Madness and shame: results of the Istanbul Synod
The October session of the Phanar Synod concluded sensationally: the hierarchs legitimized the schism, began a raider takeover of Christ's Church in Ukraine, and once again promised the Tomos.
What does all this mean for our country, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the entire Orthodox world?
On October 9–10, the Istanbul Synod was in session, handling its current affairs and, and seemed to have no intention to adopt any unlawful decisions. But on the last day it fired! And, judging by all appearances, it shot itself in the foot. There is no other way to characterize the decision that became available to the media and was announced by Metropolitan Emmanuel of France.
Metropolitan Emmanuel of France announcing the results of the Synod session
With faces expressing fear ("What are we doing, brothers!"), the venerable hierarchs published this document.
Questions about the text begin already from the second paragraph.
"The Holy Synod discussed in detail the ecclesiastical affairs of Ukraine in the presence of His Excellency Archbishop Daniel of Pamphilon and His Grace Bishop Hilarion of Edmonton, Patriarchal Exarchs of Ukraine, and following thorough discussions adopted a resolution".
These "patriarchal exarchs" were appointed by His All-Holiness unlawfully in violation of the 3rd Canon of the Council of Sardica, which clearly defines: "no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren".
The only lawful bishop of the city of Kyiv and All Ukraine, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry, expressed himself sharply negatively regarding the arrival of the "exarchs". The reference to the presence of the "exarchs" at the session of the Istanbul Synod should be understood in the sense that the Synod made its decision after hearing their report on the results of their stay in Ukraine. But what could they have reported? During the month they spent in Kyiv, they publicly met only with the President and government officials. No information was received about other announced meetings with representatives of various denominations. That is, either they did not happen at all, or they were so behind-the-scenes that it would have been shameful to report them to the public. So what could the two young hierarchs tell the venerable members of the Synod? Nothing! And this was not required. Their speeches, if any were made at the session, could no longer influence anything. Everything had been decided without them and even, probably, without the Synod members themselves. Decided by people who don't care about all existing canons of the Church. This is evidenced by the subsequent points of the decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
1) "to renew the already taken decision for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to proceed to granting autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine."
Based on this point, Petro Poroshenko has already managed to joyfully declare that the decision on the Tomos has already been made. This is not so. A decision has been made "to proceed to granting autocephaly", and to be even more precise – "to renew the decision to proceed to granting". When this very decision will be made, the long-awaited Tomos – is unknown. As one of the Istanbul hierarchs said: "when the time comes". The Phanar, unlike P. Poroshenko, is in no hurry.
2) "to restore, at present, the stauropegion of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Kyiv, one of his many stauropegia in Ukraine, which have always existed."
Absurd! Utterly absurd! Where is this Kyiv stauropegion? Where are the other “numerous stauropegia” in Ukraine? What does it mean to say that they “have always existed”? For more than three hundred years, there have been no stauropegia of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Ukraine. That is the reality of the situation, not the fantasies imposed on us by the Phanariots.
However, it is entirely unclear what exactly is meant in the document by the term "stauropegion." As a rule, a stauropegion is a monastery that is removed from the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop and placed directly under the authority of the Primate of a Local Church. Therefore, these words can already be interpreted as a threat of a hostile takeover of church property, at the very least, of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, since before the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686, it was indeed a stauropegion of the Constantinople Patriarchate.
It is also highly likely that this refers to the restoration in Ukraine of a Kyiv Metropolis fully subordinate to the Phanar. This was stated, in particular, by Archimandrite Kyrylo Hovorun, who has repeatedly asserted that the Tomos has already been drafted.
3) "to receive and consider the appeals of Filaret Denysenko, Makariy Maletych, and their followers, who entered into schism for non-dogmatic reasons, in accordance with the canonical prerogatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople to hear such appeals from hierarchs and other clergy of all the autocephalous Churches. Consequently, the aforementioned persons were canonically reinstated to their episcopal or priestly rank, and their faithful were restored to communion with the Church.".
That is, persons excommunicated from the Church were suddenly taken and simply recognized as "restored to communion"? And also for the reason that they found themselves in schism not for dogmatic reasons? Perhaps this completely insane point of the Phanariots will cause the most rejection in the Orthodox world.
First, the Patriarchate of Constantinople throughout its entire history, including recent times, has stamped out many anathemas and other canonical penalties "for non-dogmatic reasons". It seems that now professional historians will find all this, collect it and present it to the Phanariots, who turned out to have such a short memory.
Second, the Constantinople Patriarchate, as recently as 1964, lifted the anathema of 1054 against the Pope of Rome, despite the fact that it had been imposed precisely on doctrinal grounds. And not minor doctrinal grounds at that, but matters of the highest theological importance! Have the hierarchs of Constantinople already forgotten that, according to the writings of the Holy Fathers – including the Patriarchs of Constantinople themselves – Catholics profess doctrines that distort the very essence of Christianity?
