simply recognizes the ancient autocephaly of the Georgian Church, which it
received from the Church of Antioch; then in 2018, the speaker of the Phanar, Archbishop Job
(Getcha) of Telmessos, said in an interview with the BBC:

“The Other [“new autocephalous”—Trans.] Churches existing in the Orthodox world

today—starting from the Orthodox Church in Russia, continuing with the Churches in
Greece, Serbia, Romania, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czechoslovakia—these are
the new Churches—they were not confirmed by any of the Ecumenical Councils, it was
Constantinople which gave them their status of existence.”

At first, Constantinople does not lay claim to the diaspora of the other Churches, but in 1922,
[having lost most of its parishioners in the population exchange after the collapse of the Ottoman

452
Empire—Trans.] the Synod of the Church of Constantinople declares the “obligatory and
exclusive” subordination to itself of the entire Orthodox diaspora. And now we see the
manifestation and realization of these claims in the tomoi that follow. This is a twentieth century
innovation.

But in the twenty-first century, Constantinople goes even further and declares the right to create
its own exarchates and stavropegia not only in the diaspora, but also on the territory of other
Local Churches defined by it, which is evident from the Ukrainian tomos. So, gradually, the
simply sonorous and honorable title “Ecumenical” [i.e. Universal] becomes a real territorial
claim. “Orthodox Papism” takes on more and more obvious features.

Since the middle of the twentieth century, we see Constantinople’s claims in the tomoi expand to
supreme judicial functions, and the increasingly active regulation of the internal model of
government of the Local Churches, even down to determining the vestments of their first
hierarchs.

Starting with the Ukrainian tomos, we see the inclusion of the requirement to participate in
councils organized by Constantinople. Having suffered an epic failure in attempting to gather
representatives of all Local Churches at the Council of Crete in 2016, the Phanar decided to
consolidate its prerogative in tomos.

In fact, we see a gradual devaluation of the significance of autocephaly for the Local Church and
its practical reduction to autonomy.

At the same time, it should be noted that in almost all tomoi, Constantinople declares that
autocephaly is granted to the Local Church in question, since a corresponding separate
independent state has appeared, arguing that this is the reason for the proclamation of
autocephaly.

Here is how Archbishop Job (Getcha) speaks about it in the aforementioned interview:

“You must understand that in the Orthodox Church the administration of the Church
always coincides with the administration of the state, the earthly—it is not me who
invented this, and not Patriarch Bartholomew, it was said in the seventeenth canon of the
Fourth Ecumenical Council. Therefore, in principle, when a new state appears, it is not an
obligation, but it may ask for the organization of autocephaly for its Church.”

That said, we do not find any such statement in this canon—just as in principle, in none of the
canons of all the Seven Ecumenical Councils, do we find such a statement in the context of
autocephaly.

At the same time, we observe the selectivity of Constantinople’s approach to this issue: Where
the political context allowed, in the twentieth century, Constantinople did not create any kind of
autocephalous Churches at all, but rather established its own dioceses, at best, on the basis of
autonomy: the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOARCH), the Finnish Orthodox
Church, Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, the new Greek dioceses, etc.

453
And thus, the Orthodox Church in America was never recognized by Constantinople, and the
request of the Finnish Orthodox Church to grant it autocephaly has remained unanswered for
forty years.

And only where the inter-ecclesiastical or political context exclusively requires autocephaly is it
proclaimed by Constantinople. But at the same time, the real status of this type of “autocephaly”
is often less independent than that of the autonomous status of some churches.

An example of this is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has a self-governing status within
the Moscow Patriarchate, and whose independence is much broader than that of the
autocephalous “Orthodox Church of Ukraine.” The rights granted to the UOC by the ROC are
much broader than the rights of the “OCU” defined by Phanar, which has been repeatedly written
about already.

Another innovation of the tomoi, starting with the Czech one, is the fixation of “the conditions
under which autocephaly is granted.” The right to cancel autocephaly is not spelled out directly
in the documents, but, nevertheless, it has already been stated by representatives of Phanar:

“And, in principle, as some canonists believe, since these new autocephalous or new
patriarchates were never confirmed by an Ecumenical Council, since they were created
by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, then, at some point, if the Ecumenical Patriarchate deems
it necessary, it can cancel this status.

So, who is claiming that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is losing some kind of power—on
what basis?

On the basis of the canons, according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, the
Ecumenical Patriarchate has certain privileges. Whoever does not agree with this is
actually splitting away from Orthodoxy.” (Archbishop Job (Getcha) in an interview with
the BBC on November 2, 2018).

Now let’s compare the wording from the Ukrainian tomos (2019):

“In the case of major issues of ecclesiastical, doctrinal and canonical nature, His
Beatitude the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine must, on behalf of the Holy Synod of
his Church, address our most holy Patriarchal and Ecumenical Throne, seeking its
authoritative opinion and conclusive support, while the prerogatives of the Ecumenical
Throne over the Exarchate and Sacred Stavropegial institutions in Ukraine shall be
preserved unmitigated.”5

…with a similar formulation from the Bulgarian tomos (1945):

“…on general ecclesiastical issues which require œcumenical (universal) discussion and
study, let him defer to our Most Holy Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne, and ask and accept
from it both its authoritative opinion and understanding, as well as the opinion and
understanding of other Holy Sister Churches.”

454
…and with the wording of the previous Czech-Slovak tomos which came before the Ukrainian
one (1998):

“With regard to global issues and ecclesiastical questions that go beyond the scope of
possibilities of Local autocephalous Churches, His Beatitude the Archbishop of Prague
and all the Czech Lands and Slovakia should turn to our Holy Patriarchal Ecumenical
Throne, which is in communion with all Orthodox dioceses that rightly proclaim the
word of truth. The Ecumenical Patriarchate will ask their Sister Churches for their
opinions and positions.”

As we can see, in 2018, the Phanar already considered itself to be a sufficient and authoritative
source to alone answer questions of “ecclesiastical, dogmatic and canonical character”, and there
is no need for the opinion of the Sister Churches (daughter churches?), which had previously
been sought. The conciliar mind of the Church is replaced by the sole decision of the
Archbishop of New Rome.

We can recall another formulation, which is extremely close to this one in meaning:

“By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as
the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers
and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is
to be held.”6

That is verbatim Canon 749 §1 of the Roman Catholic Church, which was confirmed in 1870
at the First Vatican Council, concerning the dogma of Papal Infallibility of the Roman pontiff. In
the case of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the function of the council was performed
by the Synod of the Church of Constantinople, and the new dogma was reflected in the
tomos.

Pavel Darovsky
Author of the telegram channel “Labarum. In hoc signo vinces”
Translation by Matfey Shaheen

Pravoslavie.ru

11/5/2020

The “Tomosology” of the Patriarchate of

Constantinople. Part 2
Pavel Darovsky

Part 1

455
We continue our analysis of the tomoi of autocephaly which have been granted by the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. In part 2, we discuss the tomoi of the Bulgarian, Georgian, and
Czech and Slovak Churches.

The Bulgarian Church

   

In 1945, after a seventy-three-year-long schism, the result of a difficult compromise came to

fruition, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized the autocephaly of the Bulgarian
Orthodox Church (which was self-proclaimed in 1872), and issued a corresponding tomos. The
added complexity of forming a compromise with an existing organization obviously made it
difficult to limit its autocephaly. A significant place in the tomos is given to a historical emphasis
on the role of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the fate of Bulgarian Orthodoxy and the
Bulgarian people. In particular, the tomos reads, “our Great Church gave birth in the Lord unto,
and nurtured, the Bulgarian people.”

456
The centuries-old history of the Bulgarian Church, including two periods of its autocephaly and
its Patriarchate, is ignored in the tomos.

“…We bless the autocephalous structure and administration of the Holy Church in
Bulgaria, and also designate it as the Holy Orthodox Autocephalous Bulgarian Church, so
that from now on it would be recognized as our spiritual sister; let it govern and institute
its affairs independently and autocephalously in accordance with the order and sovereign
rights of other Orthodox autocephalous Churches, recognizing as its supreme
ecclesiastical authority the Holy Synod, which is formed of its hierarchs and whose
primate is His Beatitude, the Metropolitan of Sofia and Exarch of All Bulgaria.

…on general ecclesiastical issues which require œcumenical (universal) discussion and
study, let him defer with our Most Holy Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne, and ask and
accept from it both its authoritative opinion and understanding,1 as well as the opinion
and understanding of other Holy Sister Churches.”

Full text (in Russian): https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5f7848c5368d1f1e76d54697/tomos-ob-

avtokefalii-bolgarskoi-pravoslavnoi-cerkvi-5f788aca71c44f0829221367

1. Despite the ancient traditions of the Patriarchate in the Bulgarian Church, its primate does
not receive the patriarchal title.
2. The question of chrism is not raised in the tomos.
3. The monopoly of the Phanar on the moderation of the relations of the Bulgarian Church
with other Local Churches is written into the tomos.2
4. The Bulgarian Church is declared a Sister Church of the Church of Constantinople.

The Georgian Church

457
    

In 1990, the Church of Constantinople issued another tomos on the recognition of autocephaly,
which has possessed a duel interpretation. This is in reference to the autocephaly of the Georgian
Orthodox Church, which first received it from the Patriarchate of Antioch in the fifth century,
and which was confirmed in the eleventh century. The Georgian Church temporarily lost it in the
nineteenth century under the Russian Empire, but after Georgia gained independence in 1917, it
proclaimed its own autocephaly anew. Due to the unilateral nature of this renewal of
autocephaly, it was initially not recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church at the Local
Council of 1917, but at the next Council of Bishops in 1943, (which was assembled immediately
after a relaxation of the persecution against Christians in the USSR), the autocephaly of the
Georgian Church was recognized by Moscow.

Despite the undoubted historicity, canonicity and legitimacy of the autocephaly of the Georgian
Church, the Phanar chose not to recognize it for another forty-seven years. One of the reasons for
this was [their] doctrine of monopoly on the granting of autocephaly, which was already taking
shape in the depths of the Church of Constantinople. And the situation with the Georgian Church
was difficult to squeeze into the framework of this doctrine: the first autocephaly was received
from Antioch and the second—from Moscow.

This posed a clear contradiction to these new teachings of the Phanar; in addition to that, this was
concerning an ancient Church, already recognized in world Orthodoxy. It was impossible to
portray that autocephaly was granted to her only from Constantinople, and that this happened
recently, it was both a blatant lie, and [one which] would never have been supported in Georgia
itself. The result of this complex puzzle was the Phanar's controversial tomos about the
“recognition of autocephaly”—in Georgia, it is considered simply a belated recognition of

458
autocephaly. But the text of the tomos allows Phanar to interpret it as granting autocephaly,
which the speakers of Constantinople explicitly state in their interviews.

Certainly, however, given that it was concerning the ancient Georgian Church, it would be
extremely difficult to try to curtail its rights by depriving it of its patriarchate, or limiting its
autocephaly, which is why the tomos says:

The Holy Orthodox Church situated in the blessed land of the Caucasus—included today
within the borders of the Republic of Georgia—endowed since ancient times with a
system of self-government free from outside intervention and enjoying a corresponding
ecclesiastical organization, having born- and continuing to bear—in the general affairs of
the Church a rich and praiseworthy witness, and preserving the revealed truth and
teaching of our Orthodox Church without compromising or damaging its integrity.

This Church desires today to enjoy canonicity in the management of her own affairs and
to participate, along with all the holy Orthodox Churches, in the same bond of brotherly
service. Thus, she has addressed herself on several occasions to our very holy
Ecumenical, Apostolic and Patriarchal See, asking her to bless and officially approve her
constitution of self-government, so that in this way she may be an inseparable part, like
the branch of the divine grapevine, of the canonical group of local Orthodox Churches,
thus continuing to contribute to the building up and growth of the body of Christ.

It is to this praiseworthy appeal and request that the Holy Synod surrounding us has
responded with tender solicitude, making use of the canonical right and obligation
belonging to our very holy Ecumenical See: to take care of the holy Orthodox Churches
that find themselves in a state of need and to guide them—taking them by the hand
according to the needs of their life in time—to autocephalous governance, those among
the ecclesiastical administrations which, in the context of the current situation of
Orthodoxy, have been worthy of claiming this dignity. We have thus decided, our humble
person along with the very holy and very honorable metropolitans around us, brothers
and dear concelebrants in the Holy Spirit, to accept with benevolence the appeal made by
our sister the holy Orthodox Church of Georgia to the very holy Church of
Constantinople, first see in the ecclesiastical order, and to grant our blessing, recognition
and official approbation of the autocephaly and the independent organization of this
Church, subject to the definitive decision of the future holy Ecumenical Council, which
alone assures eternally and without prejudice for all unity in the faith and canonical
ecclesiastical order of our holy Orthodox Church.

Consequently, we declare as a Synod in the Holy Spirit and proclaim the very holy
Church of Georgia to belong as before—and to be considered as such—to the group of
sister autocephalous Orthodox Churches, under her ancient constitution and organization
of self-government; a constitution of organization also attested to by Balsamon, who
writes, “(…) for they say that in the time of the very holy patriarch Peter of Antioch, the
great City of God, a synodal settlement took place according to which the Church of
Iberia would be free and autocephalous (…)” (Cf. Rhallis-Potlis, Syntagma ton theion kai
ieron Kanonon, Athens 1852, vol. II, p. 172)3. In doing this, we assure her that, under the

459
 name of “holy autocephalous Church of all Georgia,” she will be known as our spiritual
sister and that she will be able to govern and manage her own affairs in independence and
autocephaly, according to the canonical order and rights in force among the other holy
autocephalous Orthodox Churches, having as Leader and Head, our Lord, God and
Savior Jesus Christ, recognizing and honoring as first in the canonical and ecclesiastical
order our Ecumenical See and only knowing as her supreme ecclesiastical administrative
authority the Holy Synod composed of the canonical Orthodox hierarchs of Georgia, a
Synod presided over by the Archbishop of Mtskheta and Tbilisi and Catholicos of all
Georgia…

With regard to the holy Chrism,4 it is appropriate that the established ecclesiastical order
be respected so that through visible and invisible signs the uninterrupted unity of our holy
Orthodox Church may be constituted for all—those who find themselves within the
Church and those who are outside—proclaimed and assured.

We equally recommend that with regard to questions or points of contention of a more

general ecclesiastical nature and, as such surpassing the limits of the jurisdiction of the
particular autocephalous Churches, thus rending necessary a more general examination
and a vote, the Archbishop of Mtskheta and Tbilisi and Catholicos of all Georgia
addresses himself to our very holy Ecumenical and Patriarchal See, through which passes
communion with each Orthodox episcopal see resting faithful to the word of truth and
that he ask her and receive by her authoritative opinion and that of the other sister
Churches.5

In this tomos we see:

1. The author avoids calling the Primate of the Georgian Church “patriarch”, but uses the
title of Catholicos.
2. There is no attempt to intervene and regulate the foundational system of the Synod of the
Georgian Church.
3. The Church of Georgia, like the rest of the Local Churches, is called “sister,” but at the
same time, for the first time in the tomoi, an indication of the “supremacy” of
Constantinople is used: “…recognizing and honoring as first in the canonical and
ecclesiastical order our Ecumenical See and only knowing as her supreme ecclesiastical
administrative authority…”
4. A reference to the monopoly of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in matters of
moderation of interchurch relations is indicated in a relaxed manner: “We equally
recommend…”
5. A direct requirement to receive myrrh [Chrism] from Constantinople is not indicated, but
it is clearly hinted at6 in the text.

The Orthodox Church of the Czech and Slovak Lands

460
     

An analogous problem with the recognition of autocephaly by the other Churches was faced by
the Phanar with regard to the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia7. Orthodoxy
was brought to Czechoslovakia by the ministers of the Russian Church in the nineteenth
century.8 During the years of the Bolshevik persecution of Christianity, the Serbian Orthodox
Church took over care of Orthodoxy in the Czech-Slovak region, and created the autonomous
Czech Diocese, which, in 1948 was ceded to the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow
Patriarchate.9 In parallel from 1923 to 1959, a diocese of the Church of Constantinople operated
in the Czech Republic, which traditionally did not coordinate its actions with the Sister Churches
previously operating on this territory. In 1951, the Czech-Slovak Church received autocephaly
from the Moscow Patriarchate, which was not recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The issue of recognition stretched out over forty-seven years, after which in 1998 Constantinople
issued its own tomos, nevertheless recognizing the Czech Church, but doing so on conditions
which are significantly different from all previous historical precedents:

461
“Blessed is God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blessed with the participation
of His Divine and all-good will, so that the light of truth and His Holy Spirit would shine
the Orthodox Faith on the territory of the blessed lands of Czechia and Slovakia. His
precious Cross was erected here in the ninth century by the God-bearing and all-praised
missionaries of the Divine Word—the holy “Apostles to the Slavs” Cyril and Methodius,
who were called here by the then-prince of Great Moravia, and sent by the zealous God-
bearer, Patriarch St. Photius the Great.10

Their work was to plant God's seed in the hearts of the blessed Czech, Slovak, Moravian
and Carpathian peoples…11

Our holy and great Church of Christ, which is entrusted with the care of all the holy
Churches of God, and which will never abandon a single of its children unprotected, and
will not allow anyone else to do what he has no right to do, and which as the living
Church—living the life of a higher life which was revealed by the Lord Who is risen
from the grave—carrying her ministry, has endowed with the honor of autonomy the
Local Holy Church in the Czech Lands and Slovakia—[which is] living in a free,
sovereign and liberal state, [and] despite the fact that this Church is of small numbers—in
the 1923 edition of the Patriarchal and Synodal Tomos. From that time to the present day,
the Local Holy Orthodox Church in the Czech Lands and in Slovakia has existed in spite
of some of its non-canonical actions, which we forgave in silence, knowing that
everything that was carried out non-canonically and contrary to the rules and traditions of
the One Holy Orthodox Church, was invalid from the beginning, is invalid, and even unto
the ages will never be valid.

Our Mediocrity12 ([Our] Lowliness)13 together with the lords14, the most eminent
metropolitans who make up the holy and sacred synod of the Holy Great Church of
Christ, have resolved, bearing in mind and obeying the canonical precepts of the Holy
Fathers, that everything which exists in the Barbarian lands, that is to say concerning all
Christians who abide beyond the borders of the Holy Patriarchal and Autonomous
Churches, only the Great Throne of New Rome is to have spiritual care—we have
accepted the request of the Holy Synod of the Local autonomous Orthodox Church in the
Czech Lands and Slovakia, appreciating the zeal for the Orthodox faith of both the clergy
and laity, and by this patriarchal and synodal tomos, we elevate the growing strength of
the Local Orthodox Church in these lands from autonomous to autocephalous status, and
at the same time we establish the following necessary conditions, which the Holy and
Sacred Patriarchal Synod, that surrounds us and has ruling authority, define for the sake
of the observance of the Orthodox faith, good order and tradition, and on the other hand,
for the successful growth and the glory of the newly formed autocephalous Orthodox
Church…

The conditions are as follows:

A:

462
The highest administration of the local autocephalous church in the Czech Lands and
Slovakia is the Holy Synod of diocesan hierarchs who take part in pastoral service. The
hierarch who pastorally administers the Prague Diocese is now titled His Beatitude, the
Archbishop of Prague and all the Czech Lands and Slovakia (according to the ancient
tradition of archbishops who are the first to preside over the metropolitans of local
churches, as is happening and well observed in Cyprus, Greece, Albania and elsewhere),
and becomes the chairman of the Holy Synod and has the privileges which belong to the
first hierarch of each Local Church according to the thirty-fourth Apostolic Canon. The
other diocesan hierarchs taking part in pastoral ministry, i.e. those of Prešov, Michalov
and Olomouc-Brno, are elevated to the dignity of metropolitans and their dioceses to
metropolises. The Archbishop of Prague and all the Czech Lands and Slovakia may be
elected from any of the hierarchs, or other worthy clergymen of the one autocephalic
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

Every Metropolitan of Prešov is now titled “Exarch of Slovakia” and has the right to
convene the most eminent metropolitans and other clerics of Slovakia to an ecclesiastical
meeting, on matters which are determined by the Holy Synod of the autocephalous
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia to be issues of purely local Slovak interest. The
decisions of these meetings must be submitted for inspection and assessment to the Holy
Synod of the one unified autocephalous church in the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The
Most Blessed Archbishop of Prague and all the Czech Lands and Slovakia can do
analogously, in order to better study and resolve the exclusive local problems of the
Church in Czechia15. The Church in Czechia and Slovakia can, by means of synodal
decisions which are canonically approved, establish new dioceses according to potential
pastoral needs.

B:

According to the sacred canons, the Holy Synod is duly convened to deal with
administrative issues at least twice a year in order to resolve pastoral dogmatic-canonical
problems that may arise.

C:

The canonically elected and appointed most blessed archbishop, and other most eminent
metropolitans remain in office for life, except for those who arbitrarily resign or fall
canonically [under ban or sanctions due to violations].

