The answer to the Athonite monk propagating OCU
A Greek theologian answered the monk of Athos, who stated the Ukrainian schism was arranged by the ROC, and the OCU creation is comparable to the miracles of Christ.
The Phanar uses Athos to advocate the OCU and justify its actions in Ukraine. The monks of the monasteries of the Holy Mountain, who entered into communion with Ukrainian schismatics, were given the task of writing works in favour of Dumenko and disseminate them in the Orthodox world.
The texts of one of them, Fr. Nikita from the Pantokrator Monastery, published as a separate brochure, are translated into different languages and actively promoted among the Local Churches (with completely transparent intentions).
The author accuses the ROC (!) of creating a schism in Ukraine in 1992, compares the creation of the OCU with the miracles that Christ performed in earthly life and claims that "the Ukrainian people as a whole has already found salvation".
In Greek Orthodoxy, these texts have received many critical reviews. We offer you a translation of one of them. Its author is Vassilios Efstathios, Bachelor of Theology of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
Hierarchs respond to Father Nikita of Pantokrator on the Ukrainian issue
Having started reading the text of Father Nikita from the Pantokrator Monastery on the Ukrainian issue entitled "The Whole Truth About the Ukrainian Church Question", we are convinced from the very first lines that the author does not present the whole truth for the simple reason that he is biased and writes, clearly relying on prejudices.
He begins with these words: "It is known that ... we are talking about the largest church event of recent decades, not so much because the fifteenth Orthodox independent Church was created, but about the reaction of the Russian Church, which caused division in Orthodoxy, ceasing commemoration and communion ..."
That is, in other words, the author writes that in the church event of granting Ukraine the Tomos of autocephaly (and not the creation, as he writes, of the fifteenth Church – the Churches are not created by granting autocephaly), the serious problem is not the erroneous approach of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the question as a whole (here the father does not see any problem), but the reaction of the Russian Church. However, he does not explain to us how it is possible that if the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate really did not make mistakes in deciding to grant the Tomos, other Churches do not recognize this decision?
How is it possible that if the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate really did not make mistakes in deciding to grant the Tomos, other Churches do not recognize this decision?
In this regard, the author simply writes further that “any protests that take place are temporary, and they will come to nought, because they contradict the will of God, who “who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2: 4 ) ". Thus he explains to us that all the objections of the Local Churches and the majority of the fathers and monasteries of the Holy Mount Athos contradict the will of God, while the victory will be won by the act of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which, according to the author, was apparently godly. And, consequently, there is no need for pan-Orthodox councils, since on the part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate everything is so "pleasing to God" that it unilaterally makes such godly decisions.
Then why do we need the opinion of other Churches and, accordingly, the Pan-Orthodox Council? After all, it is enough just that time has passed, and everyone, without any objection, will obediently bow their heads to the will of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
We already have three examples. The first is the minority of Greek hierarchs, who, having the only argument: “the Russians are to blame”, imposed their opinion on the rest of the members of the Holy Synod of the Greek Church, convened on the Ukrainian issue. Moreover, this was done without any significant preparation and without a vote. What were the canonical council procedures for, and what value did the arguments of the other members have? And without them, everything went ... godly.
The other two examples: the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Archbishop of Cyprus, who did not bother themselves, asking for the opinion of their Holy Synods on Ukrainian autocephaly, or, better to say, knew for sure that there would be objections from the hierarchs of their Holy Synods, and therefore, without convening Bishops' Councils of their Churches, took an unliteral decision to recognize the OCU, thereby violating the promise of support given in 2018 to the Ukrainian people under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Onuphry.
The Patriarch of Alexandria and the Archbishop of Cyprus knew for sure that there would be objections from the hierarchs of their Holy Synods, and therefore, without convening Bishops' Councils of their Churches, took a unliteral decision to recognize the OCU.
Why does the Primate, when he does something like that ... godly, also need the Holy Synod? And yet such views of the respected Fr Nikita cannot convince us of his correctness and objectivity.
We reviewed the first part of his text "They claim that there was an invasion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on their territory", from which it is clear that in a historical overview, considering possible mistakes of the Moscow Patriarchate, Fr Nikita never sees possible mistakes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. On this topic, there are serious studies and bibliography both of hierarchs (for example, a letter of November 2019 from the Most Reverend Metropolitans Seraphim of Piraeus, Seraphim of Kythira, Andrey Konitskiy, Cosmas of Aetolia), the St. Gregory Monastery ("The Rights of the Churches and the Unity of the Church"), as well as our own research ("The Essence of the Ukrainian Issue"), in which we set out, as objectively as possible, the mistakes made in the course of history by both sides, which led us to a hopeless situation, and therefore we have nothing more to say here.
We only note as a conclusion that on such a critical, delicate, complex and time-consuming issue as the Ukrainian one, in fact, any unilateral attempt to resolve it is unacceptable, for such an action can only cause a more serious crisis and division, as, unfortunately, happened in a specific case when the corresponding decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch to cancel the pan-Orthodox church status, which had been in force for three hundred years (!), was made without the consent of any Local Church.
