“We all know that Constantinople always voluntarily and unselfishly provides autocephaly”: main theses of Greek Synod’s commissions on Ukraine

Athens, October 14, 2019

Photo: thegreekobserver.com Photo: thegreekobserver.com     

The Holy Synod of the Greek Church created two commissions at its March session to examine the Ukrainian issue in depth—on dogmatic and canonical issues, and on inter-Orthodox and inter-Christian relations.

Though media reports on the commissions’ conclusions varied in the intervening months, both bodies concluded that there were no obstacles to the Greek Orthodox Church recognizing the schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine.”

Archbishop Ieronymos, the President of the Holy Synod of the Greek Church, extensively referred to the work of these commissions in his own report and recommendation, which was presented to the hierarchs in an extraordinary session of the Bishops’ Council on Saturday, which resulted in the Greek Church voting to formally recognize the OCU.

The Archbishop’s full report has been published online in Greek, and in Russian by the “Pastor and Flock” Telegram channel, which represents the official magazine of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

In his report, Abp. Ieronymos notes that the Holy Synod discussed the Ukrainian issue many times, specifically discussing the commissions’ conclusions on August 28 after they were received by the General Secretariat on August 13. The chairmen of both commissions were present on August 28 and answered all questions posed by the members of the Holy Synod.

The conclusions of both commissions can be reduced to 5 main theses and a conclusion, Abp. Ieronymos writes:

  1. The Patriarchate of Constantinople never ceded jurisdiction over the Kiev Metropolia to the Russian Orthodox Church, but only granted permission to the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain and enthrone the Metropolitan of Kiev;

The Patriarchate of Constantinople began to push this historical revisionism last summer, though the entire Orthodox world, including Patriarch Bartholomew himself, has accepted the Kiev Metropolia as part of the Russian Church for over 300 years.

In Kiev in July 2008 for the celebration of the 1,020th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus’, Pat. Bartholomew stated: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate's service in the Orthodox Church, at the cost of its own rights, is better exemplified by the development of its relations with the eminent among the daughter Churches, namely the Church of Ukraine, which was under the Ecumenical Patriarchate's canonical jurisdiction for seven centuries, that is, from the baptism of the Grand Duchy of Kiev (988) until her annexation under Peter the Great (1687) to the Russian state.”

  1. The Patriarchate of Constantinople has the privilege to receive appeals from bishops of other jurisdictions, if the appealing bishop has sent a request;

This is a debatable point, and is not upheld by the great canonist St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite.

  1. The Patriarch of Constantinople always had and has the indisputable canonical right to care for the Churches in difficult situations, but also the “canonical obligation to promptly take all necessary measures to prevent, eliminate, or heal dangerous threats or temptations for the body of the Church.”

“After all, the entire history of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, whether in times of prosperity or in difficult times, is a real testimony to its service to the suffering Orthodox Churches, always unselfish and sacrificial.”

Again, a very debatable point. See the article, “The Pseudomorphosis of Ottoman Ecclesiology.”

  1. The Patriarchate of Constantinople has the canonical privilege to independently proclaim the autocephaly of the Local Orthodox Churches (for example, Georgia-1990; Czech Republic-1998, Poland-1924, Albania-1937, Greece-1850, Serbia-1878, Romania-1835, Bulgaria-1945, etc.).

This ignores the fact that the Georgian Church first received its autocephaly from the Antiochian Church in the first millennium. Regarding the Czech-Slovak Church, the Moscow Patriarchate was its Mother Church and granted it autocephaly in 1951—something which the self-sacrificial Patriarchate of Constantinople refused to recognize. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Czech-Slovak Church sought to normalize its relations with Constantinople, and the Patriarchate decided, to the Czech-Slovak Church’s surprise, to grant it a new tomos of autocephaly that significantly curbed its independence, making it a “slave,” as one hierarch told OrthoChristian.

“Unfortunately, since the Moscow Patriarchate was absent from the meetings of the Council of Crete in 2016, we did not have the opportunity to discuss the issue of autocephaly, and thus missed the chance to come to an agreement with the rest of the Churches,” Abp. Ieronymos writes.

The Archbishop is unfortunately perpetuating false history. The official agenda for the Crete Council was published on January 28, and did not include the topic of autocephaly and how to grant it or any discussion on Ukraine. The Russian Church did not decide until June that it was not attending the Council.

Thus, autocephaly would not have been discussed whether Moscow was there or not. Abp. Ieronymos is completely incorrect.