D:

Deacons and priests are tried by courts of the second level; Hierarchs are tried by courts
of the first level and for transgressions of their duties, they are tried according to sacred
canons through canonically composed synodal courts, for which, with the approval of the
Ecumenical Patriarch, hierarchs are invited exclusively from the jurisdiction of the
Mother Church, that is to say, from the Ecumenical Throne. Hierarchs judged [guilty] can
appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch for a final decision.

463
 <…>

F:

When the Most Blessed Archbishop of Prague and all Czechia and Slovakia serves, he
commemorates “all Orthodox bishops” according to the order and sacred diptych of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, he thus remembers [in order] the blessed patriarchs and
autocephalous archbishops and metropolitans. The most eminent metropolitans remember
the Archbishop of Prague as the first among them during divine services. The Most
Blessed Archbishop of Prague and all Czechia and Slovakia has the right to wear a white
klobuk with a cross decorated with stones. The most eminent metropolitans wear a black
klobuk, again with a cross decorated with stones.

G:

The Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia receives holy myrrh from the Ecumenical
Patriarchate as a sign of spiritual unity with the Mother Church.

H:

The main and primary mission of the Holy Synod is to preserve the purity of the
Orthodox faith and communion in the Holy Spirit with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and
other Orthodox Churches. At the same time, in the event of any misconduct, it has the
right to appeal not only to the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but also to a
larger and broadened synod convened for that purpose by the care and initiative of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate.

I:

With regard to global issues and ecclesiastical issues that go beyond the scope of
possibilities of Local autocephalous Churches, His Beatitude the Archbishop of Prague
and all the Czech Lands and Slovakia should turn to our Holy Patriarchal Ecumenical
Throne, which is in communion with all Orthodox dioceses which rightly proclaim the
word of truth. The Ecumenical Patriarchate will ask their Sister Churches for their
opinions and positions. On this, we canonically remind you of the existing tomos as
fatherly advice: “Stand firm and hold the Orthodox tradition” as a pillar of dogmatic
truth. Any time you don’t know something well, or you have doubts: Ask your father,
and he will show you (Deut. 32:7). We say this not to unnecessarily elevate our opinions,
but to humbly seek what is the will of the Lord and what is good and perfect. We bless
the new autocephalous Local Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, and
with it, its honored primate, His Beatitude, the Archbishop of Prague and all of the Czech
Lands and Slovakia, and with him the most eminent metropolitans and the honorable
priesthood in Christ. We wish the priests of the Lord and the pious people a rich blessing
from God and our Savior Jesus Christ and the whole Church strength and growth to the
glory of Christ and the salvation of the world. [We wish] our blessed brothers,

464
 archbishops, priests, monks and Christ-loving people, all the blessings of the Lord, peace
and joy and noble fruits in the struggle for Christ and His Orthodox Faith.16

The full Czech original text can be read here: http://sul-zeme.cz/12-ruzne/8-konstantinopolsky-

tomos-z-roku-1998

The text of the tomos is indeed original, from its form and style to its content.

1. For the first time, the text of the tomos was divided into points [i.e. the conditions of
autocephaly were clearly outlined in an alphabetized list] obviously, for a clearer focus of
attention on each significant point.
2. The entire introductory part of the text is devoted to substantiating and justifying the
rights of Constantinople to judge the fate of the Czech-Slovak Church.
3. For the first time, in addition to various forms of expression of Christian love and respect,
there are also accusations against the Church—the addressee of the tomos. [They are
accused of “non-canonical acts” without clarification—Trans.]
4. Unlike the tomos of the Georgian Church, also issued long after gaining autocephaly,
there is no ambiguity in the text. The text clearly conveys its intended meaning: “There
was no autocephaly before, there were non-canonical actions [in the Czech-Slovak
Church], and only now, despite your guilt, we are granting you this autocephaly.” Those
interested can compare the wording with the tomos of the Bulgarian Church, which also
went through a long conflict with the Phanar, but its tomos has a completely different
connotation and tone.
5. The tomos clearly sets out the structure and rules of the management organs [i.e. the Holy
Synod, dioceses, and ecclesiastical courts], of the Czech-Slovak Church. The new
autocephalous Church has no freedom in regulating its own governing bodies.
6. Even the vestments of hierarchs [their head-coverings, the color of the klobuk and the
permitted decoration thereof—Trans.] are regulated and specified.
7. For the first time, the teaching of Constantinople’s perceived right of monopoly to
nourish all the “barbarian lands,” that is to say, the entire Orthodox diaspora outside the
borders of the “patriarchal and autonomous Churches” is reflected in the tomos. In the
light of this formulation, the question of the position of non-autonomous, autocephalous
Churches which do not have patriarchal status remains unclear: the Greek, Polish,
Albanian, and the Czech-Slovak Church itself: Are they subordinate to Constantinople?
8. The Church of Constantinople is finally named and confirmed in the tomos precisely as
the “Mother Church,” and not as a Sister Church.
9. The supreme court of appeal in the new autocephalous Church is not its own hierarchy,
but the hierarchs of Constantinople. Thus, the mechanism of any intervention or
meddling in the internal affairs of the Czech-Slovak Church by the Phanar is set in the
document.
10. The reception of chrism from Constantinople is unambiguously fixed [on the grounds that
it is the “Mother Church”, no less—Trans.]
11. As in many other tomoi, Constantinople’s monopoly on moderating the communication
of the new autocephalic church with other Local Churches is spelled out in this tomos.
12. Within the tomos, “communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate” is set up as the main
raison d’être of the Holy Synod of the Czech-Slovak Church along with “preserving the

465
 purity of the Orthodox Faith.” The very wording makes it impossible for the Czech-
Slovak Church to break off communication with the Phanar in the event of canonical or
dogmatic disagreements, without giving rise to any reason to challenge its autocephaly.
13. Christ, as the Head of the Church, is not mentioned in the tomos.

In reality, the tomos of autocephaly, issued by the Church of Constantinople to the Czech-Slovak
Church, ends the era of “limited autocephaly,” which began with the Greek Church and
continued in the twentieth century.

This document, in actuality, begins a new era of “nominal autocephaly,” in which the number
and qualities of the rights of supposedly independent autocephalic Churches are greater than
those of autonomous Churches. The good news for the Czech Church is that she has a diplomatic
alternative, in matters of communication with other Churches, in that she can rely on other tomoi.
So, in Prague in 2012, celebrations were held in honor of the anniversary of the receipt of the
tomos from the Moscow Patriarchate, which angered the Phanar, and forced the Czechs to justify
themselves saying that it was only a festive Liturgy, and not a triumphal celebration. At the same
time, the tomos received from the Russian Orthodox Church is undoubtedly more attractive for
the Czech-Slovak Church, since it does not contain such restrictions.

To be continued.

Part 3

Pavel Darovsky
Author of the telegram channel “Labarum. In hoc signo vinces”
Translation by Matfey Shaheen

Pravoslavie.ru

11/3/2020

The “Tomosology” of the Patriarchate of

Constantinople Part 1
Pavel Darovsky

466
    

Introduction

The tomoi1 granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on the autocephaly of

various Orthodox Churches are not simply documents, they are monuments of history and
ecclesiology. Through them, it is possible to study changes in the teaching of Constantinople
concerning itself and autocephaly, on the role of Christ in the Church, and on the meanings of
the canons and councils.

Typically, the Ecumenical Councils, affirming in doctrine previously unformalized dogmas [are
traditionally understood to have] merely formalized the Holy Tradition of the Church on those
issues which aroused controversy.

In the situations presented by the tomoi of the Constantinople Patriarchate, we see a change in
the content of the teaching on the Church. We see here not only new formulas, but direct
contradictions both to the previous forms, and to the canonical legacy of the Ecumenical
Councils. We can trace the genesis of the formation of new doctrines on the Church, which at
first filled “gaps” in canon law, then began to supplant it and ultimately came into conflict with
it. This infringed on the ecclesiological dogmas approved not only by the Ecumenical Councils,
but also those set forth directly in the Gospel and the Epistles of the Holy Apostles:

467
 Christ is the head of the church [Eph. 5:23]

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the
church (Eph. 1:22).

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another
(Romans 12: 4–5).

Perhaps, due to obvious contradictions between the tomoi granted by Constantinople in previous
years, in 2020 the documents themselves became unavailable on the website of the Patriarchate
of Constantinople itself, where they were easily found a year ago. Too much attention arose on
this topic after the granting of the tomos of autocephaly to the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine”.

Tomoi, in contrast to various articles and statements by the hierarchs of the EP, including those
by its patriarch, cannot be considered private theological opinions or a subjective understanding
of the canons. A Tomos is an official document expressing the “agreement of the fathers” of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, adopted by its Holy Synod, which in the Constantinople tradition,
possesses rights similar to those of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church and
some other Churches. A tomos is, therefore, if not an official expression, then an official
reflection of the teachings of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

As is well known, in January of 2019, the Patriarchate of Constantinople granted a tomos of

autocephaly to the so-called “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU), which was called in this
document “the Most Holy Church of Ukraine”. This event caused a schism in the Orthodox
world, the primarily opposed parties being the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow. The
primary basis of the controversy and conflict was the following points:

 The dispute over the canonical belonging of the territory of modern Ukraine;
 the possibility of granting autocephaly to schismatics and a self-appointed assembly of
“bishops” deprived of apostolic succession;
 the right of the Cathedra of Constantinople to make decisions on the fate and autocephaly
of “parachurch” entities that have broken away from other Local Churches;
 Constantinople’s right of primacy within the Orthodox world;
 And the content of the actual given tomos of autocephaly.

The last point caused especially fierce disputes not even between supporters of the Moscow and
Constantinople Patriarchates, but between the Ukrainian schismatics themselves, who eventually
accepted the Phanar’s tomos as a temporary, forced compromise, since the content of the tomos
did not even suit them. In addition to depriving them of their previously self-proclaimed
patriarchal status, the OCU received a number of other restrictions in rights and status. In reality,
its new “autocephalous status” gave it fewer rights in self-government than the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church (UOC) possesses within the Russian Orthodox Church.

However, this issue affects the interests of not only Ukrainian schismatics, not only the canonical
UOC, and even not only the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates. This issue affects the

468
overall organization of the Orthodox world, the relationship of all Local Churches and,
moreover, the following dilemma: Who is Christ for His Church—it’s [eminent] Head or only an
object of faith?

Let’s try to figure out how atypical the tomos issued by the Phanar to the “OCU” was, and what
is the genesis of the “tomosology” of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and with it, that of other
Local Churches.

Of the currently existing autocephalous Orthodox Churches, the most ancient are the Jerusalem,
Alexandrian and Antiochian Churches, founded by the Holy Apostles. Later, their number was
supplemented by Constantinople, whose cathedra gained importance after the founding of the
new capital of the Roman Empire—Constantinople—by Emperor Constantine in 330. Its status
of having “…the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome…” was confirmed by the third
canon of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381.

The autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus was received from the Church of Antioch and
approved by the Third Ecumenical (Ephesian) Council, namely its eighth canon, in 431. In the
fifth century, the Georgian Church received autocephaly from Antioch; later, after a series of
historical peripeteia, autocephaly was confirmed at the Local Council of Antioch in 1057.

All the Local Orthodox Churches that arose after that received autocephaly from the
Constantinople or Russian Church (which in the latter case became a stumbling block between
these Churches).

The Russian Church

469
     

For a basic comparison, we will take the tomos2 of the autocephaly of the Russian Church from
1590 as the only document of its kind concerning the current Local Church. Let's pay attention to

470
the key positions of this document (we will not cite the full text of the documents, since this will
require a great increase in the volume of this publication; we will cite only quotes and excerpts
that are relevant for comparison, the full text will be available below at indicated links):

“Confirmed in May of 1590 by Jeremiah, by grace of God, Archbishop of

Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch … we install the Archbishop3 of
Moscow and name him Patriarch, as others are thus titled; primely, the Ecumenical
Patriarch of Constantinople from the holy First Ecumenical Council is honored with the
dignity of the blessed and Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine the Great, and then
subsequently, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, with the
grace of our humility, our eyes having beheld and rejoiced at this empire given from God,
that it be so vast and majestic, as there is now one great Orthodox Tzar on the earth, and
it would be unworthy not to hear his will.

…as concerns this grámmata, that he, the Archbishop of Moscow, shall rule as the fifth
patriarch, and [established] shall be [his] patriarchal dignity and honor to be named and
honored amongst the other Patriarchs unto ages and forever, as having here been created
in [his] place…

…having clearly heard the petition of the right-believing Tsar, [together with] the most
worthy and indeed praiseworthy other Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
and it proved itself to them to be graceful and blessed. And moreover, our humility
together with these patriarchs and with the ecumenical council in one mind and thought
in unity and in the will of the Holy Spirit, we write and declare this council letter. First
we confess and perform in the imperial city of Moscow the ordination and patriarchal
naming of the appointed lord Job, for this we perform, and for this we send, as we write,
a patriarchal letter, writing about everything clearly, it has well-pleased the council that
lord Job of Moscow the Patriarch be thus titled—patriarch and honored with other
patriarchs, and his order shall thus be established upon him, that in prayers after the
Patriarch of Jerusalem he must commemorate our name and others, and at the head and
beginning to keep and honor the apostolic throne of Constantinople, and other
Patriarchs…”

Full text (in Russian): https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5f7848c5368d1f1e76d54697/ulojennaia-

gramota-ob-uchrejdenii-moskovskogo-patriarshestva-5f7872cf71c44f0829fe4e94

And thus, we see this document possesses certain specific features:

1. The Primate of the new autocephalous Church, the Archbishop of Moscow (in the
terminology of the document) is immediately declared patriarch. We do not see any
attempt to belittle his title, as was observed in a number of other cases of granting
autocephaly.
2. The decision carries with it a conciliar character, approved not only by the Patriarch of
Constantinople, but also by all the ancient patriarchs.
3. By status, the Patriarch of Moscow is equal to the rest of the patriarchs, and is not
belittled before them.

471
 4. The new autocephalous church is not dependent on Constantinople either in matters of
producing myrrh, or in its own ecclesiastical court, or in its internal structure.

The Church of Greece

    

260 years later—in 1850—Constantinople would grant autocephaly to the Church of Greece,
which was self-proclaimed by the political authorities of Greece in 1833. The Tomos of the
Church of Greece declares:

“The Holy and Sacred Synod of Constantinople, in the year of Our Lord 1850, the month
of June, the eight day. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

…we have decreed by the power of the All-Holy and All-fulfilling Spirit by this conciliar
act, that the Orthodox Church in the Kingdom of Greece, having as its Leader and Head
our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, like the entire Catholic Orthodox Church, should
henceforth be legally independent; and to recognize its supreme church government as a
permanent synod, consisting of bishops successively called according to the seniority of
ordination, under the presidency of the most eminent Metropolitan of Athens, managing

472
 the affairs of the church according to divine and sacred canons, free and unhindered from
any worldly interference. Thus, the Holy Synod in Greece, established by this conciliar
act, is recognized and proclaimed to be our brother in spirit,4 proclaiming to all pious and
Orthodox children of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church everywhere, may
they recognize it as such and commemorate it under the name of the Holy Synod of the
Church of Greece. We grant him all the prerogatives and powers of authority befitting the
highest church government.

…[the Church of Greece will] also receive, as needed, the holy myrrh from the holy
Great Church5 of Christ.

…In addition to this, in ecclesiastical situations which require joint examination and
mutual coordination for the better ordering and affirmation of the Orthodox Church, it is
necessary that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece accede (defer) to the Ecumenical
Patriarch and his Holy Synod. The Ecumenical Patriarch, together with his Holy Synod,
will willingly provide cooperation, informing the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece as
needed.

…On these grounds, this ancient well-pleased mother, like a vine blooming in the
courtyards of the house of the Lord, the Great Church of Christ of Constantinople,
conciliarly in the Holy Spirit recognizes and proclaims the Church of Greece as
independent, and its synod as her brother in Spirit and the same to every other Local
Orthodox Church.”

Full text (in Russian): https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5f7848c5368d1f1e76d54697/tomos-ob-

avtokefalii-elladskoi-cerkvi-5f787b0661e6d41ef5fa98f7.

In this tomos, we already see significant differences in the conditions of autocephaly from those
that could be observed in the case of the Russian Church.

1. We do not see such conciliarity under this tomos, as under the grámmata of autocephaly
of the Russian Church. Nevertheless, certain signs of conciliarity are still present. In
addition to the signature of the Patriarch, and members of the Holy Synod of the Church
of Constantinople, the tomos is signed by Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. That is, it was
an act of at least two Local Churches.
2. The primate of the Church of Greece does not receive the status of patriarch.
3. The tomos regulates the composition of the Synod of the Church of Greece.
4. The tomos prescribes the Church of Greece receive its myrrh from the Church of
Constantinople.
5. Interaction with other Local Churches in resolving issues of general importance in the
tomos is prescribed to be carried out through the Church of Constantinople.

Thus, we are already observing in the example of the Church of Greece a kind of “limited
autocephaly”, in which Athens finds itself in a deliberately dependent position on Constantinople
concerning the reception or production of myrrh (without which, as we understand, the mystical

473
life of the Church is impossible), in matters of external relations, and in matters of the
independent determination of the composition of internal management bodies.

At the same time, it is important to note that, despite these restrictions in the text of the
document, the Church of Greece is recognized as equal to the Church of Constantinople, and its
synod is recognized as a “brother in Spirit” of the Church of Constantinople and of “every other
Local Orthodox Church”. It is also very important to note that the Lord Jesus Christ is called the
Head of the entire Catholic Church. This feature of the document, which is self-evident for
Orthodox Christians, will no longer be so clearly defined in the twenty-first century.

The Serbian Orthodox Church

   

In 1879, 29 years later, Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Serbian Church, thereby
reviving the Patriarchate of Peć, which is succeeded by the Serbian Church. This is done at the
request of the authorities of the liberated Serbia.

Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople issued a tomos on the autocephaly of the Serbian
Orthodox Church.

474
 “…Over time, the division of the Church into local ones was established, independent of
one another [emphasis mine—P.D.], with internal self-government and under the
authority of their pastors, teachers and ministers of the Gospel of Christ, that is, bishops
or archbishops and patriarchs. And this division was established not only in view of the
historical importance of certain cities and borders in Christianity, but also of the political
state of the nation…in view of the fact that pious and God-protected Serbia gained
political independence, and that its pious, God-approved, gracious prince and ruler Milan
Obrenović IV, and the most eminent Archbishop of Belgrade and Metropolitan of Serbia,
lord Michael, on behalf of the righteous clergy and pious people, turned to us with letters
and, in accordance with political independence, wished also ecclesiastical independence,
our humility, together with our Holy Synod of Most Reverend Metropolitans, our beloved
in the Holy Spirit brothers and co-servants gathered…And, by the will of the Holy Spirit,
found that their request was appropriate and agreed with the holy canon and church
precedent. Therefore, we establish the Orthodox Church of the Serbian principality,
which hitherto, in the person of the Archbishop of Belgrade and Metropolitan of Serbia,
stood in canonical dependence on our holy, apostolic and patriarchal throne of
Constantinople, together with the dioceses annexed to it, or, more precisely, the entire
Orthodox Church, which is located within the political and geographical limits of the
liberated principality of Serbia, from now on shall be canonically self-governed,6
independent, and self-ruled, whose head, like all Orthodox Churches, is the
Theánthropos,7 our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ [emphasis mine—P.D.], and which
in church affairs possesses and recognizes as its primate the Archbishop of Belgrade and
Metropolitan of Serbia; and this, together with a Council, compiled, according to the
canons, of bishops from the regions of Serbia, manages the church affairs of the
principality freely, independently of anyone, as the divine and sacred rules command.
Therefore, further by the same synodic act, we recognize the Serbian Church and declare
her as our spiritual sister [emphasis mine—P.D.], and we entrust all Orthodox Churches
to recognize her as such, and commemorate her as the “Holy, independent8 Church of the
Serbian principality”. Likewise, we give her all the power and rights that belong to
independent church leadership… Recieves Holy Chrism from the great Constantinople
Mother-Church of Christ... As for the internal church government, [the primate of
this church] sits, decides and determines with his Synod, following the teachings of
the Gospel, holy tradition and the definitions of the Holy Church” [emphasis mine—
P.D.].

Full text (in Russian): https://www.sedmitza.ru/lib/text/441204/ (used here are the Russian
translation and the original Greek text, inasmuch as there are certain differences between them
on the matter of recieving Holy Chrism:
http://markmarkou.sites.sch.gr/1871_1900/1879/tomos1879.htm).

