by Hieromonk Nikitas Pantokratorinos
An interview with Metropolitan Anthony of Volokolamsk of the Moscow Patriarchate appeared on the Internet, apparently as an attempt to somehow counterbalance the repentance and blessing he received from the Ecumenical Patriarch when they met at the funeral of Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana. The fact that he kissed the right hand of the Ecumenical Patriarch was certainly no coincidence.
In this interview he launched an attack against the Patriarchate of Alexandria, trying to present the recognition of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine as an alleged betrayal by Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria. This interview was, of course, intended primarily for reproduction and publication within the Russian territory, as well as for Orthodox Russians in general, in order to justify the intrusion of the Moscow Patriarchate into Africa and the resulting schism caused by this intrusion. However, since it has also been translated and published in Greek, it would not be out of place to comment on this publication in order to reveal the true canonical reality hidden in this interview.
The Metropolitan quite rightly begins his interview with the statement: “In the ancient regulations, which we call the Holy Canons, North Africa was recognized as the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which during the 20th century extended its activity to the entire African continent.
In all these parishes, the clergy, as emissaries sent by the Russian Orthodox Church, coordinated their actions with the ecclesiastical authorities of the Patriarchate of Alexandria and acted exclusively with the blessing of the local hierarchy. Therefore, according to the holy canons, the clergy of the Patriarchate of Russia received the blessing of the Patriarchate of Alexandria for every sacred act they performed.”
Then he claims that “the Patriarch of Alexandria became schismatic after recognizing and concelebrating with the Primate of the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine, and as a result the Church of Russia was forced to consider the numerous requests from Russian-speaking expatriates living in other African countries who asked the Russian Orthodox Church to establish its own parishes and send priests”. This is a view expressed both by him and by the Moscow Patriarchate. But let us examine whether this assertion stands up according to the Holy Canons.
Canons 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Council of Constantinople (First-Second Synod) state that “no one may consider a bishop guilty and refuse to submit to him before the decision of the competent ecclesiastical court”. The competent ecclesiastical court – namely, a Pan-Orthodox Council – has not yet convened to examine whether and to what extent the Patriarchate of Alexandria has indeed become schismatic, as the Moscow Patriarchate claims. Therefore, any preemptive retaliatory action is rendered uncanonical according to the Holy Canons.
This raises some reasonable questions, which even the Church of Russia itself cannot answer: a) Who gave the Moscow Patriarchate the right to judge the Church of Alexandria and to conduct activities in foreign dioceses, when this is explicitly forbidden by the Holy Canons? b) Is the Church of Russia, which received its own legitimation as a Patriarchate only a few hundred years ago, in a position to unilaterally challenge the Alexandrian Church, whose history goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity? c) Why has there been no theological analysis from the Church of Russia explaining how the commemoration of the Primate of the Ukrainian Church by Patriarch Theodoros supposedly gives the Russian Church the right to carry out its uncanonical actions in Africa?
Thus, it relies solely on a single canon (the Second Council of Antioch), while violating dozens of others. Since, according to the holy canons, the Patriarchate of Alexandria did not invite the Church of Russia to intervene within its borders or to establish its own dioceses there, the creation of a Russian Church Exarchate in Africa constitutes an invasion of another’s canonical jurisdiction – an incursion – which is tantamount to creating a schism, a form of ecclesiastical occupation. It splits the Body of Christ and places the Russian Church itself outside the Church.
As a result of all this, and again according to the Holy Canons, the Bishop and “African Exarch” of the Russian Church, “Metropolitan” Constantine of Zaraisk, was deposed from his clerical rank by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The same thing happened to his predecessor, Metropolitan Leonid, as well as to all the apostate clergy.
Then the Metropolitan of Volokolamsk states that “the Patriarch of Alexandria, in his public statements, declared his devotion to the holy canons, said that the Ukrainian schismatics were deprived of divine grace, and urged the faithful to remain loyal to the canonical Church of Onufriy”. However, the Patriarch of Alexandria did not say anything out of the ordinary, since these statements were valid before the granting of autocephaly and the restoration of the schismatics to canonical status. Since December 2018, when the autocephalous Church of Ukraine was established, the former schismatics became participants in divine grace and were restored to canonical order.
In reality, the Primate of the Second Orthodox Church did nothing more than comply with the decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which has the exclusive authority to grant autocephaly. He did nothing more than adhere to the holy canons and sacred tradition of the Orthodox Church, to which he has always remained faithful. As the second-ranking Patriarchate, he set the example, as he was obliged to do, for other local Churches to follow. Unfortunately, however, other interests still prevent most of them from doing so.
Then, as one who is completely ignorant of the holy canons and tradition of the Church, he states: “This act of Patriarch Theodore exposed him as a man who lacks consistency in his words. A similar impression was created not only among us, but also among a large number of clergy within the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria itself.