  1. According to its constitution, the Greek Church must preserve the sacred Apostolic and conciliar canons and sacred Tradition. It is autocephalous with the Bishops’ Council and the Holy Synod as its governing bodies.

The commissions jointly concluded:

On the basis of the above, having considered the issue of granting autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine not only from the canonical but also from the legal point of view, we report with reverence that there are no obstacles to the recognition of the autocephaly of the Church of Ukraine, as well as for the absolute conformity and common course of the Greek Church with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Abp. Ieronymos then recalls that on August 28 the Holy Synod recognized “the canonical right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant autocephaly, as well as the privilege of the primate of the Greek Church to further deal with the issue of the recognition of the Church of Ukraine.”

The administrative organization of the Church has always been aimed at preserving unity and preventing or eliminating heresies or schisms, and the administrative organization has always been conciliar, Abp. Ieronymos writes.

The Great Commission to preach to all the earth demanded the introduction of the canonical institution of autocephaly in all Roman dioceses at the time of the First Ecumenical Council, he writes, which later developed into the system of the Pentarchy, he continues.

Further, “we all know” that all peoples who adopted Christianity “immediately” demanded autocephaly from Constantinople, to strengthen their national unity.

Following the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment affected all the newly-create states of the Orthodox peoples from the Ottoman yoke. “This resulted in controversial claims to autocephaly, including ecclesiastical, and withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,” Abp. Ieronymos writes.

Further: “We all know that the Ecumenical Patriarchate always voluntarily and unselfishly provides autocephaly to the Church of an independent state (if, of course, there are the necessary canonical conditions for this) to meet the urgent and demanding attention of the pastoral needs in a secularized state and in the presence of a successor Orthodox state power. At the same time, Church autocephaly is not granted to those Orthodox peoples who have not yet achieved state independence.”

However, Greece is an independent state, and yet its territory is divided between the Greek Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

And turning to Ukraine, the Greek primate writes that “We all know” that the Church of Ukraine has been subjected to dynastic domination from Poland and Russia for centuries, “but has always remained in its canonical ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in the bosom of the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, since the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate could not be challenged without prejudice to the dominant States.”

In Abp. Ieronymos’ words, the Moscow Patriarchate rejected, “with great indignation,” the “much-needed initiative” of Constantinople to proclaim autocephaly for the OCU.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has always been a loving Mother to the Church of Ukraine, Abp. Ieronymos writes, never seeking its own gain, but on the contrary, giving up its canonical jurisdiction “so that the numerous Church of Ukraine, including about 40 million Orthodox believers,” cold enter the community of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches.”

The total current population of Ukraine is 43.5 million, thus it cannot be said that the minority OCU has anywhere near 40 million adherents.

In conclusion, Abp. Ieronymos makes a bizarre and naïve statement: “We all know that the proclamation of the autocephaly of the Church of Ukraine is extremely useful for the entire Orthodox Church and will be invaluable for strengthening relations between the two autocephalous Orthodox Churches—the sisters, great Russia and Ukraine.”

“That is why I propose that our Church recognize the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of the independent Republic of Ukraine,” he finishes.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