We will attempt to analyze the text of this tomos:

1. As in the case of the Church of Greece, the primate of the new autocephalous church
does not receive the status of patriarch, despite the fact that historically this status was
held by the primate of the Church of Peć, whose successor was the Serbian Church. This

475
 status will appear for the SOC only in 1920, after numerous historical events which
influenced this issue.
2. Unlike the tomos of the Church of Greece, the document does not regulate the procedure
for forming the Holy Synod. Instead, there is an abstract reference to the gospel teaching
and tradition of the Church. That is, in fact, this issue has been left to the Serbian Church
itself.
3. Just as in the Greek Church, the Serbian Church must receive Chrism from
Constantinople.
4. Also, the issue of relations with other Local Churches is not mentioned and, accordingly,
there is no mention of Constantinople's monopoly on its moderation.
5. The text contains an important mention of the independence of the Local Churches from
each other.
6. It is written in the text, as well as in the tomos of the Church of Greece, that the Head of
the Church, like all Orthodox Churches, is the God-man, our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ.
7. The Serbian Church is named the Sister Church of the Church of Constantinople.

The Romanian Church

476
    

Six years later, in 1885, the See of Constantinople recognized the autocephaly of the Romanian
Church, which had previously been self-proclaimed in 1865.

“…the Romanian Orthodox Church should remain, be considered and be recognized by

everyone as independent and autocephalous, governed by its own Holy Synod, presided
over by the Most Eminent and Most Worthy Metropolitan of Hungro-Wallachia and
Exarch of all Romania, not recognizing in their own internal government any other
ecclesiastical authority, except for the very Head of the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church, the God-man and Redeemer, Who alone is the chief, cornerstone and
eternal High Priest and Archpastor. So, recognizing through this sacred patriarchal and
synodal act, thus affirmed on the cornerstone of faith and pure teaching, which the fathers
passed on to us intact, the firmly preserved Orthodox Church of the Romanian kingdom
as autocephalous and independently governed in everything, we proclaim its holy synod
our beloved brother in Christ which enjoys all the prerogatives and rights of an
autocephalous church, so that he would carry out every act of ecclesiastical good-
structuring and order, in accordance with the constant and continuous tradition of the

477
 Catholic Orthodox Church, so that he and others will recognize him as such in the
oikumene of Orthodox Churches and that it be called by the name of the Holy Synod of
the Romanian Church…

…to communicate directly with the Ecumenical [Patriarch] and with other Holy
Patriarchs, and with all the Orthodox holy Churches of God in all important canonical
and dogmatic issues in need of general discussion, according to the sacred custom kept
by the fathers from ancient times.

Equally, it also has the right to ask for and receive from our Great Church of Christ
everything that other Autocephalous Churches have the right to ask for and receive from
her.

So, on the basis of all this, our holy and Great Church of Christ blesses from the depths of
the soul [our] autocephalous and beloved sister in Christ—the Romanian Church…”

Full text (in Russian): https://www.sedmitza.ru/lib/text/441207/

When analyzing this tomos, we see positions similar in the majority of its positions (other than
the matter of Chrism) to the previous document received by the Serbian Church:

1. The Romanian Church also did not receive patriarchal status along with autocephaly. The
Romanian Church received the status of patriarchate in 1925.
2. Unlike the tomos of the Church of Greece, the document does not regulate the procedure
for forming the Holy Synod.
3. The issue of obtaining myrrh is not mentioned in the document. Instead, the abstract
formula “ask and receive,” as with other autocephalous Churches, is used.
4. The issue of relations with other Local Churches is spelled out as the right of the
Romanian Church without indicating any monopoly of Constantinople on its moderation.
If in the case of the tomos of the Church of Greece, the monopoly of Constantinople is
fixed, and in the case of the Serbian Church a monopoly is not indicated, then in the case
of the Romanian Church, the wording excludes such a monopoly.
5. It is written in the text, as well as in the previous tomos, that the Head of the Church is
the Lord Jesus Christ.
6. The Romanian Church is named the Sister Church of the Church of Constantinople.

The Polish Church

478
     

The first tomos of autocephaly in the twentieth century was issued by Constantinople in special
circumstances. For the first time, Constantinople granted autocephaly to bishops who were
neither on its canonical territory nor part of its body of clergy. In 1923, the See of Constantinople
proclaimed the autocephaly of the Polish Orthodox Church, which had previously been
autonomous within the Russian Orthodox Church (later the leaders of the Polish Church would
repent and autocephaly would be granted to them by Moscow in 1948).

Due to this specificity of the tomos, a significant part of it is made up of very vague explanations
that the Polish territory belongs historically to the lands of the Kievan Metropolia, whose

479
annexation “to the Holy Church of Moscow did not occur according to the prescriptions of
canonical rules.” The rest of Constantinople’s tomos to the Polish Church reads:

“…our humility and the most holy metropolitans, our beloved brothers and co-ministers
in the Holy Spirit, considered it their duty to heed the request which the Holy Orthodox
Church in Poland addressed to us, and to give our blessing and approval for its
autocephalous and independent structure. As a result, determining in a conciliar manner,
by the will of the Holy Spirit, we declared that: we recognize the autocephalous structure
of the Orthodox Church in Poland and give our blessing so that from now on, she will be
governed as a spiritual sister and decide her affairs independently and autocephalously, in
accordance with the rank and unlimited rights of other holy autocephalous Orthodox
Churches, recognizing as its supreme ecclesiastical authority a Holy Synod consisting of
the Orthodox canonical bishops in Poland, having His Eminence, the Metropolitan of
Warsaw and All Poland its president…

In addition, we decree that the autocephalous Orthodox sister Church in Poland must
receive holy myrrh from our Great Church of Christ [i.e. from Constantinople—Tans.] At
the same time, we recommend that in matters of ecclesiastical order and more general
matters that exceed the boundaries of the jurisdiction of each Autocephalous Church
taken separately, His Eminence the Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland should turn
to our Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarchal See, through which communion with every
Orthodox Church is maintained “rightly dividing the word of truth”, also asking the
authoritative opinion and cooperation of the Sister Churches…

May the Lord God strengthen forever, by the mercy and merit of the First Great and
Supreme Shepherd of Christ, our God, the Autocephalous Sister Church of Poland, so
joyfully established, moving and strengthening everything in her for the glory of His
Holy Name, for the benefit of her pious flock and for the joy of all the Autocephalous
Orthodox Sister Churches.”

Full text (in Russian): https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5f7848c5368d1f1e76d54697/tomos-ob-

avtokefalii-polskoi-cerkvi-5f787e2e71c44f08290fbf92

The twentieth century brought the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Together with its collapse,
the influence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople [in the former territories of] the empire
collapsed. The territories of other Local Churches, formerly part of the Ottoman Empire,
remained outside the new state of Turkey. This means that the power of the Patriarch of
Constantinople, who was previously the ethnarch of all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman
hierarchy, was lost. A significant part of the Greek parishioners living in the territory of the
Turkish Republic were massacred by the Turks, or forced to migrate to Greece. The ecumenical
throne was losing its territory, power, influence and authority. And it was during this period that
the practice of issuing tomoi, in which the powers of the Local Churches were reduced in favor
of Constantinople, arose. As we have seen earlier, in the nineteenth century, this practice of
significant restrictions on independence was applied only in the case of the Greek Church. The
tomoi which followed [up until this moment] were not of a similar nature.

480
And now, using the example of the Polish Church, we observe the tendency of increasing the
number of restrictions.

1. The Polish Church does not receive the status of a Patriarchate.

2. The document does not regulate the procedure for forming the Holy Synod, which
favorably distinguishes this tomos from the tomos of the Greek Church.
3. The tomos spells out the monopoly of Constantinople to grant myrrh to the Polish
Church, as was observed in the tomos of the Greek Church.
4. The tomos spells out the Phanar's monopoly on the moderation of relations between the
Polish Church and other Local Churches.

But at the same time:

1. The Lord Jesus Christ is recognized as the head of the Church.

2. The Polish Church is named the Sister Church of the Church of Constantinople.

The Albanian Church

   

481
The revived practice of “limited” tomoi, after the Polish Church, is consolidated in the tomos of
autocephaly issued to the Albanian Church in 1937 (self-proclaimed in 1922-1929):

“The Holy Church of Christ, as a caring Mother … generously responds to the requests of
the Churches for granting them independence, so as not to lead into temptation, to bring
as much benefit as possible in the Lord.

And now, when the pious Orthodox Christians of the young Albanian state blessed by
God, turned to our Most Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical See, under the
shadow of which everyone had found a safe hiding place for centuries and, by the grace
of Christ, remained saved in this vineyard, they turned as to a caring Mother, with a
warm a request for blessings and a proclamation of the independence and autocephaly of
the church diocese as the only organization in the new political conditions…

…our humility … gives them our blessing for an independent autocephalous organization
of church government.

So, conciliarly and in the Holy Spirit, we define and proclaim that from now on all
Orthodox dioceses and communities existing in the God-saved Albanian state will unite
into one independent autocephalous church organization, which will be called the
Orthodox Autocephalous Albanian Church.

This Church, which is our spiritual sister, henceforth exercises its governance
independently and autocephalously, in accordance with the order and sovereign rights
inherent in all Holy Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, headed by its head is the Most
Reverend Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania.

…We emphasize at the same time that the fraternal Holy Autocephalous Orthodox
Church of Albania must receive the holy myrrh from our Great Church of Christ [i.e.
Constantinople].

We also recommend that for all questions and misunderstandings of a general

ecclesiastical nature concerning the conditions and jurisdiction of the Autocephalous
Churches, the Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania should turn to our Holiness the
Patriarchal Ecumenical See, through which all Orthodox episcopates communicate with
each other, rightly dividing the word of truth, and also asking the opinion of other
brotherly Churches.

…May the mercy of the first Great High Priest and Pastor Christ our God abide with the
newly established fraternal Orthodox Autocephalous Albanian Church, may the Lord
God strengthen it and keep it in prosperity.”

Full text (in Russian): https://religion.wikireading.ru/193117

482
This tomos is similar in all substantive positions to the tomos issued to the Polish Church. Its
only difference is the change in symbols: apart from the term "Sister Church", the text contains
twice an emphasis on the role of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as the “Mother Church.”

This page was updated on November 2, 2020 to correct an omission in the section on the
Serbian Church concerning its receiving Holy Chrism from Constantinople.—OC

(To be continued)

Part 2

Pavel Darovsky
Author of the telegram channel “Labarum. In hoc signo vinces”
Translation by Matfey Shaheen

Pravoslavie.ru

10/19/2020

On the Freedom of the Ukrainian Church

Archimandrite Markell (Pavuk)

Archimandrite Markell (Pavuk) is the confessor and head of the distance learning department of
the Kiev Theological Academy and Seminary.

In this interview, Fr. Markell discusses freedom in general and the freedom of the Church in
particular, how spiritual freedom and political freedom are related, whether a Christian can be
free when the Church of Christ is politically oppressed, and what relations are like between the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian state today.

483
 His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry. Photo: 112.ua     

—Fr. Markell, how independent is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the new political
conditions, in the post-Maidan period? How can we describe the current state of Church-
state relations?

—Externally, our Church is freer than ever. No one, from among the state officials for example,
interferes with the personnel policy of the Church or its liturgical, preaching, and economic
activities. In soviet times, and in the Synodal period until the 1917 revolution, this was all under
strict control. However, on the other hand, certain politicians, especially during election
campaigns, exert very strong pressure, primarily on the Church hierarchy, to win it over to their
side. The situation with the imposition of the so-called tomos [of autocephaly, non-canonically
granted to the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople—
OC] around the presidential election in 2019 is already well known.

Nevertheless, the majority of the clergy, despite the pressure on them from certain state bodies,
honorably withstood this trial, and most importantly—preserved their flock. If some people were
sifted out, they were not, by and large, our regular parishioners, but those who would just stop in

484
sometimes, who would come to church just for Baptisms and weddings or for holy water, or to
bless honey fruit.1

However, some media outlets and some government representatives still paint an image in the
eyes of society of the Church of Christ as an enemy against which physical methods of influence
can be employed. Such a state of affairs speaks eloquently not only of the violation of the rights
and freedoms of believers, but also creates in the country an atmosphere of selectivity, hatred,
and anger towards people with different religious beliefs. This is discrimination on religious
grounds, which has no place in a civilized state.

—If you compare the freedom of the canonical Ukrainian Church and the freedom of the
[schismatic] “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic
Church (UGCC), what’s the difference?

—These structures seem to enjoy external freedom more than we do (none of the authorities
oppress or persecute them), but they somehow remind me of the state of religions in the USSR.
That is, their clergy must conform to the general line of the political course our state is currently
following in all their words and deeds.

If, for example, it comes down from above that the “Russian world” is bad, then God forbid that
anyone would dare to praise it or not condemn it! They’ll immediately accuse you of betraying
national interests, and they’ll find dozens of people to take your place who won’t deviate from
the “general course.” But our clergy have complete freedom in their attitude towards politics, or
rather: No matter how much pressure is put on us, we don’t even want to include these issues in
the agenda of our ministry.

For us, the most important thing is to raise worthy citizens of the Heavenly Fatherland. As
Blessed Augustine says, only a worthy citizen of the Heavenly city can be a worthy citizen of an
earthly city. National symbolism, language, and culture become relevant and inspiring for
creative work only when their bearers are guided by the Ten Commandments of the Law of God,
or at least by the voice of the conscience. If God’s law is trampled under national banners, then
these things cease to have a sacred meaning. In that case, figuratively speaking, it would be
easier to hang a black pirate flag with a skull and crossbones. It would be more honest.

485
 Archimandrite Markell (Pavuk)     

—Tell us, Father, what freedom was Christ speaking about when He said: And ye shall
know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (Jn. 8:32)? And how can we relate the
“freedom” of the aforementioned confessions with this saying of the Lord?

—Truth is Christ Himself. But many are hindered from knowing the Lord by the sins and
passions of pride, avarice, lust, and anger. They make a man unfree—a slave to sin and vice.

When a man struggles against them and turns to Christ for help, then he becomes not
declaratively, but truly free. Can we really call a man free who can’t go a day without alcohol or
who is ready to gnaw someone else’s throat for money, or who can’t be faithful to his wife
because of the lust of the flesh, or who even in church builds his Church life on anger towards
the neighboring state?! It’s practically impossible to push someone chaste, sober, and generous
into any lawless deeds. He will not betray or frame anyone or get them in trouble and will not
participate in dubious political projects.   

486
—Our churches are being seized and the Church is accused of being pro-Russian. It has
gotten to the point that Parliament tried to pass a law to ban and rename the [canonical]
UOC (this doesn’t affect the Greek Catholics and adherents of the OCU). Does that mean
we are not free politically but free spiritually?

—I think the main role in this process is played not so much by high ideals of patriotism, but by
basic human envy. The OCU and UGCC are terribly irritated by the fact that, as opposed to
them, we enjoy relative external and internal freedom after the fall of the USSR. Therefore, we
are accused of all kinds of political bias, they try to seize our churches, they call us Muscovites,2
and they threaten to expel us from Ukraine. But the paradox of the spiritual life is that the more
they try to enslave us outwardly, the more inwardly free we become.

External freedom, as St. John Chrysostom pointed out in the fourth century, is not always good,
because it can contribute to excessive spiritual enervation, and such a person is easily enslaved to
the evil one, and is made unfree.

Kiev Caves Lavra today     

—You have said you pity such people because they are deprived of truth and freedom. We
treat them as wayward brothers, and but they treat us like enemies. Why?

—I feel sorry for them first of all because they are sincerely deceived. Most of my relatives and
friends live in Western Ukraine. I know that the majority of Galicians are honest, generous, and
very hardworking people, who would never tolerate weeds growing in their garden or a dirty and
disorganized house. Compared with other regions of Ukraine, Galicia doesn’t have such a large

487
percentage of broken families. The people try to make sure they’re at Liturgy every Sunday and
on every feast day. But together with these undoubtedly positive facts, politicians systematically
and deliberately try to sow the seeds of hatred and distrust there for those who want to be in
unity with the Orthodox Church, who pray for the Patriarch of Moscow. But don’t anger,
distrust, and suspicion devalue all their other virtues?! That’s why I pity them.

—His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry often repeats that a man acquires freedom in God,
in battling sin within himself personally. Can you comment on these words of the primate,
about how they can be implemented in the life of a Christian?

—We already spoke about this above. The thing is, it’s sin, not being Russian, European, or
American that makes people unfree. This is the constant message of nearly all of His Beatitude’s
homilies. Every time we confess it frees us from sin and makes us free to love not just our
family, our people, our state, but also all people regardless of nationality. In Christ there is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free (Gal. 3:28). He loves everyone and desires
that everyone—not just particular peoples—would be saved and inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

—As the head of the distance learning department of the Kiev Theological Academy and
Seminary, you have a lot of communications with the clergy, most often coming from the
hinterlands and from abroad. What do you talk about? What topics are they concerned
about? Do you touch on this theme of freedom?

—The first thing I ask those who come from Eastern Ukraine, from Donbass, is whether they’ve
stopped shooting, when all this bloodshed will stop. Interestingly, there are as many opinions as
there are people. Some are optimistic and say that peace is just around the corner, while others
are pessimistic and believe the fighting will last a long time.

Those who serve abroad say it is very difficult for their flocks to realize their sinfulness; many
can’t endure even the slightest remark in their direction. So the topic of freedom is relevant for
everyone.

—Orthodox elders of the twentieth century, such as St. Lawrence of Chernigov, have said
that the churches will open and be built in grandeur and beauty, but people will not be able
to go to them, or there will simply be no one to go. What is this about? Is it, for example,
about churches seized by OCU supporters? After all, they stand half-empty. Does this
apply to our Church?

—I think that St. Lawrence, unlike us sinners, looked at the world holistically. The
impoverishment of piety occurs both because of the schism and because of the general
impoverishment of the spiritual life. For example, many priests noticed that after the Maidan
[revolution] in 2013-2014, the number of Baptisms, weddings, and confessions decreased several
times over. To some extent, this is due to the fact that the those who would just drop in, who
would come to church only on Pascha and Nativity or to participate in the Sacraments we
mentioned or for other blessings, were sifted out. For them, the gossip of politicians and
journalists became more important than the authority of the Church. Some of them go to the

488
schismatics now for these services, but most of them don’t trust anyone at all and confidently say
they have “God in their hearts.”

Taking advantage of the disruptions in Church life, Protestants and sectarians, who have always
been energetic in their preaching, significantly stepped up their influence. Through the media
and especially the internet, they managed to instill in many a disdainful attitude towards the
clergy, and especially towards the Sacraments and services. Practically every Orthodox social
media group has some sectarian entrenched in it, who, taking advantage of the ignorance of
many Orthodox Christians of the basics of the faith, sows his ideas, which are difficult for the
majority of people to logically disagree with.

—And a couple of somewhat off-topic questions. They say that the majority of theology
students today want to stay in the cities. Is this the case, and if so, how can you explain
this? How can we relate this fact to the freedom of which Christ spoke?

—I think that in this case, their faith and freedom in Christ are overcome by their passionate
youth and the desire for a well-established, comfortable life. Additionally, there are few beautiful
young women who want to follow their husband to some remote village. But, unfortunately,
acquiring the world with its lusts and passions, such people lose the most important thing—the
special grace of God—and they become not reverent priests, whose ministries, according to St.
John Chrysostom, are envied even by the angels, but ordinary priests just serving at people’s
request, who quickly get tired of their ministry and burn out mentally, and some even give up
their holy orders.

Cross procession in Kiev, 2016     

489
—And in conclusion: Our Church in Ukraine is accused of all the mortal sins, of political
dependence on Russia—and yet it is growing in number, in the number of parishes and
monasteries. It’s enough to recall the cross processions with hundreds of thousands of
people. Are they really all “victims of Putin propaganda,” or is it something else
altogether?

—Indeed, despite some impoverishment in the spiritual life, our Church is blessed and alive, for
it was created not by politicians before an upcoming election, but by Christ Himself. The people
have long ago gotten sick of political battles that incite and whip up enmity and distrust between
Orthodox peoples. They want peace, ascetic podvig, and victory not over others, but over
themselves and their passions. During the processions, you can escape from the daily hustle and
bustle with its many problems and fully devote yourself to prayer and repentance, to the
testimony of the true faith.

Deacon Sergei Geruk

spoke with Archimandrite Markell (Pavuk)
Translated by Jesse Dominick

9/14/2020

“First Without Equals”

Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin

490
 Pope Pius
VIII in St. Peter's Cathedral on Sedia Gestatoria (1829). Frank Bernard Dixie     

The crisis in the interrelations between Local Churches, provoked by the invasion by the
Patriarchate of Constantinople of the canonical territory of the autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox
Church (which is in canonical unity with the Moscow Patriarchate), exposed a problem of global
scale for Orthodoxy—the Phanar’s assimilation of ecclesiology developed in the Middle Ages by
the Roman Curia, but with the transfer of papal supremacy, rights, and privileges from the Old
Rome to the New Rome—Istanbul.

Turning to the circumstances in which the Great Schism of 1054 took place, and to its
background, one cannot but come to the conclusion that its main cause was the claims of the

491
Bishops of Rome of lordship over the Church, and not the argument about Filioque: Eucharistic
communion between the Churches of the West and the East remained for several centuries after
the invention of this problematic formula, which received irrefutable criticism from the great
theologian Saint Photios, and almost two centuries later this out of place addition was officially
included in the Roman Creed.

