By Hieromonk Nikitas from Pantokratoros Monastery
Lately, much has been written about the abusive announcement issued by the Press Office of the Russian Intelligence Service concerning the Ecumenical Patriarch. We have encountered harsh characterizations such as “devil in the flesh” and “antichrist of Constantinople,” which did not surprise us, given that similar attacks have previously been voiced by clergy of the Patriarchate of Moscow. What did surprise us, however, was that an announcement of such an overtly ecclesiastical nature was issued not by an ecclesiastical body, but by the state.
Clearly, and now without any sense of restraint, positions on ecclesiastical matters are being articulated by a Russian state agency rather than by the Church. The state–Church relationship in Russia has long functioned in this manner, but it is now doing so openly. It doesn’t matter where an announcement of ecclesiastical content in Russia comes from. The Russian Church has become a means of promoting the secular, political, and military interests of the Russian state. The Russian Church has fully identified with this role. It has now become evident that the Church’s role in Russia has been reduced to that of an annex of the state apparatus, unable to adopt an opposing position on any issue, even one of a soteriological nature. In this process, it appears to have forgotten that the Head of the Church is Christ. The Word of Christ and the Gospel have been supplanted by the words of President Putin. Christ wants peace, but President Putin wants victory. With whom should the Church of Russia harmonize? There is no Christian teaching that could justify any war or bloodshed.
We have witnessed numerous paradoxes produced by the Church of Russia: the characterization of this war as a holy war against the devil and the Antichrist; the blessing of nuclear weapons; and the assurance of paradise for anyone who “falls” for the sake of the homeland in this war. In addition, special prayers were composed which all priests were obliged to read at every Divine Liturgy; petitions and prayers for victory in the war. Some pious priests in Russia dared not only to refuse to read these prayers, but also to replace the word “victory” with the word “peace.” All of them, without exception or second chance, were defrocked. Many of them found refuge in the embrace of the Mother Church and were restored to the ranks of the priesthood they previously held. The same fate befell the five defrocked clergymen of the Moscow Patriarchate in Lithuania, who dared in their sermons to speak out against this diabolical war and in favor of peace, that is, to align themselves with the word of the Gospel rather than the “Russian world.” As expected, they were defrocked and subsequently appealed to the Mother Church. On the basis of these clergymen, the foundations were laid for the creation of the Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Lithuania.
It is precisely this ecclesiastical development that prompted the foreign intelligence service to express concern about the situation in the Baltic states. But what is actually happening in these countries? What is their ecclesiastical history? Let’s look at them briefly. These regions, first and foremost, bear no relation to the institutionalized boundaries set out in the Tomos of the Patriarchate of Russia, which were defined in accordance with the territorial limits of the Kingdom of Great Russia and its ‘Hyperborean’ parts in 1589. At that time, the Baltic regions did not belong to the Kingdom of Great Russia, but to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the eighteenth century, these territories were occupied by the empire of the Tsars, which placed the existing Orthodox structures in the region under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate and established new ones.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate did not intervene until the collapse of the empire, when it was asked to provide canonical protection, an appeal that resulted in the granting of the Tomos of Autonomy to Estonia in 1923. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has consistently acted in this manner: intervening at the appropriate time, having tolerated developments for long periods, and always with the salvation of the faithful as its central objective. In his homily at the Feast of the Epiphany, the Ecumenical Patriarch stated: “Tolerance, waiting, long-suffering, forgiveness, and the patience with hope of the Mother Church toward her disobedient children were regarded as indifference, abandonment, weakness, or even incompetence. Time, times, and centuries passed, and the transgression of established boundaries came to be perceived by many as normality, correctness, right, and even tacit acceptance. Yet they forgot that in the Holy Church of Christ, anti-canonical acts do not constitute a secure foundation for their legitimization or for the construction of healthy and stable ecclesiastical structures upon them.”
Each Church can exercise its jurisdiction only within the limits set out in the Tomos of Autocephaly. Beyond these limits, jurisdiction belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as explicitly stated in Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Κανόνας ΚΗ’), which grants the Bishop of Constantinople pastoral responsibility over regions lying outside the geographical boundaries of the other local Churches. In the fifth century, when this canon was formulated, such regions were referred to as “barbarian nations,” meaning territories beyond the borders of the Byzantine Empire. This Canon thus clarifies the provision of the Second Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, which states that the Churches in the “barbarian nations” are to be governed “according to the tradition handed down by the holy Fathers.”
Between 1918 and 1940, the Baltic states functioned as independent countries. Their violent incorporation into the Soviet Union after the Second World War was accompanied by numerous arbitrary and uncanonical actions on the part of the Church of Russia, which imposed their subordination to the direct jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, abolishing every form of ecclesiastical independence that had existed. The Church in these regions was treated by the Soviet authorities as a component of the state apparatus to be reorganized, and it remained effectively “captive” until the collapse of the Soviet regime and the restoration of these countries’ independence in 1991.