They understood that their Patriarch committed treason and it is now difficult to be characterized as an honest man. ” He accuses the Patriarch of dishonesty, asserting that while he outwardly aligns with the sacred canons, he ultimately justifies the establishment of the Russian Exarchate in Africa by claiming he had no alternative. He argues that “after what transpired, many dozens of African clergy, primarily indigenous, submitted requests stating they no longer wished to remain under the omophorion of a Patriarch who had acted so deceitfully. Therefore, they ask the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia to accept them under his protection and jurisdiction.”
Since when, and under what rules, does any local Church respond to the requests of clergy from another canonical jurisdiction by creating non-canonical structures? If this were the tradition of the Church, we would see an endless series of similar violations. There have always been clergy who, for personal motives—certainly not ecclesiastical ones—make unreasonable demands. Thus, the Russian Orthodox Church itself has intruded into the canonical territory of another local Church, flagrantly violating numerous sacred canons. Who granted the Church of Russia such authority—an authority that belongs exclusively to Orthodox Councils? The Russian Church has no right to pass judgment on another Church.Furthermore, its condemnation of the Patriarch of Alexandria and its denial of the Church of Alexandria’s participation in the saving action of divine grace, as it claims, is tantamount to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
In an attempt to justify this unprecedented action, the Metropolitan resorts to an artificial argument, seeking to frame it within a so-called “new ecclesiology” promoted by the Russian Church. He states: “Since Patriarch Theodore ‘concelebrated’ in August 2021 with the head of the ‘Ukrainian schismatic Church’ he left us no other choice. According to the sacred canons, he who co-officiated with a schismatic becomes a schismatic himself.” This is a new weapon used by the Church of Russia. The continuation of selective communion only with bishops who share their stance on the Autocephaly of the Church of Ukraine is an ecclesiastically indefensible practice.
A local Church cannot commemorate only a specific group of bishops, as this wouldn’t have an ecclesiological basis. Moreover, the division they are willing to sow within any local Church that, according to Metropolitan Antony, “dares” to recognize the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine, as seen in the case of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, creates significant obstacles for other Churches considering recognition. To further deepen the rift, they advise priests to avoid concelebrating with those who have previously concelebrated with bishops or clergy of the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine—implying that doing so would somehow “defile” them. However, the only sacred rule they invoke does not only speak of a co-liturgy, but of communion.
“He who communes with those who are out of communion, is himself out of communion.” (Second Council of Antioch). One is the communion in Christ, one is the common Chalice, one Body is the Church. If they regard the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Patriarch of Alexandria as out of communion and schismatic due to their concelebrations with Ukrainian clergy, then, according to the sacred canons, this logic would extend to all who commemorate them, rendering them equally out of communion and schismatic. We do not have to wait for a co-liturgy to do this. Since we all commemorate Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew or the Patriarch of Alexandria or simply have communion with them, we are in communion with both Archbishop Epifaniy of Kyiv and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, even if we have not concelebrated with them. This is Orthodox ecclesiology and this is precisely what the sacred canons define. The rest of the emerging theological tricks are inventions of the Russian Church to keep their influence within Metropolises of local Churches. They interpret theology as they see fit, shaping it to serve their own interests, rather than adhering to the will of Christ and the Church, as defined by the God-bearing Fathers of the Holy Ecumenical Councils.
The Metropolitan then praised the Russian Church’s activities in Africa, while accusing the Patriarchate of Alexandria of abandoning certain remote areas to their fate. However, as those familiar with the Patriarchate of Alexandria can attest, these claims are mere rhetorical tactics designed to create a misleading impression and bear no relation to reality.
On the part of the Church of Russia, on this issue, an unprecedented flagrant violation of many sacred canons was seen. They disregarded the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church in their pursuit of expanding power. Any unauthorized intrusion into another Church’s jurisdiction was explicitly condemned by the very first Council of the Church of Christ—the Apostolic Council. The preservation of each Patriarchate’s or Autocephalous Church’s jurisdiction, as defined by the respective Tomos of Autocephaly or the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, is what safeguards the continuity and unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Yet today, we are witnessing actions that are fundamentally incompatible with those who truly love the Church and seek to uphold its unity. The establishment of exarchates without the permission and blessing of the local bishop—as seen in the Russian Church’s creation of an exarchate in Africa—is an act that undermines the unity of the Church.
If such violations are overlooked and left without consequence, the disregard for sacred canons and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils—carried out so brazenly and without remorse—will inflict serious harm on the very institution of the Church. This precedent would mean that the sacred canons and conciliar decisions could now be easily overturned whenever it serves the interests of a particular Church. What obstacle will there be for each Autocephalous Church to create exarchates around the world? And it is very sad that other local Churches do not take a position of support for the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the sacred canons, even though the long-suffering Church of Alexandria has often made this appeal. Alexandria, which remained not on the side of Moscow, but also on the side of the sacred canons and the ancient traditions of the Orthodox Church.
Translated by: Ioanna Georgakopoulou & Konstantinos Menyktas
