New "Bartholomew's Night": what Pat. Bartholomew’s speech holds for Ukraine
The official website of the UOC of the USA (Patriarchate of Constantinople) published the speech of Patriarch Bartholomew at the opening of the Synaxis in Istanbul.
Patriarch Bartholomew’s speech is replete with unfriendly rhetoric towards the Moscow Patriarchate. The first thought that occurs in this regard is that the "President of the body of Orthodoxy" (according to the definition of the Patriarch of Constantinople) still keeps in mind the refusal of the ROC and some other Churches to participate in the Crete Cathedral in 2016. Due to this, the Churches were called in the media the "satellites" of Moscow.
The inferences expressed by Patriarch Bartholomew in the report casts doubt on the canonical subordination of the Kiev Metropolis to the Russian Orthodox Church, which prompted us to analyse the speech of the head of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and express our thoughts about it.
"No matter how much some wish to embellish the situation in Ukraine, history proves them wrong and presents indisputable arguments demonstrating that the origin of difficulties and reactions in Ukraine are neither a recent phenomenon nor something created by the Ecumenical Patriarchate."
In the course of the whole speech, it is not at all clear what part of the Kiev Metropolis Patriarch Bartholomew refers to. Hence, is the Ecumenical Patriarchate really not related to all the problems that existed in the history of the Kiev Metropolis? First of all, we are talking about the period from the moment of the emergence of the Union of Brest as a continuation of the Union-oriented policy of Rome and Constantinople capitulating to it in Florence in 1439.
"Already from the early 14thcentury, when the see of the Kievan Metropolis was moved without the canonical permission of the Mother Church to Moscow, there have been tireless efforts on the part of our Kievan brothers for independence from ecclesiastical control by the Moscow center. Indeed, the obstinacy of the Patriarchate of Moscow was instrumental in occasionally creating repeated mergers and restorations of ecclesiastical eparchies, uncanonical elections of Bishops as well as schisms, which still afflict the pious Ukrainian people."
Kiev officially remained the "see" of the Russian Metropolitan even after the transfer of the "kathisma" – the residence. First, to Vladimir-on-Klyazma (because of the Horde invasion and the devastation of Kiev), and then to Moscow, as the unifying center of the northeastern eparchies of Rus.
In connection with the absorption by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of the southwestern territories, which were part of the Kiev Metropolis, and at the request of the Lithuanian dukes (later Polish Catholic kings), metropolitans were sent to Kiev. The tragic story of the burning of Metropolitan Gerasim by Duke Svidrigailo in Vitebsk does not best describe the position of the Kiev Primate in the network of church-state relations of that time.
"Beyond all this, a study of the matter in the light of the sacred canons does not justify any intervention whatsoever by the Church of Russia. The Tome proclaiming Moscow as a Patriarchate does not include the region of today’s Metropolis of Kiev in the jurisdiction of Moscow."
It is strange why Constantinople remained silent about this for three centuries, casually mentioning it only in 1924 with the bestowal of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Poland. Besides, actually, the lands of the canonical influence of the present Kiev Metropolis differ significantly from the times of the Tomos proclaiming Moscow as Patriarchate. Some eparchies, included in the Kiev Metropolis in the XVI-XVII centuries, are now part of the other Autocephalous Churches (Polish and Russian). In what canonically acceptable way will Constantinople decide the question of their jurisdictional affiliation now?
"Moreover, after the well-known manner of the proclamation of Moscow as a Patriarchate by Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II (Tranos), the canonical dependence of Kiev to the Mother Church of Constantinople remained constant and uninterrupted."
Unfortunately, we do not understand why the Patriarch forgets the known facts of Byzantine historians (which not only the Internet but also serious publications are filled with) about the weaknesses, intrigues and servility of the Constantinople archbishops in their politics of the time, and to this day.
"In the year 1686, our predecessor, the late Patriarch Dionysios IV, following great political pressure from the harrowing circumstances and for peace in the local Church, was obliged to issue a letter granting Moscow the license to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev on the inviolable condition that every Metropolitan of Kiev would commemorate the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch as his ecclesiastical superior and authority, but also to demonstrate the canonical jurisdiction of Constantinople over this Metropolis."