And then Fr Nikita continues to argue, speaking in the second part ("They claim that there is no repentance on the part of the former schismatics") about the schismatic Patriarch Filaret, trying to convince the reader that he had repented. So, he writes: "How can you say that Metropolitan Filaret did not repent?", although he himself knows that "after his reinstatement, he changed his mind". And the author justifies this change with the following words: "But this is already his personal choice." How can it be that after the supposed repentance the same crime is repeated, and we still continue talking about repentance? What kind of repentance is this? In any case, it is definitely not sincere.
How can it be that after the supposed repentance the same crime is repeated, and we still continue talking about repentance? What kind of repentance is this?
Immediately after that, Fr Nikita writes on the issue of the ordination of Metropolitan Makariy, accused of self-consecration, that all documents on his ordination are in the Ecumenical Patriarchate. We would like to believe these documents if they are indeed legitimate and without a doubt confirm this fact, dispelling the fundamental suspicions that have been caused by other published related documents. At the same time, we constantly hear about the existence of these documents but have never seen them since they are not published, as it should have been done in such a serious issue of pan-Orthodox scale.
Anyway, it is interesting how the respected Fr Nikita embellishes reality: “Millions of Ukrainians have been in schism for twenty-seven years, not knowing what caused it. We all need to rejoice because the entire Ukrainian people have now found the ‘path of salvation’. From now on, the Church of Christ has many millions of new members."
Let us express doubt whether the entire Ukrainian people have now found the "path of salvation", given the fact that for two years after the granting of autocephaly, this people cannot find peace: members of the autocephalous Church every day seize the temples of believers under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Onuphry, and the latter do not respond with violence and revenge to this plundering of the former. Instead, they have to build new churches from scratch, donating their labour and time to this.
We also wonder how it is possible that people who act in this way towards their neighbours, who are not only compatriots for them but also brothers in Christ, are on the "path of salvation"? Was it necessary to make a schism in the entire Orthodox Church for the Ukrainian schismatics to come to the "path of salvation"? What kind of church decision is this?
How is it possible that people who seize the churches of the believers who are not only compatriots for them but also brothers in Christ are on the "path of salvation"? Was it necessary to make a schism in the entire Orthodox Church for the Ukrainian schismatics to come to the "path of salvation"?
Further, in the third part (“They claim that the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not have the canonical right to accept appeals from other Patriarchates”) the author writes that “from now on there is not a single schismatic in Ukraine”. How can Fr Nikita write something like that, at the same time knowing that, as he himself notes above, Filaret changed his mind and again went into schism? And yet, how can you write this when the clergy and people under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Onuphry, who make up the vast majority among Christians in Ukraine, remain faithful to their Local Church with very few exceptions, without being in communion with those who belong to the autocephalous structure?
Much has been written about the right to accept appeals, which we have already written about in our aforementioned study, including by hierarchs, first of all, by Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, a well-known and authoritative interpreter of the sacred canons, and we will not return to it here.
Obviously, Fr. Nikita reinterprets the relevant canons, which he mentions since he does not give any specific reference to their second part: “If a bishop or cleric has displeasure with a metropolitan of a region, let him turn either to the exarch of the region, or to the throne of reigning Constantinople, and let him be judged before him." The canons speak not only of "the throne of reigning Constantinople," but also of "the exarch of a region". And between the two there is a disjunctive conjunction, which is of cardinal importance for understanding the meaning of this canon regarding the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in accepting appeals and preserving the conciliar structure of the Church unchanged.
The author continues: "Anyone who agrees with the existence of this privilege with the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Enkliton) agrees to the reinstation [in the rank] of former schismatics in Ukraine," which, of course, is not true and wrong, because even if the Ecumenical Patriarchate had the right to accept Filaret's appeal, then this should have been only and exclusively if Filaret had not resisted the decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church on him. But that is exactly what he ultimately did, anathematizing the Russian bishops and causing a schism, so that he lost any right to defence. From now on, the only way out for him was to repent before the Russian hierarchs, which, of course, never happened. In addition, as you know, the same Ecumenical Patriarchate in its letters to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1992 and 1997. recognized all court decisions of the latter in relation to Filaret. How then was the guilty Filaret justified now, although his attitude towards the Russian episcopate, in fact, has not changed at all?
As known, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in its letters to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1992 and 1997 recognized all court decisions of the latter in relation to Filaret. How then was the guilty Filaret justified now, although his attitude towards the Russian episcopate, in fact, has not changed at all?
In the fourth part "They claim that the recognition of the former schismatics is not valid and that they remain schismatics", we would agree with what Fr Nikita writes if there were no fundamental doubts about the origin of ordination among the self-consecrated. However, this does not mean that even if they were accepted back into the Church in their existing dignity, they could belong to a different church structure than the one that already existed, i.e. headed by Metropolitan Onuphry.
