By Hieromonk Nikitas Pantokratorinos
A document that was “leaked” has recently been published, purporting to attest to what happened in the final days before the Unification Council.
The publication of this so-called “scandalous document of the Phanar” was presented as a supposedly earth-shattering revelation, capable of demolishing the canonical and ecclesiological foundations of the granting of the Tomos of Autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine. Yet it testifies to precisely the opposite of what its authors wish to prove. If one reads the “Chronicle of the Week of the Clergy-Laity Council of Kyiv” carefully, one will see that it is not a record of an ecclesiastical “conspiracy” but a testimony to the arduous efforts of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to preserve ecclesiastical order, to heal a decades-long schism, and to safeguard its canonical rights against pressures coming from every side. For the document itself shows the Ecumenical Patriarchate resisting, negotiating, threatening to withdraw, and insisting on its ecclesiological principles.
Like all autocephalies, that of the Church of Ukraine is inseparably bound up with the formation of new state and national realities. The Church of Greece, for example, was born within the framework of the Greek state. The Serbian, Romanian, Polish, Czechoslovak and Bulgarian Churches were linked to corresponding national and state developments. The same is true of the Russian Church. The Church’s practice, that is to say, has always recognized that historical and political developments can create new ecclesiastical circumstances, which the Church is called upon to regulate in a canonical manner. The question, nevertheless, is not whether the political authorities showed an interest, but whether the Church retained the freedom of its judgment and whether the final Act was issued by the competent ecclesiastical body. In the case of Ukraine, as in all the more recent autocephalies, the final word belonged to the Mother Church of Constantinople, as it should.
The history of the Church is full of cases in which political rulers attempted to influence ecclesiastical developments. The most characteristic example is that of the Church of Russia. Historians know how much pressure was applied to Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II, and how he yielded, to grant autocephaly and the dignity of a Patriarchate to Moscow. There, in a state of captivity, since he was not permitted to leave unless he proclaimed the Metropolis of Moscow a Patriarchate, he was compelled to proclaim the Patriarchate of Moscow in 1589.
So the real question is not whether there were pressures, tensions, disagreements and political interventions in the days leading up to the Unification Council. No serious person has ever disputed that. The question is what stance the Mother Church adopted amid this difficult situation. And here the Chronicle gives an answer entirely different from the one the publication in question wishes to project. The Chronicle itself states that the aim of the representatives of the Ecumenical Throne was not merely the emergence of a Primate, but the founding of the new Church “on strong ecclesiological and canonical foundations,” so that its standing and canonical status would be safeguarded.
The publication presents as proof of “control” the insistence of the Ecumenical Throne that the Ecumenical Patriarch be the guarantor of the agreement between the Tomos and the Statute. In reality, this is a self-evident canonical consequence. From the very first pages of the Chronicle, it is clear that the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not treat the matter as a political undertaking but as an ecclesiological problem. Their chief concern was to ensure that the new ecclesiastical reality would be built on canonical foundations, that the rights of the Mother Church would be preserved, and that uncanonical demands from any faction would not be legitimized. Where exactly is the paradox in all this? When the Mother Church grants autocephaly, it is self-evident that it retains the right to ensure that the privilege granted is not distorted, and it is natural for it to take care that the privilege is properly applied. This does not prove the new Church’s dependence on the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the publication claims. On the contrary, it proves that the Ecumenical Throne takes its mission seriously and does not lightly surrender its canonical responsibilities.
Particularly revealing is the section of the Chronicle dealing with the negotiations with Metropolitan Philaret. Here the myth that the Ecumenical Patriarchate was the instrument of particular Ukrainian circles collapses completely. On the contrary, the text shows the representatives of Constantinople systematically resisting demands they considered uncanonical. The proposal to grant Metropolitan Philaret extraordinary powers incompatible with Orthodox ecclesiology is rejected, despite lengthy negotiations, pressures and coercive dilemmas, on the grounds that it would expose the Orthodox Church and would constitute an unprecedented ecclesiological precedent.
