What Patriarch Bartholomew is implying

Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople

This is what the Ecumenical Patriarch said in his statement of July 1, which many took for the declaration of intention to grant the Tomos on the SLC (Single Local Church) to Peter Poroshenko: "Besides, let's not forget that Constantinople has never transferred the territory of Ukraine to anyone with any Act, except for the right of chirotony of the Kiev [metropolitan] in Moscow..." That is, the Primate of the UOC turns out to be chirotonized not in Kiev, but in Moscow! Then everything will be according to the rules. Is it funny? It is no funnier than all the other references of Phanar to documents related to the transfer of the Kiev Metropolitanate, as well as to the arguments for restoring "historical justice". It makes sense to make out what Patriarch Bartholomew said and to whom it was all addressed.

"It is logical that we as the Mother Church wish to restore the divided Church Body in Ukraine, tens of millions of believers, baptized and enlightened in the direct care and missionary work of the Ecumenical Throne."

The fact that the Orthodox Church of Constantinople in the historical sense is the Mother Church for the UOC, as well as for the whole Russian Orthodoxy, is absolutely undisputed by anyone. But only in the historical sense.

Concerning the "restoration of the divided Church Body in Ukraine", as well as the "divided Church Body" in any other country, it is necessary to note the following. The Church Body is nothing other than the Body of Christ: "...He set Him above all things, the head of the church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Ephesians 1, 22-23). Can the Body of Christ be in divided? Obviously not. Therefore, all heretics and schismatic, by definition, are not part of the Body of the Church and it may not be about "the reunification of the Church Body," but about "reunification with the Church Body" of all those who have broken off from it earlier.

But the words about "tens of millions of believers, baptized and enlightened in the direct care and missionary work of the Ecumenical Throne" are rather confusing. What "direct care and missionary work" is meant if the last metropolitan of Rus’, a Greek by nationality, was the infamous Isidore, who, along with the majority of Greek hierarchs, betrayed Orthodoxy at the Ferrara-Florentine Council in 1439? Who of the living citizens of Ukraine did Greeks "directly" baptize and enlighten in the faith?

"Moreover, in the past the Church of Constantinople exercised its canonical rights and its pastoral care, worked and solved difficult and complicated church issues, always bearing in mind the benefits to the people of God and the preservation of the All-Orthodox unity. Suffice it to recall the recent participation and assistance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in problems that the Churches of Jerusalem, Cyprus, Albania, etc. complain about. In this spirit, the Holy Christ Great Church of Constantinople, which has acted in truth in love, today is standing up for a decisive settlement of church affairs in Ukraine."

If only the "Church of Constantinople" had always " worked and solved difficult and complicated church issues " solely " bearing in mind the benefits to the people of God and the preservation of the All-Orthodox unity"! But, alas! Far not always has Phanar been guided by this. It suffices to recall the Florentine Union, the excommunication of whole nations, modern ecumenism (with Catholics) and interference in the affairs of other Local Churches. Quite often Constantinople hierarchy has not acted in the interests of the "people of God", but to please the Turkish sultans, British monarchs or American presidents. The history of the Church of Constantinople, unfortunately, abounds in similar facts.

"Suffice it to recall the recent participation and assistance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in problems that the Сhurches of Jerusalem, Cyprus, Albania, etc."

Will Constantinople really declare itself to be the Mother Church to these Local Churches? The Jerusalem Church was founded on the Day of Pentecost, the Cyprian Church was founded in 47 AD by the apostle Barnabas, Albanian – in the 10th century, as the metropolitanate of the Archdiocese of Ohrid (Bulgarian) (independent from Constantinople at that time). But this question is not as simple as it seems. The fact is that during the time of the Ottoman Empire, which ended, by historical standards, most recently, in 1922, the Patriarchate of Constantinople pursued a policy of hellenization in all Turkish possessions. And these possessions in different historical periods included both Palestine together with Jerusalem, and North Africa together with Alexandria, and the Balkans, and Romania, and Bulgaria and many more countries and peoples. And almost everywhere Phanar tried to place its Greek bishops at the head of local dioceses. Today's consequence of this is that a significant part of the episcopate of the ancient Eastern patriarchates: of Jerusalem, Alexandria and others – Greeks by origin, is somehow connected with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And in this sense, Constantinople can quite speak of itself as the Mother Church, even for these ancient Churches.

"In this spirit, the Holy Christ Great Church of Constantinople, which has acted honestly in love, today is standing up for a resolute settlement of church affairs in Ukraine."

If the words "resolute settlement of church affairs" mean the reunification with the Church of all those who have fallen away from it earlier, this can only be welcomed. But the question is: who is Constantinople struggling with for this? Logically, it must struggle with all those who support the schism.

"Besides, let's not forget that Constantinople has never transferred the territory of Ukraine to anyone with any Act, except for the right of consecration of the Kiev [metropolitan] in Moscow under conditions of his election in Kiev at the local Council and with the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch."

"Constantinople has never transferred the territory of Ukraine..." It is not at all difficult to find a map of the then Ukraine, which was not Ukraine at that time but was often called "Getmanshchina" or the "Zaporozhian Host", or even the "Cossack land".