It is noteworthy that there has never been a synodal decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognizing the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate over the Balkan countries. The same applies to other countries in which the Moscow Patriarchate operates uncanonically, such as Belarus, Finland, Moldova, and others. It therefore becomes clear that the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not create the problem, as alleged by the Russian service, but rather intervened to heal the canonical disorder caused by the Moscow Patriarchate, sharing in the suffering of the faithful at a moment when the danger of war and the re-imposition of authority once again loom. The actions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate constitute, in fact, the healing of a trauma violently inflicted in the aftermath of the Second World War.
We are also struck by the report of the Russian state service alleging that the Ecumenical Patriarch intends to grant autocephaly to the unrecognized so-called “Orthodox Church of Montenegro.” Such a claim may be interpreted as a cry of fear on the part of one who is conscious of having committed a grave wrongdoing and now anticipates accountability. The awareness that only the Ecumenical Patriarchate possesses the authority to lift a schism, restore hierarchs, and confer ecclesiastical status upon an ecclesiastical body explains the resort to insults, aimed not only at undermining the institution itself, but also at personally discrediting the Ecumenical Patriarch. In an attempt to diminish these prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the specific case of the Church of Skopje, there was an uncanocial and hasty granting of a Tomos of Autocephaly to the Archdiocese of Ohrid. However, such an act cannot produce any canonical effect until it is recognized by the Mother Church of Constantinople. With regard to Montenegro, history will ultimately determine whether this Church will be granted a Tomos of Autocephaly, or whether this ecclesiastical wound will be healed in another manner. The objective of the Church nevertheless remains unchanged: the salvation of the faithful, a truth the Ecumenical Patriarch repeatedly affirms with clarity and steadfastness.
In its announcement, the Russian state service accuses the Ecumenical Patriarch of having caused a schism in Ukraine and within the Orthodox world more broadly, an accusation that is entirely untenable in light of present realities. The process of granting autocephaly to Ukraine was carried out strictly in accordance with the canons and the Holy Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The division did not arise through the fault of the Ecumenical Patriarch, but rather through the actions of the Church of Russia, which continues to support and perpetuate it. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, by contrast, brought together the three ecclesiastical factions that existed in Ukraine and repeatedly called upon all who remained outside communion to pursue unity. His most recent appeal was made on the Feast of the Epiphany, when he once again invited Metropolitan Onufriy (of the UOC) and those with him to engage in dialogue. And yet, despite these consistent efforts toward reconciliation, he continues to be accused of indifference toward unity. If the one who invites to unity is not interested, who is? The one who doesn’t accept the invitation?
Contrary to the spirit of unity, the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine persistently refuse dialogue. The Ecumenical Patriarch is accused of creating a schism at a time when it is, in fact, the Church of Russia that has severed communion with the Mother Church. The schism was caused not by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but by the Russian Church itself. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate remains in communion with all the local Orthodox Churches, whereas the Church of Russia has σεωερεδ communion with several of them. In this regard, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew stated in his homily: “The fact that we are not commemorated by the Church of Russia is of very little importance. For, in fidelity to the truth, we cannot retreat for the sake of the interests of an ungrateful Church. We continue to commemorate Moscow, because what matters to us is unity. If the Patriarchate of Russia is angered by the loss of its influence in Ukraine and shows no concern for unity, we don’t care! We continue to uphold the canonical order of the Mother Church, as prescribed by Holy Tradition, and to strive for unity in fulfillment of Christ’s command: ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν (that they all may be one).”
When matters are viewed in their proper perspective, the reference made by the Russian state service against Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew effectively amounts to the following accusation: that he allegedly “dissolves the living Body of the Church.” In doing so, they implicitly liken him to the false prophets mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount: “They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves… You will know them by their fruits.”Yet this description corresponds far more accurately to the conduct of the Church of Russia itself and to the fruits it manifestly bears.
Only a true confessor of the faith is willing to be sacrificed for the sake of truth and unity, setting aside the narrow interests of a local Church in favor of the good of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. What, on a purely secular level, did the Ecumenical Patriarchate gain from granting autocephaly to Ukraine? What did the Phanar gain? Insults, defamation, slander, disgrace, and humiliations, such as this shameful announcement. And yet, paradoxically and unwillingly, these attacks serve to vindicate the Ecumenical Patriarch himself. Through the accumulation of slanders, baseless accusations, insults, and humiliations, combined with the forbearance and patience the Patriarch consistently displays, he emerges as a genuine imitator of Christ and stands in continuity with the Holy Confessors. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has shown the courage to confront danger and threat alike for the sake of truth, unity, and the salvation of humanity.
Translated by: Konstantinos Menyktas