Third, how could the Phanar lift the anathema from Mr. Denysenko without conducting any public judicial proceedings? Without hearing either him himself, or his accusers, or witnesses to his canonical crimes? Why didn't the Patriarchate of Constantinople do this? By this very act, the Phanar showed itself not as the supreme judge it wants to be in the Orthodox world, but as an accomplice to the crimes of Mr. Denysenko and other schismatics. After all, the church rules on this matter are completely unambiguous: whoever enters into communion with one excommunicated from the Church, places himself outside the Church. If the Phanar really wanted to lift the anathema from Mr. Denysenko, it definitely should have conducted a fair and public investigation of his case. Without this, in the eyes of all Local Churches, the Phanar looks not like a just and impartial judge but like a usurper and lawbreaker.
Fourth, one Local Church has no right to lift an anathema imposed by another Local Church. Only the Local Church that imposed anathemas and other canonical penalties can lift them. The maximum that the canons allow Patriarch Bartholomew to do in this regard is to lift anathemas and other canonical penalties imposed by other hierarchs of his own Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Fifth, the lifting of canonical penalties is possible only on condition of repentance for those transgressions that became the basis for the penalties. Where is the penitential letter from Messrs. Denysenko and Maletych, even if addressed to Patriarch Bartholomew? Without repentance there is no forgiveness. If there is no repentance, then such lifting of anathema, as Metropolitan Luke of Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol aptly said, is "a certificate to a corpse that he is alive".
Sixth, Local Churches have always tried to resolve even some of their internal issues, but of great importance, in agreement with other Local Churches. For example, for the trial of Patriarch Nikon, the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were invited to Moscow.
For a quarter of a century, the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized the anathema. And not only it, but all Local Churches. Where now to put all those documents and statements that came from the mouth and from under the pen of Patriarch Bartholomew?
And for all 25+ years His All-Holiness did not know that Mr. Denysenko was excommunicated from the Church "for non-dogmatic reasons"?
There are additional questions to this point: in what exactly "hierarchical or priestly rank" have Messrs. Denisenko and Maletych been restored? Episcopal? Metropolitan? Patriarchal? Can Mr. Denisenko now come to the Phanar and concelebrate with His All-Holiness?
There is, however, a hint of good news in this point. Apparently, they failed to win over any of the hierarchs of the UOC and had to rehabilitate Mr. Denysenko to give him carte blanche to create the Single Orthodox Church.
4) "to revoke the legal force of the Synodal Letter of 1686, issued under the circumstances of that time and which, by way of oikonomia, granted the Patriarch of Moscow the right to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv, elected by the clergy and laity of his diocese, provided that at every solemn occasion he would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch as his first hierarch, thereby proclaiming and affirming his canonical dependence upon the Mother Church of Constantinople."
That is, now any decision, however old, can be cancelled simply because it was supposedly made "under the circumstances of that time"? This point of the Istanbul Synod's decision means that:
First, no decision of the Phanar, including this very one, can be considered as having legal force, since there are no guarantees that in a few years the Patriarchate of Constantinople will not cancel it too for the reason that it was issued "under the circumstances of that time". Is this not madness, to so undermine the authority of one's own decisions?! What trust will there be in them now after the Phanar itself has shown the whole world that they mean nothing.
Second, the cancellation of the "legal force" of the 1686 decision on the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate in legal language means that thereby all, absolutely all (!) decisions of the Moscow Patriarchate regarding the Kyiv Metropolis that were made over more than three hundred years lose force. Why do the Istanbul hierarchs turn their Synod into a theater of the absurd? After all, this is obvious to any reasonable person.
Moreover, the fact of the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis in 1686 was recognized by other Local Churches as well. Some, like the Jerusalem Church, adopted a corresponding document on this matter, others – by their actions, addressing questions related to the Kyiv Metropolis to Moscow, not to Istanbul. What to do now with them and their recognitions?
"5) to call upon all involved parties to avoid appropriation of churches, monasteries and other property, as well as any other acts of violence and retaliation, so that the peace and love of Christ may triumph".
This point of the Istanbul Synod's decision is simply a miserable fig leaf with which the Phanar is trying to cover its sanction for any violence against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which radicals are ready to commit. Plans for seizing the Lavras and other monasteries have long been announced. As has been announced that precisely such a decision by the Phanar should serve as the trigger for their implementation. Now Philaret is not a schismatic, which means the UOC-KP is a legitimate "local church" and for it "it is no sin" to seize churches and commit any other violence and lawlessness.
In short, by adopting such a mad and unlawful decision, the Phanar has added yet another shameful page to its history, which in its significance may rise to the level of the betrayal of Orthodoxy at the Ferrara–Florence Union in 1439, carried out by the then hierarchs of Constantinople. And fourteen years later, the glorious capital of the Byzantine Empire was captured by the Turks and became Istanbul. History teaches us that it teaches us nothing.
But let us not follow this bitter historical saying! Let us draw lessons from history. And they tell us that under no circumstances should one side with lawlessness and untruth. One must not betray one's faith and act dishonestly, whatever worldly benefits such betrayal may promise. And now, in this time of trials, it is necessary to stand firmly in Orthodoxy, defend our shrines, readily respond to the calls of the Primate of the Church, His Beatitude Onuphry, and remember that at the beginning of the 20th century the Phanar already recognized the schismatic Renovationists, but this did not make them the Church. They went into historical oblivion, although they were patronized in every way by the then Soviet power. And those who remained faithful to the Church and to His Holiness the Confessor Patriarch Tikhon forever inscribed their names in the Book of Life.
