OCU and schism on Athos: Who is to blame and what to do?
The abbots of some Athos monasteries refuse to concelebrate with those who recognised the OCU. Phanariots talk of the schism and accuse the ROC. Who is really to blame?
On Mt Athos, passions are boiling over the OCU. Currently, the "Ukrainian question" has become one of the most pressing issues on Mount Athos. And it is not so much because of Russia's war against Ukraine but because of the war between the OCU and the UOC. What exactly happened?
During a festive service on the feast of the Annunciation of the Mother of God at the Philotheou Monastery, the abbots of several Athonite monasteries refused to concelebrate with representatives of those monasteries that recognized the OCU.
Thus, after the all-night vigil, the abbot of the Philotheou Monastery, Archimandrite Nicodemos, summoned the delegate and representative of the Pantokratoros Monastery, Hierodeacon Niphon, and Hieromonk Vissarion, and told them that they could not stay for the solemn archepiscopal liturgy the next day. "I do not consider you heretics, but the monasteries have recognised you as those who have concelebrated with schismatics! Therefore, you cannot stay and liturgize with us," Father Nicodemus told them.
Who is to blame according to the Phanar?
It later became known that besides Archimandrite Nicodemus, Archimandrite Joseph, the abbot of the Xeropotamou Monastery, also refused to serve with the representatives of Xenophontos and Pantokratoros. The abbots of the other monasteries of Zographou, Chilandari (Hilandar), Karakallou and Panteleimon adhere to the same position.
In other words, if before the Aphonites who opposed the OCU somehow tried to maintain the appearance of unity (for example, by refusing to concelebrate with those who recognized the OCU, referring to COVID-19), now they have decided to openly declare their position.
Understandably, in the Greek-language media, this position has provoked mixed reactions. The pro-Phanar resource ‘Fos Fanariou’ hastened to accuse hegumen of Xeropotamou of what happened, hinting that the reconstruction of his monastery "may be financed by the Russians". The fact that, for example, the monastery of Simonopetra is financed by Ukrainian businessman and OCU sponsor Matsola, raises no questions. Neither are the repairs that began in Xenophontos immediately after one of its monks wrote the text of the Tomos.
In addition, according to ‘Fos Fanariou’, the Aphonites cannot oppose the OCU because Dumenko is pro-Phanar. The logic is strange, especially since many of the patriarchs of Constantinople were heretics – you couldn't speak out against them either?
Moreover, the Phanariots generally believe that Russia is to blame for this whole situation, which they call the "schism on Athos". But is this true?
Who is really to blame?
Generally, the schism on Athos arose after the Phanar granted the Tomos to the OCU. Initially, most of the monasteries did not agree with this. There followed several appeals (mainly by the celliots): some monasteries did not allow the OCU representatives in. Many Athonite elders stated that recognizing the canonical status of Ukrainian schismatics was a big mistake of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Then everything seemed to calm down. Moreover, some monasteries, such as Xenophontos, Pantokratoros, Simonopetra and New Esphigmenou, began to openly support the OCU, while others, such as Iveron and Vatopedi, covertly, and it seemed that eventually all would fall. But…
In fact, the situation regarding the OCU on Athos remained difficult. Many monasteries, cells, hermitages and individual monks continued to resist – some silently, others openly. One thing was clear: the problem exists even if it was not talked about all the time. Besides, there were other problems - the COVID pandemic, for example.
And now, when COVID has become irrelevant and the reluctance to concelebrate with those who recognized the OCU could not be justified by the quarantine, the time has come to clearly state its position.
Moreover, on Athos itself, they say that hegumen Joseph, who previously did not recognize the OCU, has now become an uncompromising opponent of Dumenko because of what is happening in Ukraine. He, like many Athonites, is shocked by the persecutions against the UOC by the authorities, who literally force believers of our Church to join Dumenko's organization. Allegedly, the last argument for Archimandrite Joseph was the persecution of the monks of the Kyiv Caves Lavra, the destruction of the church in Lviv and the electronic bracelet on Metropolitan Pavel's leg.
Furthermore, the abbots of the Athonite monasteries are strongly dissatisfied with the fact that the hegumen of Pantokratoros, Archimandrite Gabriel, dealt a blow to Athonite unity by allowing a cell to be occupied by Ukrainian schismatics without consulting the Athonite brotherhood, which the Phanariots have suddenly remembered.
Moreover, the Athonites have long been outraged by the instigating actions of the "pool of Patriarch Bartholomew", whose representatives (this includes New Esphigmenou, Xenophontos, and Pantokratoros) constantly strike against the peace and unity of the Holy Mountain. It is enough to remember, for example, the words of the abbot of New Esphigmenou, who called on the Greek authorities to punish and "hold accountable" those monks who did not want to be vaccinated or his words that "Mount Athos could become a base for Russian ships and submarines". This person has long been disrespected by the abbots of Mount Athos and the monks of the Holy Mountain, but he is tolerated – for the reason that he is a follower and protégé of Patriarch Bartholomew.
What is happening now?
Right now, there is huge pressure on the abbot of the Philotheou Monastery. It is clear that the Phanar and its "partners" play a significant role in this. Due to this pressure, Archimandrite Nicodemos even had to write a "justifying" letter, which, in our opinion, became another proof that the hegumen of Philotheou made the decision to expel the monks who recognized the OCU not on his own, but after a council with the brethren of other monasteries.
In particular, a letter published on behalf of the monastery said that "during the feast of the Annunciation of the Mother of God and especially since the beginning of the vigil, the abbot of the monastery became the recipient of many complaints from many fathers of both the monastery itself (Philotheou – Ed.) and representatives of the monasteries of Mount Athos, demanding their reaction to the presence of representatives of the holy monasteries of Pantokratoros and Xenophontos. The abbot found himself in a particularly difficult position, knowing from experience that other monasteries faced the same problem (unwillingness to co-serve with those who recognised the OCU – Ed.) or found themselves in a similar situation, and tried to find a balance between the two sides, without taking any action that would be extreme". Well, he simply asked the monks of Xenophontos and Pantokratoros to "leave."
What do we learn from this letter?
1. The brethren of the Philotheou Monastery do not want to concelebrate with those who recognise the schismatics.
2. The brethren of the other monasteries do not want to co-serve with those who recognise the schismatics.
3 This situation is not new as "other monasteries have faced the same problem".
This means that simply "silencing" the scandal is unlikely to succeed. Nor will it be possible to silence those monks who do not want to keep quiet.
Today in Greece in general and in Athos in particular it is more and more often said that Epifaniy Dumenko is not a schismatic. “Patriarch" Filaret Denisenko is a schismatic because he had a legitimate chrismation, which he lost by going into schism. And here Serhiy Petrovych Dumenko had no ordination at all, which means that he, according to a growing number of Greeks, is not a schismatic but a heretic, as he dares to "serve" without any right to do so. No one – no patriarch, let alone any super-state – can recognise the canonicity of schismatics if they have not repented. Therefore, the Tomos of Patriarch Bartholomew is a document, which in the face of the Church has no canonical value. This fact is well understood in Athos.
And God grant that all the Orthodox Churches will have the same understanding. Because then we have a chance to solve the "Ukrainian issue" not in terms of geopolitics but in terms of canons and the Church Tradition.