And now history is repeating itself, as if in a nightmare. The watchword of the Phanar’s claims
for supremacy over Universal Orthodoxy has become the formula “first without equals”—
primus sine paribus. And so one of the authors writing on the topic of the status of Patriarch of
Constantinople, Hieromonk Nikita Pantokratorsky, asserts that the Patriarch of New Rome is the
"first without equals" to his bishops. A peculiar idea has been adapted by some of the prominent
Greek theologians.

Primus inter pares

In order to more fully and more accurately understand the meaning implied in this remarkable
expression, let’s turn to the sources—focus on the context in which the primus inter pares (first
among equals) formula, was used in the past, as opposed to the fundamental idea of this
contemporary Constantinopolitan ecclesiology.

In Ancient Rome, in the first century B.C., Gaius Julius Caesar was called the “first among
equal” [citizens], when he exercised real dictatorial powers, but within the legal framework of
the Republic. And then this formula was also applied to Augustus Caesar, when he acquired the
position of Princeps senatus, which functionally meant “first senator”, but, broadly and
figuratively, also “first citizen” [Princeps civitatis—Trans.]

And here we are; for the Patriarch of Constantinople, a similar model of relations with the
episcopate and with the heads of the Local Churches turned out to be too tightly restricting for
him, burdensome, and narrow. He is more comfortable with a radically different position in
church hierarchy—and if analogies are given from the political structures of ancient states, then
most likely, this preferred model from Constantinople’s latest point of view, [takes the form of]
Pharaonic Egypt, Persia under Darius and Xerxes, and those Hellenistic monarchies in which
Kings ruled over not citizens equal to them, but subjects.

The model of primus inter pares (first among equals) was until the era of absolutism, practiced
in medieval Europe. This is how the relationship between the King and his vassals was
characterized: Dukes, Marquises, Counts, Viscounts, who in France and England were called
"peers", that is, "equal" to the king, who reigned over them only as the first among the
Seigniors1.2 But for the Patriarch of Constantinople, this [first among equals] model of
interrelations with other Patriarchs, to a certain extent, analogous to the relations of medieval
Kings with their peers, has become too infra dignitatem [simply put: humbling—Trans.]

Servus servorum Dei

492
Medieval Europe knew only one monarch who was then without equals—the Pope. Patriarchs,
Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops of the West ceased to be equal brothers to him,
becoming but subjects of the “servant of the servants of God” (servus servorum Dei)3.

Now, as it has been explicitly stated and repeated many times, only this model pleases the
Patriarch of New Rome. The Byzantine honorary title “Ecumenical”, which was awarded to
high-ranking nobles (for example, “Ecumenical Judge”, which meant “Imperial Judge”, despite
the fact that this title was often not tied to the exercise of judicial powers, akin to [the titles of]
Russian officials “Privy Councillor” or “Collegiate secretary”, denoting a rank, not an indication
of official duties; this can be interpreted as an accurate [analogy] describing the [actual]
geographical boundaries of the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch.4

To adopt such a model of the relationship between Local Churches, a radical revision of the very
foundations of Orthodox ecclesiology would be needed. Therefore, the Orthodox Church, even
in the event of the apostasy of the prominent First Hierarchs of the Local Churches, will not
follow the apostates; [the church will] guard her teachings given by God, which authentically
expresses Holy Tradition. According to the canons, the heads of Local Churches, no matter what
place they occupy in the diptychs, are equal in powers, and a certain position in the diptychs,
including the first of them, refers to honor, not to power. Moreover, sacramentally speaking, not
only the Primates of Local Churches, but all Bishops in general, even those with a significant
difference in their administrative status, are equal.

Primus sine paribus

Papism is not compatible with Orthodoxy. The primus sine paribus formula invented by Phanar,
self-evident in its exorbitant pretensions and arrogance, is inappropriate for reasons of gospel
ethics [humility], even to describe the relationship of the Bishop with the clergy of the diocese
subordinate to him. The Bishop, of course, is not equal to priests and deacons, but there is no
need to resort to such a provocative expression, alien to the spirit of Christian brotherhood, to
characterize the canonically legitimate relationship of clergy with their ruling bishop.

The assimilation of the title primus sine paribus to the Patriarch of Constantinople already looks
directly contrived in the light of the canons. None of them assigned to the Bishop of
Constantinople the leading place in the diptychs, because in the era of the creation of codex of
canons, this place belonged to the Bishop of (Old) Rome. In the canons (the 3rd canon of the
Second Council5, and the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council6), the throne of New
Rome is not the first, but the second in the diptychs.

The 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, referred to by apologists for the claims of the
Patriarch of Constantinople to a monopoly of jurisdiction in the diaspora, refers to the territorial
borders of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The 9th and 17th rules of the same Council, as the
great canonist John Zonaras explained in his time, speak of the right of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople to receive appeals within the territorial boundaries of the Local Church of
Constantinople established by the Council of Chalcedon [Fourth Ecumenical Council], and fixed
in its 28th canon. In other words, from these three canons, not even a hint of an exceptional
status for the cathedra of New Rome among other Primates can be drawn.

493
Only as a result of the Great Schism of 1054 did [Constantinople] take first place in the
Orthodox diptychs. Were the canonical powers of the formerly primary Roman cathedra not
transferred [to Constantinople] as a direct result of the fall of Rome from Orthodoxy? Yes, they
have been. But these powers, according to the canons, consisted only of a primacy of honor, and
not power: the canons provided the Pope and the Roman Curia neither legislative, nor
administrative, nor judicial powers outside the boundaries of the Roman Patriarchate. The body
of canons contains the Epistle of the African Synod to Pope Celestine, which resolutely rejects
the right of the Bishop of Rome to receive appeals coming from clergymen of other Local
Churches, which are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Pope:

“Premising, therefore, our due regards to you, we earnestly conjure you, that for the
future you do not readily admit to a hearing persons coming hence, nor choose to receive
to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us, because you, venerable
Sir, will readily perceive that this has been prescribed even by the Nicene council.”7

Referring to the canons of the First Council of Nicaea, the African [Carthaginian] Fathers declare
a profound ecclesiological basis for not recognizing the right of the Bishops of Rome to
jurisdiction in other Local Churches:

“For [the Fathers] have ordained with great wisdom and justice, that all matters should be
terminated in the places where they arise; and did not think that the grace of the Holy
Spirit would be wanting to any Province, for the bishops [priests]8 of Christ
(Sacerdotibus) wisely to discern, and firmly to maintain the right: especially since
whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgment may appeal to the council of his
Province, or even to a General Council [i.e. of Africa] unless it be imagined that God can
inspire a single individual with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of
bishops9 (sacerdotum) assembled in council.”10

The Epistle goes on to say:

“For that your Holiness should send any [extra-jurisdictional judgement—Trans.] on your
part we can find ordained by no council of Fathers.”11

And in the conclusion of the Epistle we find a prophetic warning, which was neglected in Rome:

“Moreover whoever desires you to delegate any of your clergy to execute your orders, do
not comply, lest it seem that we are introducing the pride of secular dominion into the
Church of Christ which exhibits to all that desire to see God the light of simplicity and
the day of humility.”1213

These words are striking in their relevance to the development of events in the relationship
between the Local Orthodox Churches at the moment. The Patriarchate of Constantinople in the
past, before the ill-fated actions of Patriarch Meletius (Metaxakis), undertaken in the 20th
century, (when Phanar could not resist the temptation of marauding the fruits of the bloody
persecution of the Russian Church, subjugating part of its canonical territory), opposed Western
Papism, and did not try to imitate it [by] claiming universal (ecumenical) jurisdiction. Thus,

494
Patriarch Anthimus VI of Constantinople, together with the Synod of the Church of
Constantinople, wrote14 to Pope Leo XII in response to his message:

“The Divine Fathers, venerating the Bishop of Rome only as the bishop of the capital city
of the Empire, granted him the honorary seniority of presidency, considering him simply
as the first bishop in order, that is the first among equals…not one of the Fathers have a
hint of the idea that the Bishop of Rome is the single leader of the Catholic Church”

And now the successor of the cathedra of the Orthodox Patriarch Anthimus VI, and his
apologists, breaking with the centuries-old tradition of their Local Church, publicly declare that
there is a bishop who has no equal in the world, and this is the Patriarch of New Rome—primus
sine paribus (the first without equal). When such statements sounded from the Old Rome in the
Middle Ages, the bishop of that city at least possessed political power with which the secular
monarchs of Catholic Europe could not compete at that time—not even the Emperor of the Holy
Roman Empire of the German nation.

When the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV entered into rivalry with Pope Gregory VII, it ended
for him with the Humiliation of Canossa. The newfound candidate for unlimited power over the
Church does not even possess the political power of the Pope, who humiliated the emperor.
Invading the realm of worldly politics, the Popes acted as powerful sovereigns in the Middle
Ages. Nowadays, the Patriarch of the New Rome took part in the unfortunate development of
events in Ukraine, not at all as a sovereign, but acting as an underling, as if in service [to another
power].

Papist ecclesiology in the West did not come into the world overnight; it was a culmination, the
gradual development of false ideas, maturing under the influence of many different historical
factors. The claims of Popes to universal jurisdiction, which had already become painful in the
pontificate of Gelasius, the first of the self-proclaimed "Vicars of Christ", who assimilated to the
Roman curia power to appoint and dismiss Bishops, did not receive proper criticism from
Eastern theologians. Concessions to Phanar’s exorbitant appetites, which had previously been
made in search of compromise, for the sake of maintaining peace in the church, did not prevent,
but rather encouraged the growth of his ambitions for power. The ecclesiological doctrines
reflected in the holy canons are part of Holy Tradition, they are from the field of dogma, and in
matters of Faith there can be no compromise by the very nature of things.

Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin

Translation by Matfey Shaheen

Pravoslavie.ru

3/3/2020

495
“If the Phanar Continues to Systematically
Split Orthodoxy, Then Anything Can
Happen”
Archbishop Theodosy (Snigiryov) of Boyarka

At the beginning of our conversation with Vladyka Theodosy (Snigirev) of Boyarka, one of the
speakers of the UOC, we leaf through the files of Church periodicals in 1992 that tell about the
events of twenty-seven years ago. Upon the arrival in Kiev on June 10, 1992, of His Beatitude
Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) of Kiev and All Ukraine († 2014), who was elected primate of
the UOC at the historic Kharkov Council (in May 1992), congratulatory telegrams and letters
arrived to the Metropolis from the heads of all Local Churches, including Constantinople and
the Greek Church, which emphasized the recognition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—the
only Church that was canonical and independent in its administration on the territory of the
newly-established state of Ukraine. The texts of these documents were published in the official
UOC publications “Orthodox Church Gazette” and the journal “Orthodox Herald.” After that,
representatives of the aforementioned Churches of Constantinople and Greece participated
many times in UOC Church celebrations in Kiev, on Vladimir Hill and in the Kiev Caves Lavra
on the day of the Baptism of Rus’, and repeatedly expressed condemnation of the schism
perpetrated by the former Metropolitan Philaret, as evidenced by the published epistles, reports,
and communiqués of these Churches.

496
 Archbishop Theodosy (Signirev)     

—Vladyka, can you explain such a contradiction in the official position of the
Constantinople and Greek Churches? As you know, at its last Council, the GOC declared
the recognition of “Ukrainian autocephaly” and the right of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople to unilaterally grant it. At the same time, the text of the decision of the
GOC Council does not mention the so-called OCU at all, but only speaks of the recognition
of some “autocephaly.” What is with the casuistry?

—In this case, we are seeing a classic example of the substitution of concepts, to mislead the
faithful of the Greek world. In general, the substitution of meanings and their distortion has been
used to deceive people from time immemorial by the enemy of the human race. In the Akathists
to the Most Holy Theotokos, we sometimes find these words addressed to the Mother of God:
“Rejoice, thou who dost abolish the corrupter of meanings.” The destroyer of meanings, that is,
he who corrupts concepts and substitutes meanings, is the devil, the eternal liar. In this case, the
system of lies and substitution of concepts in the Ukrainian Church question, developed by the
Ukrainian schismatics, was foisted upon the Greek Bishops’ Council by the Phanar, and many
seem to have believed and accepted it.

The deception and corruption of meanings lies in the fact that autocephaly is not at all the key
issue in the Ukrainian “bundle.” The severity of the problem now is not who, how, and under

497
what circumstances this autocephaly can be granted. Those are secondary questions that can be
discussed and that have been discussed within the framework of inter-Orthodox contacts. The
main problem, which gave rise to the division and threatens Orthodoxy with an irreparable
schism, is the anti-canonical “legalization” of the Philaret schism, the recognition of laity as
bishops and concelebration with them, and the recognition of the quasi-Church politicized
structure, parallel to the UOC, as the Church of Ukraine. The second important question is on the
edge of heresy—the vaticanization of the Phanar and its invasion of foreign canonical territory,
which provoked persecution against the faithful of the UOC. These are the real problems, the
questions that could split the Church again, like a thousand years ago.

And they’re talking about some right to grant autocephaly at their Bishops’ Council, while the
principal issues remain in the shadows. And on this basis, they adopt a catastrophic
communiqué. It’s terrible to think of the consequences of such carelessness from the majority of
the participants in the Greek Church’s Council. The agenda with an inverted meaning was,
obviously, imposed on them from outside. And they full well could have recognized and rejected
it. But they didn’t.

—We know that not all the hierarchs of the GOC, or of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
agree with recognizing the OCU. What does this indicate—about the tendencies towards
schism within these Churches?

—It speaks to the fact that not all the hierarchs of these Churches managed to contract the
bacteria of eastern papism, which means the lies of the Ukrainian schismatics cannot so easily
penetrate their minds. The courage of a whole number of Greek metropolitans, priests, laymen,
and theologians who defend the right to Truth in spite of hierarchical pressure arouses spiritual
admiration. The truth is on their side. I am sure that precisely these hierarchs and laymen are
now, in the eyes of God, the true Church of Greece, its glory and its honor.

As for the possibility of a schism within Local Churches, let us hope that it won’t come to that.
Although if the Lord does not, in ways known to Him alone, place a limit on the attack of
Patriarch Bartholomew, and the Phanar continues to systematically split Orthodoxy, then
anything can happen.

—Vladyka, what, in your view, can counter these phenomena?

—Let’s first define the concepts. You’re asking now about a canonical demarcation between
groups of Local Orthodox Churches, and not about a schism along the line of
Orthodoxy-“Phanarodoxy?” After all, this line—Orthodoxy-“Phanarodoxy”—will run not just
between Churches, but within the Local Churches themselves; that is, between the ascetics of
faith and zealots of the canons of Orthodoxy on one hand, and ecumenists, religious liberals, and
Greek ethnophyletists on the other. And if, by God’s intervention and admonition, the Phanariots
—the new papists—do not come to understand the Truth and to repentance, then such a global
division between Orthodoxy and “Phanarodoxy” is wholly possible and not far off. But in that
case, the Orthodox Church will only be cleansed of a foreign element, of new heresies.

498
If we are speaking about a schism between individual Local Orthodox Churches within their
borders, as a consequence of the current inter-Orthodox situation, then theoretically,
unfortunately, even this is possible. And by human reasoning, everything is leading to this. But I
hope the Lord will not allow this, otherwise, the prophecies of the saints, including of new times,
would have said a lot about it. But they didn’t. On the contrary, they spoke otherwise, saying a
lot that inspires optimism. I believe the Lord will correct the situation with such circumstances
that over time, the Orthodox will only remember with a smile the miniscule but proud heresy of
eastern papism, which will have sunk into oblivion.

How can we counter the possibility of a global split in Orthodoxy? First of all, hope in God,
prayer to Him; sincere prayer, with sighing. Let this prayer even be brief, but daily and sincere.
If we pray this way for unity, then it will be hard for us to slander our opponents without looking
back. This is very important right now. We can criticize their false doctrines, errors, and
destructive actions, but we mustn’t cross over to personally insulting hierarchs and humiliating
concepts that are sacred for the Greek world, if they’re not heretical, of course. Unfortunately,
not all apologists on our side or theirs adhere to these obvious rules of polemics. Sometimes it
comes to personal insults and outright rudeness. It can’t bring peace; it’s the devil blowing this
wind, especially as offensive words and careless statements mean much more for those of
Eastern cultures than for us “northern” peoples. There will be great shame over this when it all
settles down later.

—Alongside what’s happening, in the actions of Constantinople, and now Athens, we see
the tendency of new contacts between Patriarch Bartholomew with the Throne of Rome.
He also received the leader of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics. Does this somehow overlap
with the theme of the schism in Ukraine?

—The philocatholicism of many hierarchs who are now supporting Patriarch Bartholomew in his
anti-canonical actions in Ukraine isn’t a secret for anyone, either here or in Greece. Is it evidence
of an organized and planned movement of “liberal Orthodoxy” into the embrace of the Pope? I
don’t know. Many consider it to be so. In any case, an unhealthy trend exists. Whether it is
thought out or situational—“the call of the heart”—is difficult to say, but it exists, and it’s
obvious. And if for foreign Orthodox philocatholic hierarchs, their drift towards the Unia seems
conscious and long-desired, then they will lead our schismatics from the OCU there on a short
leash, without asking their opinion.

For clarity, compare the intellectual and theological level, and the degree of authority of the key
figures from the OCU and the UGCC, for example. They’re of completely different magnitudes.
We’re not even going to take representatives of the Vatican, or the Phanar as examples—there
simply is no comparison. Add to this the fuzzy canonical consciousness in the OCU, their lack of
independence and unconditional obedience to the Phanar, their awe of the authorities of foreign
centers, and their obedience to secular powers. Can we really suppose that when it is necessary,
they will suddenly oppose all of this and stand in “defense of Orthodoxy” and sacrifice
everything for the sake of Truth? It’s doubtful. Most likely they will walk in the footsteps of their
patrons. Many believe there is a plan to do a trial run of a new Unia with this structure. Others
think it could become a bargaining chip in big religious geopolitics. We can only assume. But

499
it’s absolutely certain that it all lies in the channel being laid now by the mighty of this world to
fight against Orthodoxy—the last outpost of truth on Earth.

—The faithful are concerned about whether they can visit churches of the GOC abroad
and go to OCU churches here in Ukraine, participate in their Sacraments—Baptisms,
weddings, funerals?

—We had a detailed conversation not long ago about OCU churches and the grace of their
“sacraments,” so I’ll just say a few words now. We cannot go to these churches. The situation in
this structure has not changed at all; laymen in vestments are “celebrating the Sacraments”
there.1

There was and is no Apostolic Succession there, and that means there is no sacramental grace.

As for the Greek Church, according to the recent decision of the Holy Synod, “prayerful and
Eucharistic communication with those bishops of the Greek Church who have entered or will
enter into such communication with representatives of the Ukrainian non-canonical schismatic
communities” is stopped. Pilgrimages to dioceses governed by the aforesaid bishops are also not
blessed. The list of these hierarchs and dioceses will be complied and published—a very wise
and measured decision from the Holy Synod.

At the same time, it should be understood that stopping Eucharistic communion is a disciplinary
measure and in no way refers to a lack of grace in the Sacraments celebrated by the aforesaid
bishops and in their dioceses. I’m talking about this especially because there has recently been a
wide discussion among Orthodox about whether there is grace in the Sacraments celebrated by
the hierarchs who recognize the OCU, and whether it’s possible to “catch” schism by serving
with Patriarch Bartholomew or praying at a service where Sergei Dumenko (Epiphany) is
commemorated, or some other way…

But it doesn’t work completely that way. According to the age-old tradition and practice of the
Orthodox Church and the spirit of the canonical rules and precedents of Church history—to
deserve canonical punishment and to be subjected to it are not the same thing. As long as a cleric
is not defrocked, but only deserves it, the Sacraments he celebrates are considered valid—even if
he sinfully dares to celebrate them while being suspended (but not yet defrocked!). For this there
is canonical defrocking, which puts a final limit on the rites of such a person. Therefore,
Patriarch Bartholomew, not to mention the hierarchs and clerics who serve with him, is not
devoid of grace in the Sacraments he celebrates, even serving with the layman Sergei Dumenko
(Epiphany). Although he grievously sins thereby, and is, undoubtedly, subject to ecclesiastical
court. But that hasn’t happened yet.

Therefore, the rupture of Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a

whole and with a number of hierarchs of the Greek Church is for us a disciplinary measure, like
a quarantine protecting us, so as not to come under judgment of the canons and the danger of
defrocking. This rupture does not speak of an absence of grace in the Sacraments of the Greek
hierarchs. As long as they sin but are not condemned by a council, they are not defrocked, and
the Sacraments they celebrate, including ordinations, will be recognized as lawful in history.

500
That means, that’s how they are now for us, unlike the “sacraments” of the OCU, for example, in
which the thread of Apostolic Succession is broken. This is the canonical coordinate system that
has operated in the Orthodox Church throughout its history. Complex questions of healing
schisms and the repentant return to the Church of those who fell away from it, whether in their
clerical dignity or not, were always resolved within this system of coordinates. It is precisely in
this system of coordinates that the “Augean stables”2 which the Phanar has now heaped up,
mixing the righteous with the sinful, the lawful with the lawless, will be cleared out in time.