From the moment they did not agree to enter the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, headed by Metropolitan Onuphry, a serious problem arose with their reinstatement, which should have been resolved not through unilateral intervention, but at the inter-Orthodox level and with pan-Orthodox consent. But the Council of Crete was convened to solve supposedly different problems, and where there was no mention of this serious and dangerous problem, although it had to be carefully worked on before the Сouncil and, first of all, it had to be presented there. When there are such complications in this matter, how can schismatics, who at least have not even been re-ordained, be taken back into communion? Indeed, this is a very strange and extraordinary demand of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The fifth part is entitled "They claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch wants to be the first without equals and call him the Eastern Pope." Is Fr Nikita not aware of the struggle that the Eminent Metropolitans John of Pergamon and the former Prussian (now Archbishop of America) Elpidophoros are waging in their statements and theological texts in order to secure the primacy without equals to the Ecumenical Patriarch? If the current Ecumenical Patriarch did not want this, would they do anything similar? A popular saying is appropriate of Montenegro here: "When three know it, all know it.” The already deceased Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and the Littoral said: “The Patriarch (of Constantinople) is a man of old age, and everyone is trying to consolidate his primacy. However, in fact, he exposes the Patriarchate to great danger, and there is no doubt about that.” No comments.
Meanwhile, the text continues: “They demand that autocephaly be granted only with the consent of all Local Churches, a kind of Pan-Orthodox Council. But not a single autocephaly was granted by the Pan-Orthodox Council since this is the exclusive privilege of the Ecumenical Patriarchate." Basically, all the tomoses of autocephaly were granted after pan-Orthodox consent had been previously secured, and in different ways, so that, as everyone knows and as the current Ecumenical Patriarch himself recognized, it remains only to confirm them at the future Pan-Orthodox Council.
In the Ukrainian case, not only pan-Orthodox agreement was not previously reached, but literally none of the Local Churches agreed with such an initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant autocephaly in this way.
As for the failed meeting in Amman (Jordan), which Fr Nikita speaks of, and the “new platforms” that do not follow the “well-trodden and safe path of tradition and Church history”, why exactly the same cannot be said about the Council of Crete? Why doesn't Fr Nikita say anything about it? Isn't it fair and objective to talk about everything? After all, only then can we claim that we are telling the whole truth.
Also, Fr Nikita discusses the privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarch "to administer church affairs, to grant autocephaly, to accept appeals from other Local Churches", which "the Church granted him at the Ecumenical Councils". However, the reference to these privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarch, without citing the conditions that we spoke about above, leads us straight from the "primacy among equals" to the "primacy without equals", which worries not only Russian theologians and clergy but also the Greeks, who have good reasons and grounds for this.
The sixth part is called “They claim that they are right since the former schismatics are not recognized by all autocephalous Churches”, but this title, of course, is completely inaccurate as in reality, after two years, autocephaly is not recognized by the majority of Local Churches, i.e. ten out of fourteen. We have already spoken about the three who recognized the granting of the Tomos of autocephaly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Ukraine, pointing to the anti-conciliar way in which it all happened, when, in particular, in two cases the decision was made even without convening the Holy Synod, only at their Primates’ initiative.
We believe that it would be an unjustified exaggeration on the part of the respected Fr Nikita to explain all this solely by the fear of the Russian threat. We do not reserve the right to recognize this method of granting autocephaly which was used because we are afraid of the Russians or because we are interested in them, or because we do not respect the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the like.
It is unacceptable when someone, relying on reasonable arguments, acts according to conscience, and you try to impose your own convictions on him, even if they are completely wrong for him: “The fact that the autocephaly of Ukraine is an accomplished church act is a fact. And we must all gradually accept it."
Or maybe it is worth for Father Nikita to reflect over and apply to himself the words he writes in relation to others: “If you objectively deal with these issues, then you understand where the truth is, and you will find out what the will of God is. If you proceed from good intentions and believe that you are not sinless, then you might think that some of your opinions on this issue are wrong. Unhappy is the person who does not believe that he can be wrong. He will remain with his opinion, which, as he believes, is the only correct one.”
We believe that from the point of view of the search for truth in this matter, it will be constructive and useful to carefully read the recent statement of the Eminent Metropolitans Nikiforos of Kykkos, Athanasios of Limassol, Isaiah of Tamassos and Bishop Nicholas of Amathountos of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus on October 24, 2020, as well as their letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch dated November 4, 2020. In the last document, they write, among other things: “Is it right that the Holy Synod makes a completely unanimous decision on a serious issue and the primate ignores and cancels the decision of the entire Holy Synod and proceeds in a completely different way? Where, then, can we put Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles, which says: "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent, but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
And below: “Your words that ‘Ukrainian autocephaly is a finalized ecclesiastical event...’ do not find agreement with us, since none of the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches was present at the enthronement of Epiphany, and to this day he has been recognized only by two Local Churches. And his confession by the Archbishop of Cyprus is an unauthorized and anti-canonical act.
Each Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, as the Primate of the First Throne of the Orthodox Catholic Church, is a ‘First among equals’ (primus inter pares). He possesses the primacy, which is not 'the primacy of power', but 'the primacy of responsibility and service' for the unity of Orthodoxy, and for the correctness of faith and love."
And finally, hierarchs sincerely reveal their disposition, their attitude and motives, signing as follows: "The above was written in accordance with our hierarchical conscience and with due respect for our honest Ecumenical Patriarchate."
May their blessings be with us.