The Patriarchate of Constantinople, after the Islamic conquest tormented by the circumstances of its existence in a heterodox world, is forced to side those political players who can guarantee at least the preservation of its position without significant material and reputational losses. At the same time, it did not shy away from serious political and financial support from the Russian Church. And to date, Patriarch Bartholomew has been dragged into political games and is trying to revive the former spiritual authority of Constantinople, using the connections and resources of numerous Greek immigrants.
The Patriarch of Moscow received the right not only to appoint but to ordain and even judge the Metropolitan of Kiev, who was elected by the local clergy. Then a canonical collision ensued: the Metropolitan was ordained and subordinated to one Patriarch (Moscow), but he was to remain viceroy of another Patriarch (Constantinople). But for the sake of the good of the Ukrainian flock, it would be more expedient to overcome the "distance of places" and "the war between the two great kingdoms".
"As far as we know, no other act changing the canonical state of Kiev or revision of the condition to commemorate Constantinople has ever occurred; nor of course has there been any such change on the part of the Mother Church ceding Kiev completely to Russia. The uncanonical interventions of Moscow from time to time in the affairs of Kiev and the toleration on the part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in previous years do not validate any ecclesiastical violation."
However, the mere fact that the Church of Constantinople has recognized for over 300 years the legality of the hierarchy appointed to Ukraine by the Russian Orthodox Church is a sufficient basis for the 1686 Act to remain in force to this day. As we can see, the "tolerance" of the Mother Church was interrupted by a change in the geopolitical situation and the wind from across the ocean.
In addition to this, a formidable canonical proposal was also made by the Bishop Makarios (Grinezakis) of Christoupolis, vicar of the Metropolitan of Tallinn. The main idea of his report was that all Kiev Metropolitans, who do not commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch, violate the canons and are subject to reprisal.
It is noteworthy that references to canons and reprisals were not indicated. It is not surprising that this was sounded by the representative of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, the establishment of which arose disagreements between Constantinople and Moscow.
"In any case, it is true that the occasional deliberate efforts of the Church of Russia to resolve this matter failed. Thus, since Russia, as the one responsible for the current painful situation in Ukraine, is unable to solve the problem, the Ecumenical Patriarchate assumed the initiative of resolving the problem in accordance with the authority afforded to it by the Sacred Canons and the jurisdictional responsibility over the eparchy of Kiev, receiving a request to this end by the honorable Ukrainian Government, as well as recurring requests by “Patriarch” Philaret of Kiev appealing for our adjudication of his case."
Neither the decisions of the ROC nor the position of the UOC as a self-governing part of the ROC has failed because the only canonically possible way to solve the painful situation in Ukraine can be the repentance of leaders and structures that have fallen away from unity with the Catholic Church. Once the Ecumenical Patriarchate, by his own initiative, intervened in the history with a renovation schism, even suggested that St. Tikhon (Bellavin) leave the patriarchal ministry in order to normalize relations with the schism.
Also, it should not go unnoticed that His Grace Makarios (Grinezakis) mentioned in his touching address "Patriarch" Philaret, who has a strong desire to legalize the religious and political organization under the name "Kiev Patriarchate", which he leads. An interesting fact is that the address indicates almost the illegality of the formation of the ROC, but at the same time, nothing is said about the legality of the ordination in it of Philaret (Denisenko), who, while at the Kiev See, also did not commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople, but today he is crying out to have been oppressed by Moscow.
But here's the question: if he took his monastic vows and ordained in the "enemy church," then why did he not refuse all the regalia he received from the Russian Church, after going over to the side of "light"? Having ascended the career ladder precisely in the Soviet Union, he suddenly becomes "patriotic" and remembers that the Mother Church for us is Constantinople, which for 300 years did not remember us until the appearance of the renovation schism in the ROC.