Deacon Sergei Geruk

spoke with Archbishop Theodosy (Snigiryov) of Boyarka
Translated by Jesse Dominick

Pravoslavie.ru

10/28/2019

Historical-Canonical Basis for the Unity of

the Russian Church
Priest Mikhail Zheltov

The following article describes in detail and scrupulously analyzes the historical events
connected with the arrangement of Church life in Kiev, Moscow, and Western Rus’ over the
span of the last millennium. Over that period of time, the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church
has been attacked a number of times from various sides, but it has nevertheless continued to
exist significantly longer than those broken periods. In Byzantine times it was namely the
Church of Constantinople that advocated for this unity against the rising political conflicts
between one or another Russian princedom. Only the Byzantium elite itself was able to tear the
metropolia of all the Russias from Constantinople, when it first tried to use Russian Orthodoxy
as a bargaining chip in its desperate attempt to get the West to come to the aid of perishing
Constantinople, and then allowed the Uniate metropolitan to usurp the title of the primate of
“All Rus’”; but the objective course of history has given a comprehensive answer to this
question, fixed in a whole series of ecclesiastical-canonical documents cited by the author,
which leave no grounds for any lawful reinterpretation whatsoever.

501
    

1. The fact of the history of the unity of the Churches of “All the Russias”.

I.1. Byzantine period

From the very beginning of its existence, the ecclesiastical organization of the various lands of
historical Rus’ are: the South (Kiev, Chernigov, Russian Peryaslavl1), Southwest (Vladimir-
Volynian, Galich, and others), West (Polotsk, Turov, Smolensk), East (Ryazan, Murom),
Northwest (Novgorod, Pskov), and Northeast (Rostov, Suzdal, and later Vladimir-on-Klyazma,2
was united and headed by the metropolitan in Kiev, who originally bore the title, τῆς Ῥωσίας,
“The Russias”, without the addition of any other named cities.3 Incidentally, in the mid-eleventh
century there was an attempt to either grant the Peryaslavl and Chernigov bishops the title of
metropolitan without any actual powers, or to actually divide the Russian Church into three
metropolias; but this attempt did not last long and had no noticeable consequences.4

The first real threat to the unity of the Russian Church was the edict of Klim (Clement)
Smolyatich in 1147. The political situation in Rus’ by the mid-twelfth century was onerous.

502
After the death of Prince Vladimir Monomakh, the Russian lands entered a period of infighting,
and by the middle of the century broke apart into about fifteen princedoms, in part being in
complicated, at times extremely hostile interrelations, which led to a series of bloody internecine
wars. In 1147, the Kievan prince Izlyaslav Mistislavich organized in Kiev the appointment of
Metropolitan Klim Smolyatich without consulting with the Constantinople patriarch.5 This step
was supported by the bishops of Chernigov, Belgorod, Yuriev,6 Peryaslavl, and Vladimir of
Volhynia, but rejected by the bishops of Smolensk, Polotsk, Rostov, and Novgorod. The
nonparticipation of the Constantinople Patriarchate in the establishment of Klim in fact meant
Kiev’s declaration of ecclesiastical independence if not de jure then de facto, which, just the
same, did not draw all of Rus’ into that independence, but for mainly only its southern dioceses.

The reaction of the Constantinople Patriarchate to the Klim’s stance was demonstratively harsh.
Arriving in Rus’ in 1156 from Constantinople, Metropolitan Constantine I7 deposed all the
clergy appointed by Klim, placed Izyaslav who had established him under an ecclesiastical curse,
and even re-consecrated the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev.8

During the period of confrontations in Rus’ caused by the appointment of Klim, one of his main
opponents, the bishop of Novgorod St. Niphont, probably received the title of archbishop from
the Constantinople Patriarchate. Some researchers have seen in this an agreement by the
Patriarchate to church independence of the northern part of the Russian Church from southern
part that had gone out from under control—which is fundamentally untrue.9

The Constantinople politics in the years around this event completely confirmed the City’s
reluctance to divide the Russian Church along lines dictated by a passing political situation.
Thus, Patriarch Luke Chrysoverges responded with a refusal to the request sent him in 1160 by
Grand Prince Andrei Bogoliubsky, the son of Yuri Dolgoruki, to grant Northeast Rus’ a separate
metropolia, and he sent his refusal along with a threat to cease divine services in the churches.10
Moreover, in Patriarch Luke’s answer an innovation in the form of the word “всея”—“all” was
added to the title for Kievan metrolitans, “of Rus’”11—which was supposed to add additional
emphasis to the indivisibility of the Russian Church.12 From that time on the title, “All the
Russias (τῆς πάσης Ῥωσίας) also begins to show up on the seals of the Russian metropolitans.13

In 1169, Metropolitan Constantine II, sent to Rus’ by Patriarch Luke Chrysoverges in 1167,
placed an end to the project of creating a separate metropolia for Northeast Rus’,
demonstratively condemning one Theodore, who St. Andrei Bogoliubsky had planned to place at
the head of this metropolia. Constantine II did not even stop with a ecclesiastical punishment of
Theodore—humiliatingly renamed “Theodorets [a funny sounding diminutive.—Trans.], but also
ordered that serious physical damage be inflicted on him14, which was something unparalleled in
Russian Church history up till then.

Thus, precisely the Constantinople Patriarchate not only made the main contribution into the
devopment of the idea of an indivisible Russian Church in the twelfth century, but also
decisively defended it against all state-political contradictions that were tearing apart the
Northeast, South, and other parts of Rus’ during that era, using to this end all different measures,
even extremely harsh ones.

503
In the light of what has be said here, it is extremely important to note that the factual transfer
from the mid thirteenth century of the Russian metropolitans’ permanent residence from Kiev to
Northeastern Rus’—first to Vladimir, and then to Moscow—which had as its main cause the
destruction of southern Rus’ by the Mongol Tatars—not only met no protest from
Constantinople, but even received a blessing from the Patriarch and the Council of Bishops (see
below). This proves that the Constantinople Patriarchate continued to view the metropolitan τῆς
[πάσης] Ῥωσίας as the head of the undivided Church of all the Russian lands, and not as the
metropolitan of specifically Kiev.

Thus, Metropolitan Kirill III,15 who acted in this capacity no later than from 1243, but who was
confirmed only in 1246–1247 by the Constantinople Patriarch who was living in Nicea due to the
occupation of Constantinople by the Crusaders, moved in 1240 to the “Suzdal lands”.16 Only
closer to the end of his life did Metropolitan Kirill spend any noticeable amount of time in Kiev
itself (1276–1280), but then he again departed to the Vladimir-Suzdal lands, where in 1281 he
died in the town of Peryaslavl-Zalesky. Metropolitan Kirill’s remains where taken first to
Vladimir and then to Kiev, where they were buried.

St. Maxim, Metropolitan Kirill’s successor, arrived in Rus’ from Byzantium in 1283 and ruled
the Church for a long time, mainly from Kiev; however in 1299–1300 he officially transferred
his residence along with its entire apparatus to Vladimir,17 where he died and was buried in 1305.

During the time of his visitation in the southwestern lands of Rus’ in around 1301, St. Maxim,
among other things, acquainted himself with abbot Peter of Ratsk Monastery.18 Over the course
of about two years after this portentous meeting between Prince Yuri Danilovich of Galicia-
Volhynis, Emperor Andronicus II Paleologus, and the holy Patriarch Athanasius I, as it would
later be seen, would obtain for Prince Yuri approval to create an independent Galicia metropolia
within the borders of his domain.19 The acting bishop of Galich was raised to the rank of
metropolitan.20 In 1307 he died, and Yuri Lvovich decided to place at the head of the Galicia
Metropolia Abbot Peter of Ratsk Monastery, but against his wishes Peter, a native of
Southwestern Rus’, was appointed in Constantinople not to Galich but to Kiev as the head of the
unified metropolia of All Rus’ and the successor to St. Maxim. Thus, the short-lived
independence of the Galicia Metropolia was annulled by the same emperor and patriarch who
had at first agreed to grant it and who had now apparently recognized the error of their previous
decision.21 Nevertheless this example of Constantinople’s departure from its own policy of
preserving the indivisibility of the Russian Metropolia, which was small in geographic scale and
duration, would later play the role of a historical precedent.

After his appointment in Constantinople and arrival in Rus’ in 1308, St. Peter remained for two
years in Kiev. But already in 1309 he followed the example of his predecessors and moved his
permanent residence to Vladimir. In 1325, St. Peter was transferred to Moscow,22 where he died
on December 20, 1326.23 During the time of his rule over the one Russian Church, the Lithuanian
(Λίτβων/Λιτβάδων) metropolia of the Constantinople Patriarchate (somewhere between 1315
and 1317) appeared, which at first was probably created as an ecclesiastical organization for
Lithuanians converting to Orthodoxy; soon after 1329 it ceased to exist.24

504
The next metropolitan τῆς Ῥωσίας, the Greek St. Theognostos, arrived in Rus’ in 1328 and after
a brief time in Kiev and Vladimir, settled in Moscow. Thus, the Constantinople Patriarchate, in
the person of its primate himself, consciously sanctioned the relocation of the central governance
of the unified Russian metropolias to Moscow, while keeping its title, “of Kiev”.

In the era of Holy Hierarch Theognostos there was a renewed attempt by the Galicians to have
their own metropolia that would be independent of the rest of Rus’. In around 1331, Patriarch
Isaiah of Constantinople granted Bishop Theodore of Galich, who had been consecrated by St.
Theognostos in 1328,25 the title of metropolitan26—this follows from the commemoration of the
“Metropolitan of Galicia” among the participants of the Council in 1331.27 However, soon
Patriarch Isaiah repealed his decision.28 This can be seen from the fact that the next patriarch,
John XIV Kalekas, between 1342 and 1346 again raised the rank of the same Galich hierarch to
metropolitan and published a conciliar grammota determining the submission to him of all the
dioceses that had been in submission to him thirty years earlier.29 Patriarch John Kalekas, who
went down in history as the persecutor of St. Gregory of Palamas, did this deed at the request of
the enthroned prince of Volhynia Liubart-Dimitry, son of the Lithuanian prince Hedimin,
without consulting Emperor John V Palaeologos due to the latter’s not yet having come of age.
But in 1346, John VI Cantecuzen came to power having been proclaimed the co-ruler of John V,
who was an admirer and supporter of St. Gregory Palamas and his teachings. In 1347, Patriarch
John Kaleka was deposed, and his acts accordingly revoked. In part, in August 1347, an imperial
chrysobull (golden bulla) was issued that revoked the creation of a separate metropolia for the
“country of Little Russia, called Volhynia”, after which in September of the same year followed
an act of the bishops’ council headed by Patriarch Isidore I. The chrysobull and Coucil Act was
accompanied by several gramotas (official letters) of the Emperor and Patriarch to the princes
and metropolitans (for more detail see below). According to these documents, absolutely all
dioceses of the different Russian lands, independent of the state they belonged to, were in
submission to the Metropolitan of All Rus’, Theognostos.

The next attempt to take a part of the Russian Church out from under the authority of the lawful
metropolitan, closely connected with the intrigues of various secular rulers of the time, occurred
in 1352, when a certain Theodorit was consecrated by the Patriarch of Tarnovo (Bulgaria) with
the title of Metropolitan of Rus’, and soon took up residence in Kiev. This act was categorically
condemned by the Church of Constantinople.30 Just the same, Theodorit continued making
attempts for the next few years to create an independent metropolia with its center in Kiev,
ignoring the fact of his deposition by the patriarch of Constantinople. By that time, St.
Theognostos had reposed in 1353 and was interred in the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow
Kremlin next to St. Peter, and Bishop Alexy of Vladimir, who had been elevated to his cathedra
by St. Theognostos not long before the latter’s death, set off for Constantinople.

St. Alexy was born in Moscow to a boyar family from Chernigov that had left their native land
due to its destruction by the Tatars, and was chosen by St. Theognostos as his successor—to
which the letters written to Constantinople by St. Theognostos requesting this testify (this choice
was completely supported by the grand princes, the bishopric, boyars, and the people), as well as
the very fact that St. Alexy was granted the title “of Vladimir”, which from the time of St.
Maxim was given only to the metropolitans of All Rus’.31 In 1354, Patriarch of Constantinople
St. Philotheos, together with his entire council, having reviewed the request of St. Theognostos,

505
the grand princes, and everyone else, approved it by confirming St. Alexy in the rank of
Metropolitan—Κυέβου καὶ πάσης τῆς Ῥωσίας, about which on June 30, 1354 a Council act was
written.32 This act was supplemented by the patriarchal letters to bishop Moses of Novgorod
from July 2 and July 7, which contains a ban on accepting Theodorit as metropolitan (or even as
a clergymen at all) and an exhortation to obey the lawful metropolitan Alexy, to turn to him for
judgments instead of taking them directly to the patriarch.33 On those same days a conciliar
gramota of the Constantinople Patriarchate and the bishops with him was composed, according
to which the main residence of the Metropolitan—Κυέβου καὶ πάσης τῆς Ῥωσίας—was
transferred to Vladimir, “irrevocably and unto eternal ages inalienably” (ἀναφαιρέτως καὶ
ἀναποσπάστως εἰς αἰῶνα τὸν ἄπαντα).34 In fact, there was talk of moving the cathedra to
Moscow, because by that time the metropolitans of Rus’ had been living in Moscow for about
thirty years already; Vladimir is mentioned in the gramota only because it was still the official
center of the Grand Princedom.

This was the end to the story of Theodorit’s self-proclaimed, “Kiev autocephaly”, and the
transfer of the center of the Metropolia πάσης τῆς Ῥωσίας to Northeastern Rus’ was ratified by
the council. However, already in the same year the unity of the metropolia was dealt a new blow
due to the renewal of the Lithuanian metropolia at the request of the Lithuanian Grand Prince
Algirdas. The decision of the Constantinople Patriarchate to renew this metropolia and
consecrate a Metropolitan of Lithuania was potentially conflict-making, inasmuch as under the
conditions of a changing political reality—namely the considerable expansion of the territory of
the Lithuanian Grand Princedom—the new metropolitan could try to extend his jurisdiction to
dioceses that never had any relationship to the Lithuanian metropolia and historically belonged
to the metropolia of All Rus’. In these conditions, however, the ecclesiastical authorities of
Constantinople did not take any measures to delineate the powers of the two metropolias and did
not reassign any diocese of the Russian metropolia to the Lithuanian one (unlike what was earlier
done in the case of the Galician metropolia). As a result, the metropolitan consecrated by St.
Philotheos, Roman, almost immediately began to claim the rule over not only over the dioceses
of Lithuania, but of the entire Russian Church—which of course led to a whole series of
conflicts. It is not entirely clear how to explain this decision by Constantinople’s to appoint
Roman—only by the inconsistency of either the constrained material circumstances in the
Patriarchate (at which the Russian chroniclers hint directly), or by, more probably, its inadequate
reaction to the change in political reality that was happening before everyone’s very eyes.
Because of the territorial expansion of the Lithuanian Grand Princedom, several formerly
Western Russian princedoms had become part of its territory, and practically the entire territory
of the Russian South were sure to enter as well—including Kiev, as well as many central Russian
princedoms. Therefore it is no surprise that the restoration of a metropolia, once created for the
newly enlightened Lithuanians (see above) turned out to be impossible without doing damage to
the Russian metropolia.

Be that as it may, the desire itself of Metropolitan Roman to make claims on the entire territory
of Rus’ is testimony that the perception of the metopolia πάσης τῆς Ῥωσίας as unified and
indivisible was still in force. With the death of Roman in 1362 the conflict began to calm down,
and even later St. Philotheos himself reconsidered his decision to appoint Roman, to which
testifies the patriarchal resolution abolishing the Lithuanian Metropolia, and the missive of St.
Philotheos to St. Alexy and princes of various Russian regions from 1370 about the need to

506
accept only the metropolitan Κυέβου καὶ πάσης τῆς Ῥωσίας—that is, St. Alexy—as the head of
the Russian Church.35

The next year, the demands of the Polish king Kasimir III to grant Galich and other territories
that were part of Poland at the time their own metropolitan were reviewed in Constantinople.
Kasimir cited the precedent of the existence of a Galicia metropolia created by St. Athanasios I
(although St. Athanasios himself had abolished it: see above), and argued his request by the fact
that St. Alexy does not give the Orthodox dioceses in his (Kasimir’s) realm the necessary
pastoral attention (although in reality it was the Polish rulers themselves who created obstacles
for the appropriate pastoral activity). Furthermore, Kasimir’s request contained a direct threat to
convert his Orthodox population to Roman Catholicism in the event that he is not given his own
metropolitan.36

The Patriarch gave in to the threat and satisfied the demands of the Polish king,37 now separating
the Galician, Kholm, Turov, Peremyshl, and Vladimir-Volhynia dioceses from the Russian
Church for the third time, and proclaiming one of the bishops of these dioceses, Anthony,
Metropolitan of Galicia. This was brought to pass in May, 1371 in the form of a council act,38
with a corresponding missive sent to St. Alexy39 (of Moscow).

The final years of St. Alexy’s rule of the Russian Church were darkened by complex intrigues
against him, an active part in which played a highly educated Bulgarian named Cyprian,
consecrated in December 1375 in Constantinople to the rank of Metropolitan of Kiev and
Lithuania (the title “of Kiev” at the same time being applied to holy hierarch Alexy,
Metropolitan of All Rus’), and sent in 1376 to Rus’ with the right to review the accusations
against St. Alexy that had been put forth by his enemies, and to become the head of the entire
Russian Church should it be necessary. The proposed trial in fact never took place, and
Metropolitan Cyprian remained in Kiev until St. Alexy’s death in February, 1378. The following
decades, in the words of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), “could be called the most troubled
times in the history of our metropolia.”40 The end of this time of troubles could be considered to
be the unification under St. Cyprian of the Russian dioceses—at first without counting those
included in the Galician metropolia,41 and later including them.42 This unification was signified
by the arrival of St. Cyprian in 1390 in Kiev and then in Moscow, from whence he continued to
rule the Russian Church right up till his death in 1406.

St. Cyprian’s successor, the Greek St. Photius, was consecrated in Constantinople in 1408 with
the right to rule the whole Russian Church, with the exclusion of the Galicia metropolia (in
which by that time only two of the five dioceses remained). In 1410 St. Photius reached
Moscow, viewing it as his main place of residence. This displeased the grand prince of Lithuania
Vitovt, who even before St. Photius’s consecration tried to gain a separate Metropolia for
Lithuania. In 1414, Vitovt sent a complaint to Constantinople against St. Photius and demanded
that St. Cyprian’s nephew, Gregory Tsamblak, be appointed metropolitan of Lithuania. When he
received a refusal, Vitovt organized a council of bishops located on the territories subject to him,
and in 1416 they consecrated Gregory as metropolitan. The Constantinople Patriarchate reacted
sternly to this self-proclaimed autocephaly, deposing and anathematizing Gregory, to which the
letter of Patriarch Joseph II to St. Photius43 and the letters sent simultaneously to Emperor
Manuil II Palaeologos, St. Photius, and Grand Prince Vasily I Dimitrievich44 testify. After

507
Gregory’s death in the winter of 1419–1420, St. Photius managed to make peace with Vitovt.
The conclusion of it was the complete unification of the entire Russian Church, including
Galicia,45 under St. Photius. To his death in 1431, the unity of the metropolia of All the Russias
was not broken by anything else.

Constantinople by that time, unlike the gradually strengthening Moscow, was on the threshold of
catastrophe. Already by the end of the 14th century the Ottomans had conquered almost the
entire territory of former Byzantium, and by 1430, other than Constantinople itself, only a part of
the Peloponnesus and a few land on the shores of the Black Sea remained in the hands of the
Greeks. In 1453 Constantinople fell, at which ended the Byzantine era. This was preceded by
almost three decades of attempts to stave off the inevitable, in the course of which the Byzantine
elite assented to concluding a union with the Roman Catholic Church, leading fundamental
upheavals, including in the metropolia of All the Russias, which we will discuss below.

The Byzantine period: conclusions.

During the course of the whole Byzantine era the official position of the Constantinople
Patriarchate is inevitably summed up as: The unity of ecclesiastical organization with the
metropolitan “of Rus’” at the head (and from the mid-twelfth century, “of All Rus’”) is a definite
good and should not be stricken down by the changing political circumstances. This approach
was repeatedly affirmed at the highest level—by patriarchs, councils, and emperors. Moreover,
the Constantinople Church did not doubt that the primate of the Russian Metropolia was not
attached exclusively to Kiev, but is the primate of all the Russian lands, which is why in the
twelfth century Constantinople included the words “of All” in the metropolitan’s title, and
confirmed at the council the decision to move the permanent residence of the metropolitan, as a
matter of pastoral prudence, to Northeast Rus’ “irreversibly and for eternal ages inalienably.”

