ROC and Phanar: Does the conflict turn into warfare?

Does the Russian Orthodox Church declare a full-fledged war on the Phanar? Photo: UOJ

On July 19, 2023, the Bishops' Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church was held at the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. Judging by the final document and reports at this Council, the main issue discussed was the exacerbated confrontation with the Phanar.

Why was it necessary to convene the Conference right now?

The preparation for the event was conducted with a high level of secrecy, and the date was confirmed just a few days before its commencement. The agenda was disclosed only at the beginning of the session on July 19. It is suspected that decisions were prepared in advance, and the majority of bishops attending the Council might not have had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the issues beforehand. The mandatory presence of hundreds of bishops from the ROC was likely aimed at lending more weight to the final decisions. The main outcome of the Council was the declaration of "war" on the Phanar, an announcement made on behalf of the two hundred bishops present, which undoubtedly added to the significance of the event.

Showdown with the Phanar

The confrontation between the ROC and the Ecumenical Patriarchate has been ongoing for quite a while. The reasons behind this conflict and the mutual claims are well known to anyone interested in the affairs of the Church. It should be noted that the UOJ has extensively covered this issue before. To summarize, in this confrontation, the truth is unambiguously on the side of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is also important to recall that the ROC severed Eucharistic communion with the Phanar and with those Churches that recognized the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU).

Following the Phanar's legalization of Filaret Denysenko and Makariy Maletich, along with their followers, Patriarch Kirill of the ROC stated that the Ecumenical Patriarchate "intruded into our jurisdiction, granted forgiveness to the schismatics who were anathematized, thus identifying itself with the schismatics and becoming a schismatic itself." The Phanar's Synod did not respond to these statements immediately. From the outside, it seemed that the strong position of the ROC did not affect the Phanariots. However, they were merely waiting for the opportune moment. With the onset of the Russian-Ukrainian war, that moment finally arrived.

The Phanar vs the ROC

In fact, from the very beginning of the SMO, Patriarch Bartholomew has been consistently criticizing Patriarch Kirill and his position on the war between Russia and Ukraine. Much was said – both insults and threats. Here are some examples:

1. I don't know how he (Patriarch Kirill) can justify himself before his conscience. How history will judge him... He should have sacrificed his throne and tell Putin, 'Mr. President, I cannot agree with you, I resign, I'm leaving,' which we, the other primates, expected him to do."
2. "What is even more painful for us is that the Moscow Patriarchate has reached the level of subordination to Russia's political ambitions, supporting and allegedly blessing this violent invasion and unjustified bloodshed... We have repeatedly deplored the aggression and violence, sincerely and fraternally appealing to the Moscow Patriarch to distance himself from political crimes, even if it means stepping down from the throne."
3. "The Church and the government of Russia collaborated in the crime of aggression and shared responsibility for the resulting crimes, such as the shocking abduction of Ukrainian children."

While these accusations were undoubtedly hurtful for Patriarch Kirill, they alone could not be the basis for any canonical actions against him. Moreover, it is worth noting that Patriarch Bartholomew himself has previously supported military actions by the Turkish government. As a result, the Phanar could not present anything more substantial than "blessing the war" to oppose Patriarch Kirill.

However, this changed when Patriarch Kirill declared that those who died in the war against Ukraine would be absolved of all their sins and would immediately enter the Kingdom of God as martyrs. Patriarch Bartholomew's reaction to this statement was immediate: "He said that everyone who dies in this war will immediately enter the Kingdom of God as martyrs. This does not correspond to Orthodox teaching."

This statement amounted to an accusation of heresy, and regardless of whether it came from Patriarch Bartholomew personally and not from a council, it could not be ignored.

The war waged by the ROC against the Phanar

Patriarch Bartholomew and the ongoing wave of new autocephalies (such as Lithuania, Montenegro, and Moldova) needed to be confronted not only with the opinion of Patriarch Kirill but with the position of the entire Russian Orthodox Church. This was achieved during the Council, and the Phanar seemd to be in the focus.

It became evident after Patriarch Kirill's speech, where over a quarter of the extensive report was devoted to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In the report, the Phanar was referred to as "an instrument for fighting against Orthodoxy" and "a tool in the hands of skillful manipulators." However, as strong as these statements might have been, they were evidently insufficient to condemn the Phanar. Therefore, Patriarch Kirill's position had to be reinforced by Metropolitan Hilarion's report, titled "Distortion of Orthodox Doctrine about the Church in the Actions of the Hierarchy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Statements by Its Representatives." This report was presented on behalf of the Synodal Theological Commission and outlined several key points:

1. The Phanar claims primacy of authority over the entire Universal Church.
2. The Phanar claims the role of the highest appellate instance.
3. The Phanar restores schismatics to their "orders" without canonical ordination or after losing their rank due to schism.
4. The Phanar claims exclusive rights to grant autocephaly.
5. The Phanar claims exclusive jurisdiction over the diaspora.

In the final resolution, it is stated that "the participants in the Bishops' Conference agree with the conclusions" of Metropolitan Hilarion's report and "submit it for approval to the Holy Synod." All the accusations directed towards the Phanar in the speech of the former head of the DECR MP have been previously articulated. However, now they have been consolidated into one coherent statement and were voiced, albeit not by a full-fledged Council, but still by the bishops' assembly. There is no doubt that the Synod's approval will be a mere formality. It appears that this could lay the groundwork for subsequent accusations of heresy against the Phanar. Surely, the Phanar will respond to these accusations, but the manner and method of their response will be seen down the road.

One thing is certain – the escalation of division within Orthodoxy is gaining momentum.

Read also