PARSIPPANY, N.J. – Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew issued a letter on March 14, providing historical precedents that support his decision to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
The letter, addressed to Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and all Albania, was in response to the archbishop’s January 14 letter calling for a pan-Orthodox council (similar to the one held in Crete in 2016, that was attended by the archbishop and representatives of the Albanian Orthodox Church, but Moscow refused to attend) to resolve the crisis in Ukraine and questioned the validity of the ordination of bishops (including Metropolitan Epifaniy) and clergy under the previous Orthodox Churches in Ukraine headed by Patriarch Filaret and Metropolitan Makariy. The archbishop also echoed Moscow’s expressed concerns that the patriarch’s decision would cause further schisms across Orthodox jurisdictions.
Excerpts from Patriarch Bartholomew’s response, detailing the duties, responsibilities and rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, follows below, as reported by archons.org.
Patriarch Bartholomew wrote:
“…We received and thoroughly examined your fraternal letter of last January 14, 2019, following our letter of December 24, 2018, related to the canonical ecclesiastical acts that we initiated in Ukraine, and we would like to respond herewith so that, in a spirit of sincere instruction – which, as by God’s mercy Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, we bear responsibility before all holy brothers throughout the world – we may present the following:
“The God-bearing Fathers, who through the holy and sacred canons have entrusted the Throne of Constantine with its universally recognized hallowed and dread responsibilities that transcend borders – not in the form of privileges but of self-sacrifice – foresaw with guidance of the Holy Spirit the necessity for a definitive resolution to the problems emerging across the Local Churches, which are unable to settle them by themselves.”
Citing the historical precedents to support this claim, Patriarch Bartholomew noted the work of Neophytos VII (1789-1794, 1798-1801), who explained, “supporting and inherently assisting the needs likewise of the most holy patriarchal and apostolic thrones is something that our own most holy Patriarchal, Apostolic and Ecumenical Throne has historically deemed very appropriate, without either seizing or coveting their rights out of a sense of greed – something we would neither act upon nor even dare to entertain. For the former is proper and right of itself, whereas on the contrary the latter is unjust and improper.” (Sources: “Letter of the Fathers of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine”; “Official Documents” by Kallinikos Delikanis, vol. 2, p. 217.)
The letter continues: “…Accordingly, not only in cases of doctrine, holy tradition and canonical Church regulations, or even of general matters concerning the entire body of the Church, but also in all matters pertaining to important issues of specific interest to one or another Local Church, the supervisory provision and protection of the Great Church of Christ intervene – sometimes ex-officio and out of obligation, at other times at the request of interested parties – in order to offer an effective contribution for the sake of arbitration and resolution of differences between shepherds and their flocks, to avoid inflaming difficulties and facilitate the return of ecclesiastical affairs to a canonical path, to bolster the occasional inadequate ministry of spiritual leaders in certain Churches, to support the weak, wavering, or misled in the Orthodox faith, and overall never to delay or eschew suppressing all kinds of moral and material danger that threatens the stability of the most holy Churches.”
Patriarch Bartholomew noted that those who think this is an unnecessary ministry of the Mother Church as a product of later years are “undoubtedly deceived because it undeniably derives its origin from much earlier times.”
A Tomos was issued in 1663 by Ecumenical Patriarch Dionysios III (1662-1665), Paisios of Alexandria, Makarios of Antioch and Nektarios of Jerusalem, in an attempt to resolve 25 chapters of inquiries posed to them by clergy of the Russian Church. Notably, in the eighth question – “Whether every decision of other Churches may be appealed to the Throne of Constantinople for final determination in all Ecclesiastical matters?” – they replied that “this prerogative belonged to the Pope before he broke with the Catholic Church. …Since the Schism, however, matters of all Churches are referred to the Throne of Constantinople, from which they receive determination.” (Source: “Canonical Regulations,” by Manuel Gedeon, Athens, 1979, vol. 1, pp. 341-346.)
Patriarch Bartholomew continued:
“…From all these verified and established arguments, it may be unequivocally concluded that specific inter-Orthodox efforts and initiatives of the Holy Great Church of Christ during the previous and present centuries were perhaps erroneously interpreted by some as an abrogation of its unwavering responsibilities and at the same time ministerial privileges in the face of a parliamentary federation – as has unfortunately even been stated – of individual Local Churches, which supposedly decides on all maters with the Ancient Thrones.
“…The newer so-called ‘autocephalies’ were and are granted by the Church of Constantinople as the common source of nourishment of the Orthodox for a better and more orderly internal organization of Church affairs, but not for any modification of the holy commonweal of the Church, which emerged from the long and sacred canonical development of the Ecumenical Councils, or the creation of a false concept of self-sufficient local churches and division of the one and undivided Body of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
“…We should add here that the status of autocephaly, which was ceded on certain conditions and in various ways by the Mother Church for the occasional and circumstantial vital needs of Her children throughout the Oikoumene, does not comprise an immutable or static system but is adapted to current pastoral needs of the time, with holiness and much circumspection.
“…The canonically established appellate provision of our Modesty [in the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s pre-eminent role in world Orthodoxy] appears clear and indisputable, just as it was also exercised in the case of the Most Reverend Metropolitans Filaret, formerly of Kyiv, and Makariy of Lviv.”
The letter explained the historical precedent set in 1877 in a treatise by Metropolitan Basil of Anchialos and subsequently of Smyrna, who upheld the validity of ordination of clerics by a deposed, schismatic or even heretical bishop. The treatise was attached to the letter to Archbishop Anastasios, to reinforce the timeless position of the Orthodox Church on this issue.
In 302 A.D., Melitios, bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt, was defrocked after being accused of committing a whole series of unlawful acts, including denying the faith and sacrificing to idols. This sparked the Melitian schism, which was resolved by the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (325 A.D.). “…When reconciliation was achieved, according to the account of Athanasios the Great, archbishop of Alexandria, the saint’s predecessor, Alexander of Alexandria, submitted a register or list of those ordained during the period of this schism – which included bishops, priests and deacons – all of whom were restored to their proper rank without re-ordination. The schism troubled the Church up until the seventh century, while those reconciled were admitted into communion with the Church without re-baptism or even through Holy Chrism, as Theodore the Studite informs us all in his Great Epistle to Nafkratios.”
More recently, in 1945, the Ecumenical Patriarchate forgave the Bulgarians and their Church that was condemned by the Holy and Great Synod of 1872. As well as the Church of Russia – “under brazen political pressure – forgave the theretofore schismatic members of ROCOR [Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia], how did it receive them into communion?”
[ROCOR signed the Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate on May 17, 2007, in Moscow at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior; the signatories were: ROCOR Metropolitan Laurus and Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow. Even then, there were schisms with parishes in Ukraine that refused to enter the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate.]Patriarch Bartholomew’s letter also noted:
“…We are at a loss as to how this impertinences and slander against the Mother Church and our Modesty personally is tolerated by some and – wittingly or unwittingly – sometimes espoused in the form of affirmation or repetition of arguments by those who avenge their benefactor. Do these disciples love the Church and its unity more than their teachers? Surely not!
“At the Phanar, we preach the genuine inheritance of ecclesiology because we draw from the wellspring of our Fathers and not from self-interest or other trivial motivations and political expediencies. Consequently, it is the responsibility of all others to assimilate these disclosed truths – not, of course, in order to validate them, inasmuch as they are already authentically validated by ecclesiastical practice, but rather to restore the precious and authentic experience of the Fathers, who hoped in God alone, to the proper and sanctified way.”
– Compiled by Matthew Dubas