Each attempt by Kiev of self-willed separation from other Russian lands and from
Constantinople (Klim Smolyatich, Theodorit, and Gregory Tsamblak46) inevitably recieved an
extremely tough answer from Constantinople: Those who dared to do so were defrocked and
anathematized.

The situation with the Lithuanian metropolia was a little more complicated. It was first created
not for Rus’, but for the rulers at the time over the Lithuanian state; and its metropolitans
themselves perceived it as an alternative Russian metropolia, inasmuch as the expanding Grand
Duchy of Lithuania was encompassing formerly Russian lands. Several times the Constantinople
Patriarchate satisfied the request of the Lithuanian (not Muscovite) princes and appointed their
candidates as metropolitan. In fact, for Constantinople the appointment of candidates at the wish
of the Lithuanian (but not the Muscovite) princes did not at all mean that they agreed to the
breaking of the unity of the Russian Church. To the contrary, these metropolitans—Roman, St.
Cyprian, and possibly Gerasimos (see below) tried each time to extend their authority also to the
northeastern princedoms, which speaks for a continued understanding of the Rus’ metropolia as
one, undivided ecclesiastical organism. Thus, in the case of the of the Lithuanian metropolia,
Constantinople was trying to maneuver between the centers of two very large state formations on
the former territory of pre-Mongolian Rus’, but in no way wished to deny the very idea of the
unity of the Russian Church.

508
Only in relation to the Galicia metropolia did Constantinople agree to a true separation of one
part of the diocese from the one Church of All Rus’—even three times (one of these times can be
explained by the bare-faced blackmail coming from the Polish authorities). Nevertheless, in each
of these cases the majority of the dioceses of the Galicia metropolia were able to separate
themselves from the rest of the Russian Church only for a short period of time, and by the end of
the Byzantine era, this entire metropolia de facto returned wholly to the united metropolia of All
Rus’.

I.2. Events of the 1430s–1460s

Kiev Metropolitan Isidore’s escape from Moscow.

Miniature from the chronicle frontispiece.
The idea of concluding a union with Rome for the sake of receiving support in the West was
nothing new for the political elite of late Byzantium. The first such attempt was made by
Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologos, on the behalf of whom in 1274 the Byzantine delegation
signed the Union with the Catholic Church at the Second Council of Lyons, which guaranteed
Michael the recognition of his imperial title in the West and allowed him to put off the attack on
Constantinople by the navy of Karl of Anjou (which in fact never took place).47 This union
essentially existed only on paper and was formally revoked by Michael’s son, Andronicus II. The
next attempt to use the problem of the division of Churches in order to try and save
Constantinople was made by the great-grandson of Andronicus II, Emperor John V Palaeologos,
who in August 1369 arrived in Rome, and in October of the same year, first read the Latin creed
before witnesses, then later publicly bowed down three times to the ground before the pope and
kissed his shoe, then his knee, and then his neck, after which he took part in the papal mass.48
Incidentally, the Orthodox clergy was in no way present during that process.49

509
Many times after occupying the throne in 1391did the son of John V, Manuil II, seek support in
the West. In 1422, three years before his death, he sent an ambassador to Rome with an offer to
enter into discussions on a new union. His son, John VIII, who ruled from 1425 to 1448, sent two
more ambassadors in 1426 and 1430, but it was only with the new pope Eugene IV in 1431 that
an agreement came from Rome to begin the negotiations.

The circumstances came together in such a way that for the West by that time, besides the
conclusion of an all-encompassing union with the Christian East as it were, a local union with
the Orthodox inhabitants of the Polish kingdom and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania became the
subject of great interest. Negotiations for this had already begun in 1396 with the participation of
a series of Catholic rulers and hierarchs, provoked in part by the complicated political situation
in the relations between the two above-mentioned states and the Teutonic Order.50 One of the
episodes of this process was the participation in the Catholic Church’s Council of Constance
(1414–1418) by the illegitimate Kiev Metropolitan Gregory Tsamblak, who had been deposed by
Constaninople—but then, by all appearances, recognized retroactively—who had been sent there
undoubtedly by Grand Prince Vitovt, but who was now acting at the council on behalf of the
emperor and patriarch.51 As a result, the role of the metropolitan of All the Russias in concluding
a future union became one of the key roles not only by force of the size of this metropolia, which
now exceeded that of all other metropolias of the Constantinople Patriarchate, but also by force
of the intra-Catholic motivations.

It is not known whether they were conscious of this in Moscow—a city where the residence of
the metropolitans of All Russia had already been located for centuries. After the death of St.
Photius, the Russian Church was de facto headed by Bishop Jonah of Ryazan and Murom,
chosen by the grand prince and the council of bishops and given the title, “named His Holiness
the Metropolitan of Russia”. The events of the internecine struggles going on in Moscow did not
allow St. Jonah to leave for Constantinople in time for the official appointment. These struggles
began after the death in 1430 of Vitovt, who was the young Prince Vasily II’s grandfather on his
mother’s side, and were exacerbated after the death of St. Photius.52 As a result, in 1433 the
former grand prince of Lithuania Svidrigailo, dethroned in 1432 but stubbornly fighting for
power, managed to get Constantinople’s consent to appoint his own candidate as metropolitan of
All Rus’—Bishop Gerasimos of Smolensk. Bishop Gerasimos was born in Moscow, established
himself in Volhynia, and participated in the appointment of Gregory Tsamblak. Having obtained
Constantinople’s recognition of his candidate for the metropolia of All Rus’, Svidrigailo
immediately tried to draw Metopolitan Gerasimos into negotiations on the Unia,53 about which
Moscow, perhaps, did not even have a clue. Metopolitan Gerasimos never did visit Moscow; just
after his appointment he was unable to get there due to the ongoing feuds between princes, and
already by 1435 he had been burned alive by Svidrigailo who suspected him of participating in a
political struggle on the side of the active grand prince of Lithuania Sigismund. Having received
word of Gerasimos’s death, Bishop Jonah set off for Constantinople to be raised to the rank of
metropolitan. But when he arrived at the city he learned that Patriarch Joseph had already sent
his own candidate to Rus’—the educated Greek, Isidore. St. Jonah was forced to return to Rus’
without the rank of metropolitan, but with the patriarch’s promise that he would receive it should
anything happen to Isidore.

510
Isidore was an even less accidental figure than Gerasimos in the context of the Byzantine elite’s
Unia plans. In 1434 he took part in the Council of Basel of the Catholic Church, where as an
official representative of the Byzantine emperor he was presented to the chairman of the council,
Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini, and conducted negotiations concerning the conditions of the
Byzantine delegation in the upcoming unification council.54 The emperor managed to wrest the
right for Isidore to represent the patriarch of Antioch at the upcoming council. Having appointed
Isidore to the cathedra of All Rus’, Constantinople strengthened its negotiating position, and
guaranteed—or so it mistakenly seemed—that the Russian lands be drawn into the Unia, and that
the Polish-Lithuanian politics in that region be taken under its own control.

Isidore spent a brief time in Kiev and then arrived in Moscow in May, 1437. Moscow received
the unwanted metropolitan nevertheless “with honor”, but by August of the same year he set off
for Ferrara to participate in the council for unification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
After completing the Unia on December 18, 1439, Isidore was elevated by Pope Eugene IV of
Rome to the rank of a cardinal of the Roman Church with the title of Santi-Marcellino-e-Pietro
and given the duty of legate for the province of Lithuania, Livonia,55 and All Rus’. In this new
capacity he returned to Moscow in 1441 along with his entire retinue.56 There he served a Liturgy
commemorating the pope, and made public the document of the conclusion of the Unia. Grand
Prince Vasily II, shocked by Isidore’s transformation, refused to receive his blessing. Three days
later Cardinal Isidore was arrested and imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery [located in the
Kremlin], then condemned by the council of Russian bishops. He then fled Moscow.57

Soon after this, Grand Prince Vasily II sent a letter to the emperor with the request to be granted
the possibility to chose and appoint a Russian metropolitan in Moscow. This letter was sent but
did not reach Constantinople; it was recalled by the grand prince since while on their way the
ambassadors received the information that not only Isidore had fallen into the Unia but also the
emperor and the patriarch58 (there was no reliable information about this in Moscow at the
moment the letter was sent), which rendered the request entirely senseless. The simultaneous fall
into the Unia of Emperor John III Palaeologos, Patriarch Mitrophan II,59 and Metropolitan
Isidore of All Rus’ created an unprecedented ecclesiastical-legal vacuum in the Russian Church.

In 1449 it became known in Moscow that a new emperor had been enthroned in Constantinople,
Constantine XI Palaeologos, who was the blood brother of John VIII Palaeologos. Unlike John
VIII, who was a supporter of the Unia, Constantine XI did not take such an unambiguous
position. He did not insist on carrying out the decisions accepted at the Ferraro-Florentine
Council and in general tried to put out the fire of indignation that the Unia had evoked in the
general masses of the population. Having heard of it, the Moscow grand prince Vasily II ordered
a new letter written, this time addressed to Constantine XI, with the request to recognize the
appointment of Metropolitan Jonah as an accomplished fact and with an inquiry as to whether a
legitimate Orthodox patriarch had appeared in Constantinople. It is not known whether or not
this letter was sent.60 Of much greater significance were the negotiations begun in that same year
of 1449 concerning the recognition of St. Jonah as Metropolitan of All Rus’ not only in Moscow,
but also in Lithuania. By 1451 these negotiations were crowned with success, and the Polish-
Lithuanian King Kasimir IV gave St. Jonah a gramota for the rule of all the Lithuanian
dioceses.61 In this way, the unity of the Russian Church, protected by state guarantees from
several countries, continued unbroken.

511
In 1453 Constantinople fell to the army of Sultan Mehmet II; Emperor Constantine XI perished;
the Uniate patriarch Gregory III had been basically kicked out of the city back in 1450. In
autumn of 1453, Sultan Mehmet II confirmed the appointment of Gennadius Scholarius, who had
become one of the opponents of the Unia after the Ferraro-Florentine Council. In 1454, a
representative of Patriarch Gennadius named Demetrios arrived in Rus’. He visited Pskov and
Novgorod among other cities, and for all appearances handed over to Moscow a certain
patriarchal epistle in answer to which St. Jonah sent to the patriarch his own letter. He also sent
to the Russian dioceses a circular letter allowing Demetrios to carry out a collection of money at
the request of Patriarch Gennadius.62 In this way, the appointment of St. Jonah was recognized
by Constantinople, at least de facto, and ecclesiastical ties were renewed.

But soon the former metropolitan of All Rus’ began meddling, and the cardinal and papal legate
Isidore, who had convinced the Roman pope Callistus III to try and tear the Western part of the
Russian Church way from it. No later than 1458, the pope made the decision to “give” the entire
Orthodox diocese within the borders of Polish-Lithuanian King Kasimir IV’s realm to the rule of
the Uniate metropolitan ordained in Rome, keeping Isidore’s formal title as papal legate for all
the other dioceses of the Russian Church. As a candidate for Uniate metropolitan “of Kiev,
Lithuania, and all Rus’, Isidore offered his close assistant, Gregory the Bulgarian, who had back
in 1439 visited Moscow as an archdeacon for Isidore, and now had the rank of abbot. Now with
the new pope, Pius II, the future Uniate metropolitan Gregory was ordained on October 15, 1458
by the Latin titular patriarch of Constantinople Gregory III (the very same one who had been
exiled from the city in 1450), but before his departure to Lithuania Pope Pius II decided to
extend the claims of the Roman Church also to Muscovite Rus’. At the instructions of the pope,
Isidore formally declined the parts of the metropolia “preserved” for him in favor of Gregory the
Bulgarian, and in January 1459, Gregory set off to Kasimir IV accompanied by a representative
of the pope, who carried the papal missive to the king. It contained a curse against St. Jonah and
demanded that the king refuse to recognize the authority of St. Jonah over the Orthodox dioceses
and territories of Lithuania and Poland in favor of Gregory, and then obtain the same from the
Russian government—on the very territory of the Muscovite Grand Duchy.63

The king obediently carried out the demands of Pope Pius II. Despite his own promise made in
1451, he forced the Orthodox bishops of Lithuania and Poland64 into submitting to the Catholic
hierarch sent from Rome, Gregory “of All Rus’,”65and sent a letter also to Vasily II in which he
suggested removing Jonah due to his advanced age and accepting Gregory in Moscow as
metropolitan.66 In Moscow, the fact of this extremely crude meddling by the Roman Catholic
Church in the affairs of the Russian Church were, of course, received with extreme indignation.67
In 1459, the council of bishops of Northeastern Rus’ passed the resolution of loyalty to St. Jonah
and of categorically refusing to recognize the “apostate from the Orthodox Christian faith, the
disciple of Isidore, Gregory… a fighter against God’s Church, who came from Rome…
excommunicated from the holy catholic (universal) Church, who calls himself the Metropolitan
of Kiev.”68

Against the expectations of the creators of the Unia, the Orthodox population of Lithuania
reacted to this forced submission to the papal legate very painfully, which in the end forced
Gregory the Bulgarian to seek recognition in Constantinople. In 1465 he sent his own
ambassador to Patriarch Simeon of Constantinople, but the patriarch did not receive him.

512
However the next patriarch, St. Dionysios I, in 1467 agreed to receive Gregory the Bulgarian
into ecclesiastical communion, recognized his status as metropolitan of All Rus’, and on
February 14 of the same year sent his gramota to Moscow.69 In this gramota the patriarch
confirmed that the Constantinople Patriarchate supposedly did not recognized St. Jonah as the
lawful primate of the Church of all Rus’ (without any explanation of the de facto recognition of
St. Jonah by Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius) and he does not recognize his successors, and he
demanded that they give over the rule of the Church of All Rus’ specifically to Gregory.70

On the one hand, Patriarch Dionysios’s action had a positive side: An entire Church organization
in the person of its first hierarch and the bishops subject to him left Latinism and converted to
Orthodoxy.71 But on the other hand, this act retroactively legitimized the papal meddling in the
affairs of the Russian Church. The demand of submission to the Roman stooge, the “disciple of
Isidore” Gregory, was declared unacceptable in Moscow.72 So Patriarch Dionysios’s letter not
only did not help to restore the control of the Constantinople Patriarchate over the historical
Russian metropolia, but to the contrary, the Patriarchate, with its own hands pushed it away from
for a long time.73 Thus on the territory of the metropolia of All Rus’ two independent hierarchies
formed—one of them, with the metropolitan of Vladimir, Moscow and All the Russias at the
head, had been raised to the metropolia πάσης τῆς Ῥωσίας as part of the Constantinople Church
of the Byzantine era; the other, with the Metropolitan of Kiev, Galica, and (!) All the Russias at
it head, originally as a Uniate papal project, but which was then accepted by Constantinople into
ecclesiastical communion.

At all this it is important to note that the gramota from Patriarch Dionysios that was rejected by
the Russian government contained the very same Byzantine idea of preserving the unity of the
Russian church regardless of passing political situations: “That you would have one Church and
one metropolitan, that you would also cleave to him in unity, that there would be one Church,
and in it one shepherd… It is also pleasing only that he be a metropolitan true and right for the
whole Russian land, true to the old customs and rules of Russia. It is not fitting that the old
customs and rules be broken.” From the text of the gramota from St. Dionysios it is clear that the
Constantinople Church did not presuppose that with the recognition of Gregory the Bulgarian
into ecclesiastical communion the former Russian metropolia would be divided into the Kiev and
Moscow parts—to the contrary, it continued to insist on preserving the “old customs and rules”
regarding the unity and indivisibility of the metropolia of All the Russias. The submission of the
Russian Church to Gregory the Bulgarian in the gramota is argued by the supposed illegitimacy
of metropolitans in Moscow: “these our Great catholic and Holy Church does not recognize, and
does not honor, and does not call them metropolitans”, but from this inevitably come the
conclusion that with a recognition of the status of the Moscow metropolitan (or patriarch), it is
he who should have been accepted by Constantinople as “one… metropolitan, truly right for the
whole Russian land.”

Therefore, in the following sixteenth century the undisputed recognition of the legitimacy of the
metropolitans of Moscow and All Rus’ on the part of the Constantinople Patriarchate implicitly
also presupposes the recognition of their authority over the Church of all the Russian lands, and
not only over the dioceses located on territories politically controlled by the Russian government.

Events of the 1430s–1460s: conclusions.

513
As a result of the simultaneous apostasy into the Unia by the Byzantine emperor, the
Constantinople patriarch, and the Metropolitan Isidore of All Rus’, who became a Catholic
cardinal, an unprecedented ecclesiastical-canonical vacuum formed in the Russian Church. After
long years of waiting, St. Jonah was placed at the head of the united Russian Church, even before
the arrival in Rus’ of Isidore, with the title of “nominated metropolitan” and who had received a
promise from Patriarch Joseph II—that last primate of the Constantinople Church before it fell
into the Unia—that precisely Jonah would head the Russian Church should anything happen to
Isidore. St. Jonah’s authority extended over the whole Russian Church, including its southern
and southwest regions, then subject to the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian king—a rule that was
confirmed among other things by an imperial gramota.

However, when at the advice of Cardinal Isidore the papal throne decided to announce its claims
to the entire Russian Church and the Uniate metropolitan Gregory was sent to Poland, the latter,
with the support of the government, managed to subject a number of Orthodox bishops to his
authority. The thus newly appeared Uniate hierarchy “of All Rus’” later went out of communion
with Rome but had been just the same rejected by the Constantinople Church in the person of
Patriarch Simeon; later, it was accepted into communion by Patriarch Dionysios I.

The acceptance of this hierarchy as part of the Constantinople Patriarchate did not presuppose
the division of the metropolia of All the Russias into parts; to the contrary, by receiving Gregory,
the patriarch demanded from all dioceses without exclusion that they submit themselves to him
and not to the Moscow metopolitans, who were now pronounced illegitimate. It follows that in
declaring the Moscow metropolitans illegitimate, Constantinople should have presupposed also
the restoration of the unity of the Russian Church under rule of Moscow. The first—recognition
—took place gradually during the course of the sixteenth century and (see below) was finally
formulated in documents from 1589–1593 on the establishment in Rus’ of patriarchy. The
consequent attainment of the second—restoration of the unity of the Russian Church—also took
about another hundred years.

1.3. The restoration of the unity of the Russian Church during the course of the seventeenth
century.

As a result of the apostasy at the end of the sixteenth century of the metropolitan of Kiev, Galica,
and All the Russias, Michael Rogozy and the majority of the bishops in his metropolia who were
part of the Unia pronounced at the Council of Brest in 1596, the formation of a Russian Uniate
Church, and then the carrying out by the Polish government of various measures to force the
Orthodox population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into the either the Unia or the
Latin rite, the situation of the Orthodox hierarchy in the former southern, southwestern, and
western Russian lands became extremely complex. By the beginning of the seventeenth century
the Orthodox Kievan metropolia did not have its own metropolitan, and its entire hierarchy
consisted of two bishops—Gideon (Balaban) of Lvov and Michael (Kopystensky) of Peremyshl,
who were in an illegal position. After Gideon’s death (1607) his successor, Jeremiah
(Tissarovsky) had to go to Moldavia to be consecrated because bishop Michael could not do it
alone. And as if that were not enough, in order to be recognized by the Polish government
Jeremiah even had to take an oath of accepting the Unia—most likely he pretended to take it,

514
since later he would show himself to be a struggler against uniatism. After Michael’s death in
1610 (or 1612), Bishop Jeremiah remained as the only bishop of the former metropolia.

In 1620, the hierarchy of this metropolia was practically created anew by Patriarch Theophan III
of Jerusalem, who came to Kiev from Moscow. He informed Patriarch Philaret of the decline in
church life in Kiev74 and under secretive circumstances he consecrated three hierarchs: Job
(Boretsky) as Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia, and All the Russias, Meletius (Smotrinsky) as
Archbishop of Polotsk, and Isaiah (Kopinsky) as bishop of Peremyshl. There were also
consecrations for four more empty cathedras. These consecrations constituted the founding of the
hierarchy of the Kiev metropolia. However in Moscow no one rushed to recognize them, because
regardless of Moscow’s good relationship with the Eastern patriarchs in general—which came
together after the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589—and especially to
Theophan who had visited Moscow for the second time and played an important part in the
appointment of the Moscow patriarch Philaret, the Moscow Patriarch’s relationship to the
Western Russian metropolia (which titled itself as “of Kiev”, etc.) was intolerant—because of
the latter’s claims on “All Rus’), as it’s title showed, and also because of the Uniate sympathies
of many of its hierarchs.75 Therefore, when the newly appointed Metropolitan Job (Boretsky)
sent letters in 1621 to Tsar Michael Feodorovich and Patriarch Philaret (Nikitich), he did not
receive any answer, even though he not only wisely omitted the words “and of All Rus’” but also
called Patriarch Philaret “my master and pastor”.

