By Dora Antoniou*
The SVR defines itself as part of Russia’s national security system, tasked with protecting individuals, society, and the state from external threats. For this reason, the statement issued a few days ago by the Russian intelligence service—successor to the KGB—against Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew caused a stir. “We are entering uncharted waters,” said Elder Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon in response to the daily Kathimerini, confirming that even at the Phanar they consider this statement to be a significant development that alters the framework of the crisis that has already emerged in relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Moscow. In essence, the statement constitutes tangible confirmation of the complete identification of the Russian Church with the Russian leadership and “its transformation into a weapon of political propaganda,” as Metropolitan Emmanuel adds.
A series of questions was raised by the unprecedented attack against the Ecumenical Patriarch, which included particularly harsh characterizations and references to an “orchestrated devil,” collaboration with British intelligence services, “ideological Zionism,” as well as references to typical nationalist and neo-Nazi elements, and culminated in the assessment that he is literally dismantling the “constitutional body of the Church” and acting like “false prophets.” The Phanar was taken by surprise and, although it generally avoids commenting on similar attacks, it spoke of “manifestly fabricated scenarios, false news, insults, and concocted information.”
The personal attack on the Ecumenical Patriarch constitutes a key element distinguishing this incident from previous attacks directed against the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the past. An additional point on which the Phanar places particular emphasis is that, whereas until recently the Russian side accused the Ecumenical Patriarchate of “instigated actions,” in this recent statement there is no such connection whatsoever. On the contrary, there is a reference to alleged links with British intelligence services. From the very first moment, the assessment on the part of the Phanar was that the new framework in relations between the Kremlin and the White House brought about this change, while it is also considered possible that the Russian side is seeking to ascertain whether—and in what manner—the American side will react to the attack on the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The Background
Since 2013, when the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church announced that it was questioning the Primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch—thereby revealing broader intentions to challenge his role and influence—much has transpired. According to a decision of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in April 2018, the granting of autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine marked a turning point that further intensified the crisis.
The Russian side has been working methodically and persistently to strengthen its influence over a number of Patriarchates, while also seeking to undermine the recent meeting between the Ecumenical Patriarch and Pope Leo held in connection with the celebration of the anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council.
This latest development creates a new reality, as “barbarity tends to become the norm,” as Metropolitan Emmanuel pointedly observes.
— To what do you attribute the attack launched by the Russian side against the Ecumenical Patriarchate and personally against Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew?
— The deeper cause of the aggression manifested by the Patriarchate of Moscow against the Ecumenical Patriarchate and personally against Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew unfortunately lies in a spiritual illness and an ecclesiological deviation. One may reasonably seek explanations as to why such a choice was made and why at this particular moment, and it is often the case that anxiety is directed against specific persons; however, it appears that this is ultimately the nature of worldly power when it is detached from authentic ecclesial ethos. When theological discourse degenerates and the Gospel itself becomes an instrument of state enforcement and political expediency, then, alas, only insult remains.
The targeted attack shifts away from the institution itself—since the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not submit to a forceful canonical interpretation of all matters, one which remains incorruptible and untouched by the regulations of state agencies—and instead now focuses on the human element, on the person of the All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch.
This attempt to strip the person of his spiritual fatherhood is inextricably linked, on the one hand, to an intention to predetermine the future, and on the other, to the desire to present the Primate of Orthodoxy as a mere executor of foreign centers of power—something that betrays the inherent inability of worldly authority to comprehend spiritual freedom. If, through a logic of absolute identification, the Patriarchate of Moscow remains bound to a tradition of dependence on the state, then the freedom expressed at the Phanar becomes scandalous to them, because freedom always scandalizes those who do not possess it and causes a pain that is difficult to conceal.
— What does it signify that this particular statement originated from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service?
— The very mention of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service ultimately constitutes the most revealing “moment of truth” for the Patriarchate of Moscow, as the ecclesiastical façade has completely collapsed. It dangerously legitimizes the fact that synodal decisions, sacred canons, and authentic ecclesial ethos have been set aside and replaced by “services” and secular mechanisms, thus demonstrating the absolute secularization and complete alienation of the ecclesiastical mindset.