10/14/2019

See also
Holy Synod of Russian Church will evaluate Greek Church’s decision on Ukraine at fall session Holy Synod of Russian Church will evaluate Greek Church’s decision on Ukraine at fall session
“We will carefully study the decisions made. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church will assess them and their consequences for the Orthodox world and for inter-Church relations,” the Church representative said.
Top 4 points of the Greek Commissions on recognizing Ukrainian schismatics Top 4 points of the Greek Commissions on recognizing Ukrainian schismatics Top 4 points of the Greek Commissions on recognizing Ukrainian schismatics Top 4 points of the Greek Commissions on recognizing Ukrainian schismatics
The issue of recognizing the schismatic OCU within the Greek Church is highly polarizing, unlike in the Polish or Serbian Churches where there is virtual unanimity among the bishops.
Greek Church recognizes Phanar’s right to grant autocephalies, stops short of recognizing OCU Greek Church recognizes Phanar’s right to grant autocephalies, stops short of recognizing OCU Greek Church recognizes Phanar’s right to grant autocephalies, stops short of recognizing OCU Greek Church recognizes Phanar’s right to grant autocephalies, stops short of recognizing OCU
It is unclear if the Synod is speaking of Constantinople’s rights in general or specifically in the Ukrainian situation, though, predictably, Constantinople-aligned Greek and Ukrainian sources were quick to proclaim that the Synod had actually recognized the OCU.
How Patriarch Bartholomew is Healing the Schism and Restoring Church Unity How Patriarch Bartholomew is Healing the Schism and Restoring Church Unity
Alexei Smirnov
How Patriarch Bartholomew is Healing the Schism and Restoring Church Unity How Patriarch Bartholomew is Healing the Schism and Restoring Church Unity
A Tomos of Schism instead of a Tomos of Unification
Alexei Smirnov
The true reason is that the calculated actions of Bartholomew in Ukraine fully fit into the long-term strategy of the Phanar which is aimed at strengthening the position of the Constantinople Patriarchate and establishing its authority over the other Local Orthodox Churches.
A Simple “Reading” of the Tomos of Autocephaly A Simple “Reading” of the Tomos of Autocephaly
An Athonite Monk
A Simple “Reading” of the Tomos of Autocephaly A Simple “Reading” of the Tomos of Autocephaly
Does anyone wonder what canonical crime these people committed that the Patriarch of Constantinople treated them this way? Maybe they’re guilty of not wanting to become autocephalous and enter into communion with unrepentant schismatics?
Constantinople’s goal is to impose its authority over the entire Church—Met. Daniil of Bulgarian Church Constantinople’s goal is to impose its authority over the entire Church—Met. Daniil of Bulgarian Church Constantinople’s goal is to impose its authority over the entire Church—Met. Daniil of Bulgarian Church Constantinople’s goal is to impose its authority over the entire Church—Met. Daniil of Bulgarian Church
The actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, including in Ukraine, show that it’s more important for Patriarch Bartholomew to impose his power over the Orthodox Church than to find consent and unity, His Eminence Metropolitan Daniil of Vidin of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church stated to RIA-Novosti yesterday.
Comments on the Archons’ Town Hall Meeting on Ukrainian Autocephaly Comments on the Archons’ Town Hall Meeting on Ukrainian Autocephaly
Jesse Dominick
Comments on the Archons’ Town Hall Meeting on Ukrainian Autocephaly Comments on the Archons’ Town Hall Meeting on Ukrainian Autocephaly
Jesse Dominick
The Archons are Patriarch Bartholomew’s PR arm and fundraisers and few expected anything new from this meeting—the right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to intervene in any Church situation anywhere, any time would be asserted again with little real engagement of the serious issues involved in every aspect of the current Church crisis in Ukraine and Constantinople’s role in it.
Greek Church under pressure from political, economic, diplomatic fields to recognize Ukrainian schismatics Greek Church under pressure from political, economic, diplomatic fields to recognize Ukrainian schismatics Greek Church under pressure from political, economic, diplomatic fields to recognize Ukrainian schismatics Greek Church under pressure from political, economic, diplomatic fields to recognize Ukrainian schismatics
The Church has received and examined letters from His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, Patriarch Bartholomew, and the schismatic “Metropolitan” Epiphany Dumenko on the matter, but the bishops have yet to take a stance, despite the strong statements of individual hierarchs.
Constantinople’s lust for power is catastrophic for Orthodoxy—Met. Amfilohije of Montenegro Constantinople’s lust for power is catastrophic for Orthodoxy—Met. Amfilohije of Montenegro Constantinople’s lust for power is catastrophic for Orthodoxy—Met. Amfilohije of Montenegro Constantinople’s lust for power is catastrophic for Orthodoxy—Met. Amfilohije of Montenegro
The actions of the Patriarchate in Constantinople in Ukraine over the past few months could have disastrous consequences for the future of all Orthodoxy, His Eminence Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and the Littoral said during the Sunday service in the Church of St. Nicholas in Bandić, Montenegro.
Comments
Jeannette Kotsonis10/14/2019 11:27 pm
Very depressing, but it is not the first time Patriarch Bartolomew has hurt the Orthodox Church body. He tends towards paranoia, which certainly doesn't reflect the Holy Spirit. I had hoped that the Church of Greece would be more enlightened, but I guess not. It stems from their position of weakness I guess. I can't help but wonder what the great Saints such as: Saint Porphyrios, Saint Paisius, Saint Iakovos, and the others would say? I know that the Patriarch's reaction in giving autocephali to the pseudo Ukrainian Church is a reaction to Moscow not attending the Council at Crete. (I said pseudo because it isn't the will of the majority of the people.) Why didn't Moscow attend? In Christ, Zenovia
Here you can leave your comment on the present article, not exceeding 4000 characters. All comments will be read by the editors of OrthoChristian.Com.
Enter through FaceBook
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Enter the digits, seen on picture:

Characters remaining: 4000

Subscribe
to our mailing list

* indicates required
×