Later their relationship in fact came together—from 1622–1623 unofficially,76 and after 1624 on
the official level. In fact, Metropolitan Job addressed his letters to the patriarch of Moscow “to
His All Holiness and Beatitude, Master and Father, Father of fathers, Master father lord Philaret
Nikitich, by God’s mercy Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’, my master and pastor”, “Master of
All Russia”, and calling himself his “good and obedient servant and faithful intercessor in
prayer”.77 In 1622, Bishop Isaiah (Kopinsky), the future metropolitan of Kiev and Galich (from
1631–1632), addressed his letter “to His All Holiness and All Beatitude lord Philaret, by God’s
mercy His Eminence the Patriarch of Great and Little Russias and to the last great ocean.78 In this
manner, the hierarchs consecrated by Theophan III already fully recognized that they are united
with the Church of the Russian nation, and recognized the supremacy of the Moscow Patriarch.

However for Moscow the establishment of relations did not yet mean an implicit recognition of
the status of the Kiev and Galich metropolitans, especially since that title was not guaranteed for
them even on the territory of the Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth. Only in 1632, desiring to
make sure there would be loyalty on the part of the Orthodox population on the eve of a new war
with Russia, did the Polish government officially recognize the rights of the Orthodox to have
their own hierarchy—in submission to Constantinople (there could be no talk of Moscow). Part
of the property of the former Orthodox cathedrae was returned, but in exchange the bishops who
had been secretly consecrated by Patriarch Theophan had to be exchanged for new ones. On the
Orthodox side, a key role in the negotiations was played by Archimandrite Peter (Mogila) thanks
to his diplomatic talents and aristocratic ties. He would head the Kiev and Galich metropolia in
1633, remaining its primate until the end of his days in Kiev on January 1647.

The next year, in 1648, the Bogdan Khmelnitsky uprising took place in the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, which set very complex historical processes in motion.79 For the question of the

515
status of the Kiev and Galich metropolia the main event of these complex processes became the
rebirth of the Orthodox diocese in Chernigov (taken away by the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth from Russia during the Time of Troubles) in 1649 and its subsequent transfer
along with the Kiev diocese to the Moscow government from 1654. At that moment, the
metropolitan of Kiev and Galich was Silvester (Kosov). In April of 1657 he died; in January
1658, Bishop Dionysius (Balaban-Tukalsky)80 of Lutsk was chosen as the next metropolitan. In
February of the same year, Bishop Dionysius brought Hetman Ivan Vygovsky to the Russian
Tsar to make his oath of allegiance. The Russian officials who participated in the ceremony
offered Dionysius to ask Patriarch Nikon of Moscow for confirmation of his rank of
metropolitan, but the chosen metropolitan declined, later receiving this confirmation from
Patriarch Parthenius IV of Constantinople. Having left Kiev due to the military actions begun by
Ivan Vygovsky, Dionysius transferred the right of rule over parishes of the Kiev diocese to the
Chernigov hierarch Lazar (Baranovich), and practically to his very death in 1663 he had no real
authority over Kiev and the Left Bank. In 1658, Vygovksy with Dionysius’s participation signed
the Gadychsky treaty with the Poles, which evoked dissatisfaction among the Cossacks. The
Cossack Rada chose Bogdan Khmelnitsky’s son Yuri as hetman, and the latter in October 1659
signed a new agreement with representatives of the Russian Tsardom. This was the Peryaslavl
articles, which included a resolution of submission by the Kiev metropolitan to the Moscow
Patriarch on conditions of autonomy: “The Metropolitan of Kiev, as well as other clergy of Little
Russia, to be under the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Great and
Little and White Russias, and His Holiness the Patriarch will not trespass on the clerical rights.81

In accordance with this condition and the long absence from Kiev of Metropolitan Dionysius, in
1661 the locum tenens of the Moscow Patriarchal throne, Pitirim, consecrated Methodius
(Philimonovich) to the vacant Mstislavsky82 cathedra of the Kiev Metropolia, with the rights of
locum tenens of the whole metropolia. When he learned of this, Metropolitan Dionysius
consecrated Joseph (Neliubovich-Tukalksky)83 to the same cathedra. In his turn, Patriarch Nikon,
who did not recognize the status of Pitirim, in 1662 pronounced an anathema against him and
against Methodius who was consecrated by him. This act was not accepted by anyone in Russia
or in Little Russia, but in the same year the Constantinople Patriarchate, at that moment in
complete alliance with Nikon, also pronounced an anathema against Methodius. Nevertheless,
the latter took advantage of the support for Hetman Ivan Briukhevetsky and continued to rule the
Kiev diocese, although news of the canonical measures taken against him became known to
many clergy and laity and brought them great confusion.

At that time, in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth after the death of Dionysios, Joseph
(Neliubovich-Tukalsky) and Bishop Anthony (Vinnitsky)84 of Peremyshl were simultaneously
chosen for the Kiev cathedra, and both of them received the privileges of the Kiev cathedra from
the Polish king. As a result the Kiev cathedra now had two primates, who were located far from
Kiev, and at the same time two locum tenens, who remained in the Left Bank (Lazar
[Baranovich] and Methodius [Philimonovich]), and not one of them had been confirmed by
Constantinople. Anthony’s factual authority extended over Volhynia, Peramyshl, and Kholm
dioceses, while Joseph (excluding the period of 1663–1665), when the Polish government
arrested him) over the territory under the rule of P. Doroshenko. In 1668, thanks to the emerging
closeness between Doroshenko with the Ottoman Empire, Joseph was able to receive recognition
from the Constantinople patriarch for Methodius III.85 In the same year, Anthony gave Patriarch

516
Joasaph II of Moscow a message about his readiness to go under his omophorion (this offer was
not accepted), and Methodius was deposed from his cathedra.86 Having settled matters with
Methodius, Joseph never did set off for Kiev, because the Kiev clergy did not wish to recognize
him since they had not participated in his election. As a result the rule over the parishes of the
Kiev diocese again ended up in the hands of Lazar (Baranovich). After Joseph’s death (1675),
Anthony in 1676 announced at the Polish Sejm his rights to the Kiev cathedra. However the
Polish king Yan Sobesky decided to transfer these rights to Bishop Joseph (Shumlyansky)87 of
Lvov, who by that time had secretly accepted the Unia. Incidentally, in 1678 Anthony
nevertheless managed to get his rights back from the Polish government but by 1679 he had died.

By the time of Anthony’s death, the religious politics of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
had become unbearable for the Orthodox inhabitants of that nation. They were being forced into
the Unia, their church and monastery property was being confiscated from them under various
pretexts, and the activities of the Orthodox clergy were being curtailed in every way. Already in
1676, by decision of the coronation Sejm of the Polish-Lithuanian nation, any contact with the
Constantinople Patriarchate not specifically permitted by government was forbidden under threat
of execution and confiscation of property—which rendered the participation of Constantinople in
the election of a Kiev metropolitan impossible. There were two reasons for this: the desire of the
Polish authorities to not leave the Orthodox any alternative other than joining the Unia, and the
conflict between the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Ottoman Empire (they viewed
the Constantinople Patriarch as an agent of Ottoman influence). The Kiev cathedra was formally
vacant from 1679, and by that time the Mstislav and Polotsk dioceses were also vacant. The city
of Kiev itself had not seen its metropolitans since 1658. Bishop Joseph (Shumlyansky) of Lvov
and the named bishop of Peremyshl Innokenty (Vinnitsky) had been secretly sworn into the Unia
and did everything to spread it among the Orthodox. The only Orthodox bishop left in the entire
territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was Bishop Gideon (Sviatopolk-
Chetvertinsky) of Lutsk, but even he had to flee in 1684 to Left Bank Ukraine. This whole
situation required some intervention—for the sake of defending the religious freedom of the
Orthodox inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as well as for the sake of normal
church life in Kiev and on the Left Bank, which had conclusively become a part of the Russian
tsardom.

Russia was in no hurry to intervene, but that does not mean that it expected the fate of the
Western Russian metropolia to be decided by Constantinople. To the contrary, the position of the
Russian government was no different from its position two centuries before with regard to the
unity of the Russian metropolia, which is clearly expressed in a letter of Patriarch Joachim of
Moscow to Hetman Ivan Samoilovich dated September 1685: “From the beginning when the
holy, pious faith took root in Russia, the Russian metropolia was united, and everywhere the
Russians were in submission and obedience to the all-Russian throne [meaning the Church
hierarchical throne].”88 Moreover, now this unity was based not only on historical facts, but also
on the decision of the council of Eastern patriarchs (that is, on documents concerning the
establishment in Moscow of the patriarchy): “When by the council held in the reigning city of
Moscow of the most holy Eastern Church patriarchs and many hierarchs, in the presence of pious
Orthodox tsars at the patriarchal throne, all willed as a council that all Russian hierarchical
thrones, in the northern country, submit themselves to the patriarch of Moscow and all Russia
and northern countries,”89 as well as at the interpretation of the decision of the Peryaslavl Rada of

517
1654 as an act of reunification of two different parts of a once united people. In a missive to
Patriarch Yakovos of Constantinople dated November of the same year, Patriarch Joachim added
to the cited arguments (on the historical unity of the Russian metropolia and on the recognition
by the Eastern patriarchs of the jurisdiction of Moscow over all Russian dioceses of the northern
countries) also that in olden times it was specifically the Moscow metropolitans who had the
title, “of Kiev and All Russia.”90

Moscow’s slowness in the matter of filling the vacant Kiev cathedra, regardless of the fact that
Kiev and the entire Left Bank belonged to Russia, fixed by agreement already in 1667, should by
no means be explained by its uncertainty over the rights of the Moscow Patriarch over the
Ukrainian dioceses. By 1685, church life in the Left Bank of the Ukraine already de facto
depended upon Moscow. The Locum Tenens of the Kiev cathedra, Methodius, was sent from
Kiev to Moscow back in 1661. Another locum tenens, Bishop Lazar (Baranovich) of Chernigov,
held an unambiguous pro-Moscow position (and was raised to the rank of archbishop at the
Moscow council of 1666–1667); in 1684 in Moscow yet another key church figure of that era
was given the rank of archimandrite of the Kiev-Caves Lavra—Varlaam (Yasinsky); and so on.
The Russian government was looking for a solution to an entirely different problem: how to
ensure the rights and religious freedom of the Orthodox inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth. The Kiev metropolitan, appointed in Moscow, would most probably not be
recognized by the Polish authorities. Direct ecclesiastical relations with Constantinople in the
Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was forbidden. In the course of long negotiations with the
participation of various sides91 a plan proposed by Hetman I. Samoilovich was approved: The
clergy of the Kiev metropolia were to choose a Kiev metropolitan with the participation of the
Cossackry; consecrate him Metropolitan of Kiev in Moscow; then address Constantinople for
recognition.

518
 Metropolitan Gideon (Sviatopolk-Chetvertinsky)
In November 1685, Bishop Gideon of Lutsk, chosen in Kiev for the metropolia cathedra, took his
hierarchical oath in Moscow and received the title, of Kiev, Galich, and all Little Russia. The
consecration of Gideon as the Metropolitan of Kiev took place in Moscow without asking
permission from Constantinople, which was entirely in agreement with Russia’s position on the
historical indivisibility of the Russian Church and on the original identicalness of the Kiev and
Moscow cathedras. Nevertheless, following the plan, Patriarch Joachim of Moscow and Tsars
John V and Peter I addressed Constantinople for recognition of the completed appointment. The
recognition was received, and the further submission of the Kiev cathedra to the Moscow
Patriarchate was approved by a patriarchal and council gramota from Patriarch Dionysios IV in
1686, upon which ended the just over two hundred years of division in the united Russian
Church.92

General conclusion on the historical unity of the Russian Church.

The Orthodox dioceses of the different Russian lands originally belonged to the one Metropolia
of Rus’s (from the eleventh century, “of All Rus”). The vast majority of attempts to create an
independent metropolia for one or another part of the Russian lands —whether de jure or de
facto is not important—failed93 and, as a rule, were subjected to harsh condemnation first of all
from the Constantinople Church (the cases of Klim Smolyatich, Theodorets, Theodorit, and
Gregory Tsamblak). The Constantinople Palamite councils of the fourteenth century officially
recognized Northeastern Rus’ as the only legitimate center of the former Kiev metropolia.

The project of independence from Moscow of the Kiev metropolia was born in the bowels of the
Roman Catholic Church. The Uniate Metropolitan Gregory the Bulgarian, ordained in Rome,
was received into the bosom of the Constantinople Church by economia, and Constantinople not

519
only did not expect that receiving Gregory would lead to division of the Russian into parts, but
insisted on preserving its unity, which had deep historical roots. The subsequent recognition by
Constantinople of the legitimacy of the Moscow metropolitans inevitably meant that they would
restore control over the whole Russian Church, which did gradually happen. Out of the more
than 1000-year history of the Russian Church, the period of its actual division into two large
independent parts—the Kievan, with its formal center in Constantinople—and the Muscovite,
continued for just a little over two centuries.

II. Council and patriarchal documents testifying to the unity of the Russian Church, and
an overview of the decisions contained in them.

II.1. Documents of the Byzantine era

To the more general view of the unity and indivisibility of the Russian Church testifies the title
of the Russian metropolitans and later patriarchs, in which the word Rus’ with the definer “All”
is added, emphasizing the broad powers of the primate of the Russian Church and the diversity
of lands that make up the Russian metropolia. In this refined form, this title is first witnessed to
in the missive of the Constantinople patriarch Luke Chrysoverges to Grand Prince Andrei
Bogoliubsky,94 and later in the seals of the Russian metropolitans of the mid-eleventh century,95
and then in the gramota of Patriarch Germanos II of Constantinople to the metropolitan of All
Rus’ Kirill I dated 1228;96 and so on. It is possible to be convinced of the justness of this specific
interpretation of this title, for example, from the missive of the same Patriarch Germanos II to the
cardinals of the Roman Church in 1232, where the flock of the Russian metropolia is described
as ἡ ἀμέτρητος Ῥωσικὴ πανσπερμία—“the innumerable multitude of peoples of Rus’.97

In 1347, Emperor John VI Cantecuzen and the Constantinople patriarch published a whole
package of documents dedicated to the question of the unity and indivisibility of the Russian
Church. In the center of this package was: 1) the imperial chysobull, published in August 1347,98
which exactly corresponds with what was published at the council of bishops of the Church of
Constantinople, headed by Patriarch Isidore I: 2) the Acts of the Council; and with citations on
these two foundational documents the emperor sent his gramota: 3) to the metropolitan of Kiev
(whose permanent residence was in Moscow) and All Rus’, St. Theognostos; 4) to Grand Prince
Simeon Ioannovich Gordy of Moscow; 5) Prince Liubart-Dimitry Gedimovich of Vladimir-
Volhynia; and the patriarch sent: 6) a gramota to Metropolitan Theodore of Galich.99 The essence
of these documents boils down to the fact that the decision on the division of several dioceses of
Southwestern Rus’ from the rest of the Russian Church was accepted100 “by the former patriarch
of Constantinople according to an evil design” (διὰ τὴν κακογνωμίαν τοῦ χρηματίσαντος
πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως101), was uncanonical (ἔξω τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων,102 or
παρὰ κανόνας103), and therefore the emperor and the council of bishops revoke it and prescribe
that the Russian Church return to its unity under the authority of one primate, “according to the
customs that have been made lawful in that country—All Rus’” (τῶν ἐκ παλαιοῦ νενομισμένων
ἐθίμων εἰς τὴν τοιαύτην χώραν τῆς πάσης Ῥωσίας).104 Besides the fact that this definition is
already important in and of itself, the argumentation supporting the council’s act of 1347: Τὸ γάρ
ἔθνος τῶν Ῥώσων—χρόνος ἤδη μακρὸς εἰς τετρακοσίους ἐγγὺς ἐξήκων—ἕνα μητροπολίτην
γνωρίζον, “For the people of Rus’ over the course of almost four hundred years have known only
one metropolitan.”105 Thus, specifically the fact of historical unity of the Russian Church was for

520
the fathers of the council of 1347 a key argument in deciding the question of abolishing the
independent Galich metropolia. The next important document is the gramota of the council of
bishops of the Constantinople Church headed by Patriarch Philotheos, published in January
1354. It ratifies the transfer of the residence of the Kievan metropolitans to Vladimir (but
factually to Moscow, which had already since 1326 become the main place of residence of the
Kievan metropolitans), preserving their authority over the entire Russian Church: οὔκ ἐστιν
ἑτέρα καταμονὴ καὶ ἀνάπαυσις καὶ κατάντημα τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ μητροπόλει Ῥωσίας διὰ τὰς
προειρημένας αἰτίας εἰ μὴ τὸ Βλαντίμοιρον (“there is no other place of residence, refuge, and
protection for the holy metropolia of Rus’, due to the above stated reasons,106 other than
Vladimir”), and therefore, ἐν Ἁγίῳ παρακελεύεται Πνεύματι διὰ τοῦ παρόντος συνοδικου
γράμματος εἶναι καὶ εὑρίσκεσθαι τόν τε ἱερώτατον μητροπολίτην Ῥωσίας καὶ τοὺς μετ᾽ αὐτὸν
πάντας ἐν τῷ Βλαντιμοίρῳ καὶ ἔχειν τοῦτο ὡς οἰκεῖον κάθισμα ἀναφαιρέτως καὶ ἀναποσπάστως
εἰς αἰῶνα τὸν ἅπαντα, καὶ ἔνι μὲν καὶ τὸ Κύεβον ὡς οἰκεῖος θρόνος καὶ πρῶτον κάθισμα τοῦ
ἀρχιερέως, ἐὰν περισώζηται, μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνο καὶ σὺν ἐκείνῳ δεύτερον κάθισμα καὶ καταμονὴ καὶ
ἀνάπαυσις ἡ ἁγιωτάτη ἐπισκοπὴ Βλαντιμοίρου (“in the Holy Spirit it is willed, by means of the
present council gramota, that the holy metropolia of Rus’, and all who are part of it, be located
and found in Vladimir, and have it as it own cathedra, irrevocably and for all the ages
inalienably, and let it continue to have, firstly, Kiev—if it should continue to exist—as its own
hierarchical throne and first hierarchical cathedra, and after it and together with it—the holy
Vladimir bishopric, as its second cathedra and place of residence, and refuge”).107

One more document of the Byzantine era is the patriarchal gramota of Patriarch Joseph II of
Constantinople of 1416, on the council’s deposing of Gregory Tsamblak, sent to Metropolitan
Photius of Rus’:108 “Today the divine and holy Council has assembled, the holy hierarchs, all-
honorable metropolitans of Heraclius and Ánkyra, and many others, and by the judgment of
these together, Tsamblak, Gregory, is to be deposed, by divine and sacred law, and after his
removal, defrocked and cursed.”109 Besides others, Patriarch Joachim refers to this document in
his instructions to the ambassadors who were sent for negotiations on the recognition of the
establishment of the metropolia in Moscow.110

II.2. Documents of the mid-fifteenth century: the attempt to contend the rights of the Moscow
primate and subsequent confirmation of his rights to all the Russian dioceses.

Of principal significance are the contents of the patriarchal gramota of Patriarch Dionysios I of
Constantinople addressed to the princes and people of Rus—“The leaf of Dionysios, Patriarch of
Constantinople, written to Moscow” in 1467.111 The Patriarch insists here, citing the ancient
custom, upon the indivisibility of the Russian Church: “Would that you should have one Church
and one metropolitan, and in this vein that you cleave to him in unity, that there be one Church,
and in it one pastor, that in this the Lord God be praised, Who destroys all sins and divisions, and
that the devil be cast out… In this regard it is pleasing that there be one metropolitan truly
righteous over the whole Russian land according to the ancient Russian custom and rule. It is not
right that the old custom and old rule be broken.” Furthermore in the gramota it is confirmed that
the Constantinople Church did not recognize St. Jonah’s rank of metropolitan112 and that of his
successors, from which it proceeds that the head of the united Russian Church should be
considered to be the one now accepted by Constantinople, Gregory the Bulgarian: “But they
should stop doing what they did in Moscow, and the Holy Supreme Great catholic Church

521
commands it, for this is against the canons and against the law of God; those metropolitans
named [appointed/consecrated] in Moscow, beginning with Jonah and to this day, our Great
catholic and Holy Church does not recognize, and does not honor, and does not call them
metropolitans. And likewise all should accept, and should honor, and be in obedience to him—
the rightly appointed and true metropolitan, who is called the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’,
lord Gregory, the beloved brother and co-servant in the Holy Spirit of our humbleness.” This
latter part of the gramota of Patriarch Dionysios was not accepted in Moscow, where they
continued to consider the successors of St. Jonah to be the true metropolitans of All Rus’, but it
is important to emphasize that, first of all, it is clear from the gramota that the Constantinople
Church did not pronounce a decision to divide the Russian Church into the “Moscow” and
“Kiev” parts; secondly, with the acceptance of the legitimacy of the Moscow metropolitans,
Constantinople would have to either pronounce just such a decision (which was not done at all),
or to the contrary to deprive the metropolitans of Kiev and Galich of legitimacy (which the
course of history itself did in Constantinople’s place).