The major issue to which this situation leads concerns the transformation of the Church into a mere mechanism of propaganda, something that is truly alarming when viewed through theological criteria, because the Church ceases to be a space of the Holy Spirit and its theology is entirely displaced by geopolitical expediency.
— Why are such extreme characterizations being adopted against the Ecumenical Patriarch?
— In my judgment, the extremity of these characterizations is due to the spiritual degradation of theological discourse, since violence—whether verbal or physical—has always been the refuge of panic and weakness. References are made to “neo-Nazis” and “agents,” extremely heavy terms that are hurled without fear of God. Perhaps the absence of a real enemy has necessitated the invention of targets in order to achieve internal cohesion among their audience. Russia finds itself in a condition of an imaginary enemy, and His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch becomes the ideal “adversary” for them, because his ecumenical stature and reach render him, by definition, uncomfortably luminous according to their own standards.
— Which points of this particular statement do you consider the most important, and why?
— In the narration of their imaginary storyline, an operation is being attempted that may escape the attention of many: whereas until recently responsibility was attributed to the Americans, now, quite suddenly, British intelligence services appear in their place. It seems that the Russian leadership is attempting to test its relations with the new administration in Washington and is searching for another party to blame for the hardships it itself has caused, thus revealing a profound spiritual impoverishment. To attempt to interpret the anxiety of the peoples of the Baltic states or Ukraine regarding their ecclesiastical freedom and existence by labeling it as the result of a “foreign hand” is tragic and utterly meaningless for the Orthodox peoples themselves, as it ignores the fact that they possess will, discernment, and God-given free will. One cannot view everything through distorting lenses, and this very attitude constitutes their greatest delusion.
— Has there been any recent development, any new factor, that may have triggered this reaction, or are we expecting some forthcoming development that the Russian side is attempting to preempt?
— There has been no new development, at least not in the journalistic sense of a news event, nor is there any hidden card. What does exist, however, is a process of erosion that operates relentlessly to their detriment. We must be clear on this point: the Ecumenical Patriarchate, regarding Ukraine and the canonical granting of autocephaly, will never change its position, as the matter has been decided ecclesiastically and is irreversible.
At this point, they now discern cracks in the Baltic region, in Moldova, and in Estonia—areas where they believed that the Soviet legacy, namely the remnants of the past in ecclesiastical administration, would endure indefinitely. However, that structure has not withstood the test, revealing an environment in which the demand for freedom functions more as an existential necessity than as a political maneuver.
— What is the current situation regarding the Churches of the Baltic countries?
— In the Baltic countries, the situation has been marked by tension for many years. What is now changing in essence, however, is the will of the people themselves, who, far removed from political motives, seek their spiritual integration into the European reality and refuse to accept a Moscow Patriarchate that blesses wars in their name. It must be emphasized that the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not create this problem, but rather came to heal the canonical disorder of the Moscow Patriarchate, sharing in the anxiety of the people, as it has done for centuries.
Let us not forget that both the Church of Estonia and the Church of Latvia had already been proclaimed autonomous by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the past, while today the establishment of an Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Lithuania constitutes a fact of the highest significance, offering hope to frightened Orthodox Christians. This action, as well as the support extended in Estonia, rather than constituting an “intrusion,” as it is wrongly described, in reality represents the essential healing of a wound that was violently inflicted in 1945.
— Does this particular statement shape a new environment, a new framework in the relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Moscow, and in which direction?
— We do indeed find ourselves facing a new environment and are entering uncharted waters, less because something has substantively changed and more because barbarity is tending to become the norm in inter-Church relations. We appear to be confronted with the recognition of what institutionalized barbarity is and what the total war declared by the Patriarchate of Moscow truly means, even as we strive to keep hope alive. The Phanar responds with the silence of prayer and, when necessary, with the word of truth. Everyone should know that the door of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is, and always remains, open to sincere dialogue.
*Republished from the newspaper “Kathimerini”
Translated by: Konstantinos Menyktas