As you can see, the territory that "Constantinople has never transferred ..." is much less than today's territory of Ukraine. What about the rest?

As for "the right of chirotony of the Kiev [metropolitan] in Moscow", it is said at the beginning of the article. That is, the Metropolitan of Kiev must be elected by the council of Ukrainian bishops, and then go to Moscow to be ordained! And the UOC itself (the Kiev Metropolitanate, in the terminology of the Ecumenical Patriarch) should have substantially less autonomy than it does today.

"Listen, in particular, what the Tomos on autocephaly granted by the Mother Church to the Polish Church says: "It is written that separation from Our Throne of the Kiev Metropolitanate and the Orthodox Churches of Lithuania and Poland, dependent on it, and their accession to the Holy Moscow Church was in no way carried out in accordance with the normative canonical orders, and the specified in them [rights] of wide ecclesiastical independence of the Metropolitan of Kiev, who bore the title of the Exarch of the Ecumenical Throne, were not observed."

That is, in 1924 in the Tomos on autocephaly of the Polish Orthodox Church, the then Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory VII complained that the transfer of the Kiev Metropolitanate to the Russian Orthodox Church from Constantinople was uncanonical. Sure thing! After all, it was he who recognized the renovationist "synod" in the USSR (although he changed his point of view twice) and urged His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, a prelate and confessor, to resign. However, despite these complaints, Phanar has never raised the issue of recognizing the transfer of the Kiev Metropolitanate to the ROC as invalid.

And Patriarch Bartholomew can only complain about this, because if you raise the question in the legal plane and cancel the allegedly non-canonical transfer of the Kiev Metropolitanate, you will have to cancel everything that followed. It is unlikely that anyone will seriously engage in such absurdity. And up to what year should "historical justice" be restored? Until 1686, when the Kiev Metropolitanate was a part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, or until 1448, when the whole Russian Church entered there? Or maybe until 381, when the Constantinople Church itself was the eparchy of the Heraclius Metropolitanate?

In general, the statement of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew gives the impression of a certain isolation from the realities of today. And the question arises: why does the reverend hierarch speaks out like that? There are two reasons for this.

Firstly, it is the consistent policy of Phanar, for at least the last century, to affirm the exclusivity of the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox World, some kind of "papism". Constantinople is supposed to intervene in the affairs of other Churches, solve their problems, recognize or not recognize schisms, grant autocephaly, etc.

Such a policy of Constantinople is a forced step. The Ecumenical Patriarchate desperately needs to justify its own existence. Constantinople is already half a millennium as Istanbul, the canonical territory is the Phanar microdistrict, and the flock on the territory of Turkey is not much bigger than the number of employees of the Patriarchate itself.

All eparchies of Constantinople in America, Europe, Australia and other parts of the world, according to historical logic, will become independent in the foreseeable future. And now Phanar depends on them more than they do on it. The abundance of Greeks among the episcopate of the ancient Eastern Churches is gradually coming to naught. The Church of Antioch in the last hundred years of struggle for their national identity has practically got rid of them. The next is Jerusalem, where the demands of the flock to fill the vacant sees with Arab bishops sound more and more insistently.

It is necessary for the Patriarch of Constantinople to remember the glorious historical past and try to establish its authority in today's Orthodox World. And here there is an opportunity for Constantinople. The authority of Constantinople can be approved only (!) if its activity will really bring all the Local Orthodox Churches benefit, peace and harmony, if Constantinople can offer truly correct and canonically impeccable solutions to the real problems in the Orthodox World. From this point of view, granting the Tomos on autocephaly of the Single Local Church in Ukraine will be simply homicidal for the authority of Constantinople.

Secondly, it has already been repeatedly said that Patriarch Bartholomew and his episcopate are under unprecedented pressure from different sides. Both supporters and opponents of the Tomos use every opportunity to win over Phanar. While representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches appeal to the church canons, "the benefit to the people of God" and "All-Orthodox unity" in the negotiations with Constantinople, the political forces use their low and disagreeable arsenal to press Phanar. Therefore, Patriarch Bartholomew has to speak words that different forces can interpret in a way convenient for themselves. But we must pay tribute to His Holiness Patriarch, he does it in the best traditions of Byzantine diplomacy. And even though the supporters of the SLC shout "hurray" over Patriarch Bartholomew’s statement of July 1, we must admit that in this statement there are even no hints at the following:

There is no indication that Constantinople will nevertheless grant the Tomos on the SLC to Petro Poroshenko.

Moreover, there is no indication that it will do this to the 1030th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia.

Nothing suggests the recognition of Ukrainian schismatics.

There are no points that would directly contradict what the representatives of Phanar and the UOC stated after the talks on June 23.

There is the desire of Constantinople to participate in solving the problem of schism in Ukraine. But again, this should be the solution to the problem rather than its aggravation. So, it can be assumed that the Ecumenical Patriarchate will either suggest such a way of healing the Ukrainian schism that will be approved by the entire Orthodox World, or it will prolong the solution until the change in the church and political situation prompts such a remedy.

Read also