The formal legitimatization of the Moscow primates by Constantinople can be considered the
already cited “all holy Metropolitan of Moscow and All the Russias” Varlaam (his name is not
cited) in the gramota of Patriarch Theolyptos I of Constantinople in 1516; what is particularly
important, in this same gramota the same metropolitan is also called “the most holy Metropolitan
of Kiev and All the Russias”.113 Thus, also in the sixteenth century the Constantinople
Patriarchate fully recognized that the Moscow metropolitan is also the Kiev metropolitan at the
same time.

An indiputables legitimatization is the mention of the name of the Moscow metropolitan, St.
Macarius in the council gramota concerning the recognition of Ivan Vasilievich “the Terrible”
title of Tsar, published in 1561 by Patriarch Joasaph II of Constantinople on behalf of the council
of bishops,114 just as in the patriarchal missive of the same patriarch, where metropolitan
Macarius, in the status of “Patriarchal Exarch”, is granted the right to perform Ivan IV’s (the
Terrible) coronation as Tsar on behalf of the Patriarch himself.115

The final act of recognition of this legitimacy should be considered the document on the
establishment of patriarchy in Rus’: The posted gramota of Tsar Feodor Ioannovich [son of Ivan
the Terrible], Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople and the Church Council of 1589; the
Council gramota of the same patriarch and council of bishops of the Constantinople Church of
1590, and most importantly, the Council Act of the Great Constantinople Council of all the
ancient Orthodox Churches of the East in 1593. It is precisely the third of these documents that is
the key one, both by the circumstances of its publication,116 as well as by its level of
authoritativeness, inasmuch as it is the decision of a council of all the Eastern patriarchs,117 and
not only the Constantinople Church. In the Council Acts of 1593 were pronounced the following
definitions: … τὸν θρόνον τῆς εὐσεβεστάτης καὶ ὀρθοδόξου πόλεως Μοσκόβου εἶναί τε καὶ
λέγεσθαι πατριαρχεῖον, διὰ τὸ βασιλείας ἀξιωθῆναι παρὰ Θεοῦ τὴν χώραν ταύτην, πᾶσάν τε
Ῥωσίαν καὶ τὰ ὑπερβόρεια μέρη ὑποτάττεσθαι τῷ πατριαρχικῷ θρόνῳ Μοσκόβου καὶ πάσης
Ῥωσίας καὶ τῶν ὑπερβορείων μερῶν… (…the throne of the most pious and Orthodox city of
Moscow shall be called patriarchal, for that country has been made worthy by God of royal [of
the tsar] power, and all Rus’ and the Northern countries shall submit to the patriarchal throne of
Moscow and all Rus’ and all Northern Countries…”)118 This definition not only does not

522
presuppose the division of the Church of All Russia into any parts at all, but furthermore subjects
all the Russian dioceses to the Moscow cathedra. Being the council decision of all the Eastern
patriarchs, this definition is patently higher than any decision of one Local Church—including
that of the Constantinople—and takes unconditional priority over them.

Of no minor importance is also the argument by which the fathers of the council of 1593 based
the prudence of granting the patriarchal title to the Moscow primate: “The country has been
made worthy by God of royal [of the tsar] power.” Below in the Council Acts of 1593 it is
prescribed to all the Local Churches to commemorate the name of the Moscow tsar at the divine
services: in the dyptichs, at the proskomedia, and most importantly, at the reading of the two
psalm during Matins, where once only the name of the Byzantine emperor was commemorated.
Recognizing the royal dignity of the Moscow rulers, the fathers of the council of 1593 thus
recognized the authority of the Russian tsars to influence the administrative and territorial
establishment of the Church, in accordance with Orthodox canon law: “If any city is or shall be
renewed by the Emperor, the ecclesiastical order shall follow the political and public example.”
(Canon 38 of the Council of Trullo; compare the 17th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council).

Thus, the Council Act of 1593 not only did not presuppose the possibility of the further
coexistence of two metropolias “of All Rus’”, but also granted the Russian tsar and the Moscow
patriarch all the necessary instruments for overcoming the division existing at that moment with
the Western Russian metropolia. The Moscow primates understood the contents of the Council
Acts precisely in this way, which can be seen from their own words (see the above citation from
the missive of Patriarch Joachim), and from the facts of the appointment of the Kiev locum
tenens in 1661, the elevation of Bishop Lazar (Baranovich) of Chernigov to the rank of
archbishop at the Moscow Council of 1666–1667, the confirmation of Varlaam (Yasnitsky) as
archimandrite of the Kiev-Caves Lavra in 1684, and finally, the appointment of the Kiev
metropolitan in 1685—all without asking for permission from Constantinople.

An important symbolic precedent was Patriarch Nikon’s acceptance of the newly acquired
official title, “Holy Archbishop of Moscow, Patriarch of All Great and Little Russia”.119 This
form of title on the one hand reflected the title of the Constantinople patriarch (“Holy
Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch”), and on the other hand, was a direct
tracing of the title of the Moscow tsar (Sovereign Tsar and Grand Prince, Sovereign of All Great
and Little and White Russia). Patriarch Paisios I of Constantinople approved of this titling, thus
recognizing by this approval the rights of the Moscow patriarch to the Little Russian dioceses. In
the famous Council gramota of 1654, which became the cornerstone that led to the [Old
Believer] schism in the Russian Church after the church book reforms of Patriarch Nikon,
Patriarch Paisios together with the hosts of hierarchs calls Nikon the “Patriarch of Muscovy,
Great and Little Russia”, etc. ((Τῷ μακαριωτάτῳ καὶ εὐσεβεστάτῳ πατριάρχῃ Μοσχοβίας,
Μεγάλης τε καὶ Μικρᾶς Ῥωσίας, καὶ πολλῶν ἐπαρχιῶν τῶν κατὰ γῆν καὶ θάλατταν παντὸς
βοῤῥείου μέρους κυρίῳ ΝΙΚΟΝΙ ἀδελφῷ καὶ συλλειτουργῷ ἡμῶν…).120

II.3. Documents of 1686.

523
The Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.
    

From what has been said it follows that for the establishment of the Kiev metropolia in Moscow,
there was really no need for approval as such from Constantinople. Nevertheless, in 1682, at the
initiative of the Russian government, a negotiation process was begun on the question of
presenting this approval in written form. As we have already noted above, the main aim of this
process consisted not in receiving control over the ecclesiastical life of Kiev and the Left Bank,
which was already in the hands of the Moscow Patriarchate, but in the creation of an irrefutable
jurisdictional base for future pressure on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in matters of
observing the rights and religious freedoms of its Orthodox population. In 1684, in
Constantinople, the Greek Zacharias Sophiros, invested with powers by Polish decree, conducted
preliminary negotiations with Constantinople Patriarch Jakovos on the issue of appointing a
Kievan metropolitan in Moscow. The Patriarch replied with a refusal, citing the necessity to
receive approval for such a decision from the Grand Viziar of the Ottoman Empire. This refusal
did not have any influence on preparations for appointing a metropolitan to the vacant Kievan
cathedra in Moscow. In the same year of 1684, the Left Bank Hetman attempted to persuade the
Russian government to appoint the bishop they had chosen, Gideon (Sviatopolk-Chetvertinsky)
who had fled the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth due to persecution, as the metropolitan.
However in Moscow they were convinced of the need to chose a metropolitan not according to
the hetman’s ideas, but by ecclesiastical council of the same metropolia. In fulfillment of this, on

524
June 29, 1685, an assembly commenced in Kiev of the clergy of the Kiev metropolia with the
participation of prominent representatives of the Cossackry (first of all, Ivan Mazepa); neither
Lazar of Chernigov, nor Gideon (and there were no other Orthodox hierarchs left in the
metropolia) participated in the assembly. At the session of July 8, Gideon was chosen
metropolitan of Kiev. Simultaneously the clergy of Kiev, headed by Archimandrite Varlaam
(Yasnitsky) of the Kiev-Caves Monastery, expressed to the Hetman their concern over the
imminent appointment of Gideon in Moscow without the consent of the Constantinople
Patriarchate. A list was composed of demands relating to the preservation of “the rights and
freedoms of the Little Russian land”, the main part of which consisted of the desire not to
conduct the Orthodox services in the Ukrainian lands according to the Moscow practice. On July
20, Hetman I. S. Samoilovich and Bishop Gideon sent a missive to Moscow with a description of
the proceedings, requests that ambassadors be sent to Constantinople, and the preservation of
their “freedoms”. In September 1685, the Moscow government considered the requests of the
Kiev clergy and consented to five of the six. The hetman agreed to a compromise, removing the
point of contention for Moscow, which opened the path to consecrating Gideon in Moscow. This
indeed took place on November 8 in the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.

After Gideon’s consecration, Hetman Ivan Lisitsa and church clerk Nikita Alexeyev were sent as
ambassadors to Constantinople with gramotas from Patriarch Joachim, Tsars John V and Peter I,
and the Hetman with a request to confirm the transfer of the Kiev metropolia to the jurisdiction
of Moscow. In complete agreement with the explanations of Patriach Yakovos of
Constantinople, the negotiators first received approval from the grand vizier, and then from
Patriarch Dionysios IV. In May-June of 1686, the Constantinople Patriarchate published four
official documents approving the transfer of the Kiev metropolia to the jurisdiction of the
Moscow patriarchs: 1) a patriarchal gramota addressed to the Moscow tsars, 2) a patriarchal
gramota addressed to Hetman I. Samoilovich, 3) a patriarchal and council gramota addressed to
Patriarch Joachim of Moscow, and 4) a patriarchal and council gramota on the new order of
electing the metropolitan of Kiev.121 A series of missives were also written that had no legal
significance,122 on which for this reason we make no commentary.

The contents of all four of these cited documents, if you omit the differences in terms of address
to the addressees and what has no relation to matters of rhetoric, boils down to the fact that the
patriarch and hierarchs of the Constantinople Church recognized the objective necessity of re-
submitting the Kiev cathedra to the Moscow patriarch, that they render to the Moscow patriarch
the power to consecrate the Kiev metropolitan chosen according to the custom of his metropolia,
and judge him—that is, have full jurisdiction over him—moreover, forever (in accordance with
the rights conveyed to the Moscow patriarch “as before, so also to all succeeding (ὅ τε ἤδη καὶ οἱ
μετὰ τοῦτον)”; and from the Kiev metropolitan is demanded that he henceforth relate to the
Moscow patriarch as his “primate”, that is, canonical head, and turn namely to him for his
appointment certificate, and not to Constantinople.

Generally speaking, in light of the definition by the Great Council of Constantinople of 1593, the
canonical status of all of these documents is doubtful, in that this council had already confirmed
the rights of the Moscow patriarch in relation to all the Russian dioceses, and its authority is
higher than that of the Constantinople Church taken separately. And in fact the Constantinople

525
Church itself in in Council Acts of 1654 had already recognized the right of the Moscow
patriarch not only over Great Russia, but also over Little Russia.

Nevertheless, lately in literature there is a noticeable tendency to give the documents of 1686 an
almost definitive significance.123 In part, it is being said that the expression contained in these
documents, ἔχῃ ἄδειαν… χειροτονεῖν, in relation to the right of the Moscow patriarch to
consecrate the Kiev Metropolitan supposedly does not mean “has the power to consecrate”, but
means “has the permission/is authorized (sur autorisation) to consecrate”, and that the Kiev
metropolitan’s obligation to accept the Moscow patriarch ὡς γέροντος καὶ προεστῶτος, “as elder
and primate”, supposedly actually means, “acceptance in the capacity of spiritual father” and no
more.124 Such conclusions are no more than an attempt to give out the desired as the actual truth.
Thus, in accordance with the dictionary of E. Kriaras, the most authoritative dictionary of the
Greek language of the Byzantine and post-Byzantine periods—that is, the main ones—the
meanings of the word ἄδεια are as follows: 1) ελευθερία να κάνει κανείς, 2) απόλυτη ελευθερία,
that is, “the freedom to do something”, “complete freedom (of actions)”,125 and by no means the
supposed representation by someone as the above-mentioned “authorization”. As for the term,
προεστός (προεστώς), according to that same dictionary, it means “head, [chief, superior]” in the
same broad meaning of the word;126 and most importantly, examples of the use of this word as a
synonym for the term “patriarch” can be cited.127

No limits to the power of the Moscow patriarch to consecrate the Kiev metropolitan or the
prerogative of the Kiev metropolitan to relate to the Moscow patriarch “simply as to a spiritual
father”128 are actually contained in the documents of 1686. The Kiev metropolitan is completely
and irrefutably subject to the canonical authority of the Moscow patriarchate. Neither is there in
these documents a confirmation that the Kiev metropolitan supposedly reserves the status of an
“exarch of the Constantinople patriarch” in relation to Little Russia. The term “exarch” in
relation to the Kiev metropolia can be found in two secondary documents of June 1686—the
patriarchal epistles to the clergy and faithful of the Kiev metropolia, and along with them to the
Hetman.129 The addressees of these epistles are exhorted not to depart from their obedience to
Metropolitan Gideon, who has been named “Metropolitan of Kiev… and Exarch of All Russia”.
The expression “Exarch of All Russia” can be understood in two ways—either as the
Constantinople patriarch’s pretenses on all of Rus’, which would go against the decision of the
Great Council of Constantinople of 1593 and would violate a whole series of sacred canons, or
as a synonym for the transfer of the metropolitan of Kiev to being under the authority of the
Patriarch of All Rus’—in an analogy to the fact that in the previous era that same metropolitan
could be called the “Exarch of the Constantinople Patriarch”. Obviously, the second
interpretation is the only acceptable one: the Metropolitan of Kiev is recognized as the exarch of
[the Patriarch] of All Rus’.

The only counter-condition being promoted in the documents of 1686—to which in fact these
documents themselves testify130—is the request that the Kiev metropolitan commemorate the
name of the Constantinople patriarch at the divine services before the name of the Moscow
Patriarch. From the legal point of view, this request is no more than simple good wishes. There
are no sanctions stipulated for its non-observance, and most importantly, neither the Moscow
Patriarch, nor the Kiev metropolitan accepted any obligations to fulfill this request. No
conclusion can be drawn from this request that the Kiev metropolia supposedly kept is canonical

526
submission to Constantinople—this request speaks exclusively about the metropolitan; the
motivation for the request (which is shown forthrightly) does not contain even a hint at the
preservation of the jurisdiction of Constantinople over Kiev,131 and the commemoration of the
Constantinople patriarch by all the other bishops (never mind the priests) of the metropolia is not
stipulated.

Nevertheless, rather paradoxically, this request was automatically satisfied. The fact of the
matter is that even during the time of Patriarch Nikon, out of respect for the Eastern patriarchs
the commemoration of them was included in the standard publications of the Russian service
books. In part, in the Moscow publication of the Service Book of 1655, there first appeared the
commemoration at the proskomedia not only of the Moscow patriarch, but also of the four
Eastern patriarchs, and by name at that.132 In turn, in the Book of the Order of Hierarchical
Services of 1677 and its reprints the Eastern patriarchs are commemorated at the exclamations of
the anaphora. Even in the rite of the hierarchical Liturgy there appeared a commemoration of the
Eastern patriarchs at the Great Entrance and what is called the Great Laudation—a series of
exclamations before the singing of the Liturgical Trisagion. All of this supplemented the
commemoration of the patriarchs at the proskomedia, which continued to be served according to
the Service Book. By comparison, in the old Hierarchical Book of Order of the Kiev
Metropolia133, there was no Great Laudation at all, just as there was no commemoration of
patriarchs at the Great Entrance; there was only the commemoration of the “ecumenical
patriarchs” (without names) at the proskomedia and the remembrance of the ecumenical
patriarch contained in the exclamation at the prayer of the Eucharist. As a consequence, in the
hierarchical—and even in the ordinary priestly—rite of the Liturgy after the unification of the
Kiev Metropolia with the Moscow Patriarchate, the volume of commemorations of Eastern
patriarchs noticeably grew in comparison with the earlier period. In this way, the desire of the
Patriarch Dionysios IV of Constantinople to underscore the unity of the Churches to “all the ends
of the universe”, as he himself wrote, was completely satisfied by the very fact of the Kiev
metropolia’s change to Moscow’s publications of the Divine Service books.134

Finally, it is extremely important to emphasize that neither at the end of the seventeenth century,
nor in the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries was the fact of a final and irrevocable unification of
the Kiev metropolia with the Church of All Rus’ placed under any doubt by anyone.135 Even
Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, who before the publication of the documents of May-June
1686 expressed his criticism of the idea of such a unification, after the resolution was accepted
by Constantinople gave not the slightest cause to doubt the Kiev Metropolia’s total canonical
submission to Moscow. To the contrary, in a whole series of letters he called upon Moscow to
make use of its ecclesiastical and canonical authority to remove the elements of Catholic
influence in Little Russian theology and Liturgical practices (that is, essentially to abolish those
very “rights and freedoms”, which the Kiev clergy had stipulated the possibility of preserving in
1685!).136

A remarkable testimony to the unconditional acceptance of what happened on the part of the
higher figures of the Constantinople Patriarchate is the request of the former Patriarch of
Constantinople Seraphim II, who was forced to flee the Ottoman Empire due to his anti-Turkish
position during the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774, that he be allowed to serve in the churches

527
of the Kiev (!) diocese. In June 1776, the patriarch sent the following request to the Holy
Governing Synod [of the Russian Orthodox Church]:137

By force of the Supreme and Holy governing Synod’s will, I arrived last February at the
Maksakov Monastery of the Savior of the Kiev diocese, but since I do not have the written
permission of the Holy Synod, I do not dare to serve the divine services. For this cause,
according to the ecclesiastical established order, I most humbly ask your permission to serve
and that an order be sent to the Metropolitan of Kiev from the Holy Synod. I have signed this
report. † Πατριάρχης πρώην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Σεραφίμ.

As can be seen from this request, which was reviewed and approved by the Synod,138the former
Patriarch of Constantinople was asking for permission to serve—and not just anywhere, but in
the very diocese of the Kiev metropolitan!—from the supreme ecclesiastical authority of the
Russian Church, and not from Constantinople; and he knows nothing of any supposed
“preserved” obligations of the Kiev metropolitans with regard to the primate of Constantinople.

Conclusions on the canonical grounds for the unity of the Russian Church:

The very fact in and of itself of the historical unity of the Russian Orthodox Church possesses
more than sufficient canonical force (the Council Acts and imperial chrysobull) of 1347, and the
patriarchal gramota of 1467). The center of the united Russian Church was transferred in a
canonical manner to the Vladimir-Suzdal lands, that is, to Moscow, preserving the Moscow
hierarch as that of Kiev, it being his own ancient cathedra (Council Act of 1354; patriarchal
gramota of 1516).

The Great Council of Constantinople of 1593 confirmed the right of the Moscow patriarch to all
the historical Russian dioceses, not limiting them to the territories under the current political
control of Moscow. In 1686, it remained only for the Constantinople Patriarchate to with dignity
decline to contest the rights of the Moscow Patriarch with regard to the Kiev cathedra. The only
stipulation, made in 1686, regarding the commemoration of the Constantinople Patriarch before
the others, was not binding for the Russian Church, inasmuch as there are not and never were
any documents whatsoever that confirmed the agreement of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Kiev
Metropolia itself for that matter with this stipulation. Secondly, it could have been interpreted
either as the proclamation of the Constantinople Church’s universal authority (something that
would suspiciously sound like papal dogma and would therefore be theologically unacceptable),
or as the good desire to emphasize the unity of the Ecumenical Church through the aid of
Liturgical commemoration (which the Russian Church had begun to do even earlier than 1686,
under Patriarch Nikon).

III. General conclusions.

The unity of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has existed for more that a thousand years, has
been under attack a number of times from various sides, but despite all this, this unity has
continued to exist much longer than the periods of its violation.

528
In the Byzantine time, precisely the Constantinople Church defended this unity, despite the
political conflicts that have arisen between one or another Russian princedom. On their own part,
the clergy and faithful of the metropolia of All Rus’ have always responded to the Constantinople
Church with love, respect, recognition, and significant material support.

Only the Byzantine elite itself could have torn the metropolia of All Rus’ from Constantinople
when it first of all tried to use Russian Orthodoxy as a bargaining chip in a desperate attempt to
force the West to come to the aid of perishing Constantinople, and then when it allowed the
Uniate metropolitan to usurp the title of the primate of “All Rus’”.

The restoration of complete ecclesiastical communion between Moscow and Constantinople

could not question who actually has the right to the title of the first hierarch of “All Rus’”, but
the objective course of history has given this question an exhaustive answer, confirmed in a
whole series of ecclesiastical-canonical documents, for which there are no lawful grounds for
reinterpretation.

The author is a doctoral candidate in theology, docent of the Moscow Theological Academy, The
St. Cyril and Methodius General Ecclesiastical masters and doctoral programs, a member of the
Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission, the Synodal Church Services Commission, and the
Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Source: The Church and the Times, No. 3 (84) 2018, pp. 29-95.

Priest Mikhail Zheltov

Translation by OrthoChristian.com

10/9/2018

529