Lately, we see how the Patriarch of Constantinople, by the way, a citizen of a Muslim state, carrying out his activities far beyond its borders, has been trying to become not only the first among equals but the head of the entire Orthodox Church. Thus, the Patriarch of Constantinople actually follows the Pope and displaces the true head of the Church – Christ. The statements declared by the official Constantinople are not only essentially pretentious and awkward but also lead to the danger of a repetition of the schism of 1054, which in modern conditions may become even more terrible, as it occurs in the Orthodox East. It is easy to understand that attempts to create the "Eastern Pope" provoke discord and unrest within Orthodoxy, and instead of uniting all Local Churches under his omophorion, his Holiest Bartholomew does not bind but rips the robe of Christ.
"The Mother Church does not create or shape its own church management; nor does it complete the Gospel, like the Grand Inquisitor of the renowned Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky."
Why, then, the issue of the old-style schism within the Greek Church is not resolved, but there is a direct interference in the internal affairs of another sister Church?
"As the First Throne of Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate exercises a prophetic ministry, extending the mystery of the Catholic Church in Christ Jesus throughout the world in each era."
A pathetically expressed ecclesiological truth. But such a ministry is carried out by each Local Orthodox Church. The First Throne is the primacy of honour, which arose in connection with granting Constantinople the status of the capital of the Byzantine Empire and the fall of Rome from the Church Body, and not some privileges or an exclusive role such as the service of the Roman Pope.
Unfortunately, theologians of Constantinople, polemicizing on the issue of primacy in the Universal Church, affirm the priority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, using the trinitarian model and the principles of its reflection in the life of the Church. As the Father – the Source of unity and hypostasis in the Trinity, so the Ecumenical Patriarch is the guarantor of preserving unity in the Orthodox world in all its local diversity. And since the Son and the Holy Spirit are not donators of this ontological primacy for the Father, so are the other bishops and patriarchs who do not delegate the ecumenical primacy to the archbishop of Constantinople, because he is the first without equals. In this regard, it must be recalled that the historical and missionary primacy still belongs to the Jerusalem Church, as a spiritual Mother for all other Churches.
Even the Catholics confined themselves to the fact that the primacy of the Pope of Rome is traced back to the succession from the "Prince of the Apostles" Peter and to the reign of Christ (that is, the Divine economy of salvation), and here boldness goes even further, directly into "theology", that is, into the mystery of the intra-Trinity genesis and the origin of Divine Hypostases.
Why did the Cappadocian Fathers, developing the Trinitarian terminology, bringing the human mind closer to the knowledge of God, not mention the relationship between the Trinity and the hierarchical structure that is now being promoted by the Constantinople theologians? Couldn’t St. Gregory the Theologian, the "Trinity Singer", being the Archbishop of Constantinople a short time, disappointed with the capital's intrigues, have failed to protect his position with such a doctrine?
At the end of his speech, Patriarch Bartholomew, in support of what has been said, referred to a series of conciliar rules, historical documents and modern research in the field of ecclesiastical law. Obviously, all this is a one-sided response to the proposal to hold a conference on the problem of autocephaly in Ukraine, with the presentation and discussion of historical documents. Perhaps, this is also the consequence of the Constantinople doctrine of the primacy, where the Ecumenical Patriarch, the first, again without equals, decides on the existence of his fellow believers under the spiritual leadership of their Primate – His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine, who did not apply to him for autocephaly but asked not to be a puppet in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.
We can’t believe that Patriarch Bartholomew and his brothers-bishops do not hear "thanksgiving to God for the unleashed war", calls of autocephaly adherents for washing away sins by blood, for the forcible seizure of the property of the UOC, especially Lavras, for the imitation of "Adolphe Aloizovich" or for the complete redrawing of the religious map of Ukraine, which will not pass painlessly?
Is the Patriarchate of Constantinople ready to take responsibility before God for possible bloodshed, in connection with the generated interfaith confrontation; and will this speech of Patriarch Bartholomew become an ideological justification for the "Bartholomew's Night" in Ukraine?