The most significant element, however, which emerges unintentionally from the publication, is the stance of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew himself. This is a point of the utmost importance. For years the accusation has been heard that Bartholomew took money from the Ukrainians, the Americans, etc., in order to grant autocephaly, and that he succumbed to political expediency. Putin himself even spoke of his having been bribed. Yet the very document invoked by the critics of the Ecumenical Throne shows its representatives clashing with both ecclesiastical and political figures in order to prevent any ecclesiological deviations. At the climax of the crisis, when the then President of Ukraine, Poroshenko, attempted to rescue the process, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not shown yielding in the slightest on the rights of the Throne. On the contrary, according to the Chronicle itself, he declares that he will not sell the dignity of the Patriarchate to anyone, and that his representatives will withdraw if the canonical prerogatives of the Mother Church are infringed.
“I am the Ecumenical Patriarch, and I have no right, by the history of the Patriarchate and before God and my Predecessors, to trifle with the prerogatives of the Throne and its position in the Orthodox Church. I bear responsibility, Mr President; I honor you, I respect you, but I am not going to sell the dignity of the Patriarchate to any Philaret. And if you are not in a position to impose yourself upon him, I am sorry, but my people must withdraw. At the Phanar we have learned to fear no one and nothing when it comes to the age-old rights of the Throne. Act accordingly.”
What grandeur… A true Ecumenical Patriarch, the equal of his holy predecessors. He places nothing above the Church and fears absolutely nothing and no one when it comes to the prerogatives he must safeguard. He demonstrated this, moreover, by his resolve on the question of Ukrainian autocephaly. Despite the pressures from the Russian Church, he remained steadfast and immovable. He always sees himself as the guardian of the unity of the Church, which he cannot sacrifice either for the sake of a Council’s success or for the political expediencies of any particular moment. This, then, is the point that overturns the entire narrative.
Equally revealing is the insistence of the Ecumenical Throne that the schismatic structures that were to take part in the new ecclesiastical reality first be dissolved. The Chronicle describes in detail the pressures exerted by the Throne’s representatives so that the pre-existing organizations would be abolished and no possibility would remain open of returning to parallel ecclesiastical structures. The publication regards this fact as incriminating. In reality, it is an act of elementary ecclesiological consistency. For what is the unity of the Church? Is it the coexistence of many competing centers of power? Or is it the genuine overcoming of divisions by incorporating everyone into one common ecclesiastical body?
It is also noteworthy that the Chronicle repeatedly attests to the difficulties that came from the political environment. It mentions surveillance, inspections, pressures, and even interventions by state officials. The authors of the article have given all the weight of events to this point, without taking into account everything we have set out, which dismantles their narrative. Nevertheless, the existence of political pressure does not prove that the ecclesiastical decision was uncanonical. After all, as we have seen, the granting of autocephaly is always bound up with the political context of each country in which it is granted. Indeed, if a supporter of the Ecumenical Throne were looking for evidence that the Ecumenical Patriarchate approached the Ukrainian question primarily as an ecclesiological and canonical matter, he would hardly find a stronger text than the one that has come to light.
In the end, the greatest irony of the affair is that the text made public to damage the Ecumenical Patriarchate ends up highlighting precisely what its adversaries wish to conceal: that the Ecumenical Throne did not act as a passive endorser of others’ decisions but as the Mother Church, which shouldered the burden of an exceedingly difficult therapeutic intervention in the body of Orthodoxy. The treatment was painful. The reactions were intense. The contradictions and difficulties were many. But the Chronicle itself, when read without prejudice, does not present a Church that surrenders its rights. It presents a Church that defends them.
The basic conclusion, therefore, remains unchanged: the Ecumenical Patriarchate is not a power that grants authority indiscriminately, but a Mother Church that strives to preserve canonical continuity, to heal schisms, and to do everything for the unity of the Churches.
