The Constantinople Patriarchate and the OCU’s Tomos: A view from Bulgaria
A Bulgarian theologian published an article in which he spoke about the canonical and historical aspects of Patriarch Bartholomew's recognition of Ukrainian schismatics.
Bulgarian lawyer, attorney and Master of Theology Alexander Todorov wrote an article in which he recalled the position of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church regarding the OCU and analysed the canonical and historical aspects of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s decision to grant the Tomos to Ukrainian schismatics.
Here is the full text of the article:
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (Eph. 5:11).
In some so-called church sites such as "Doors of Orthodoxy" and "Christianity.bg", the schismatic community in Ukraine is called "the Orthodox Church in/of Ukraine", and its leader Epiphany Dumenko (after Pat. Bartholomew) – "Metropolitan of Kyiv". If these sites were openly secular or were called, for example, "Doors of Ecumenism" or "Otstuplenie.bg" or something similar, then it would not be dangerous that these terms are misused there. But since these media still contain both Christian and Orthodox materials, that is, “both sweet and bitter water flows” there at the same time, the deception with the terms may mislead some people that the Ukrainian schismatics are part of the One Church of Christ, or that Epifaniy Dumenko is really Metropolitan of Kyiv (provided that he is not, because the only canonical Metropolitan of Kyiv is Onuphry, the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church). Or at the very least, the more gullible may be misled that there are two canonical churches in Ukraine – both the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and there are two metropolitans – both Epifaniy and Onuphry, which is again a deception.
Therefore, it is appropriate in fulfillment of the above instruction of St. Ap. Paul, let us briefly recall why the so-called "Orthodox Church of Ukraine" has no connection with the Orthodox Church and, accordingly, Epifaniy Dumenko is not an Orthodox metropolitan.
A brief history of the Ukrainian Church schism
First of all, the schismatic (including nationalist-based) community in Ukraine existed decades before the illegal Tomos on Ukrainian autocephaly, which Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople issued on 06.01.2019. It consisted mainly of two structures – the self-proclaimed Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church-UAOC, which periodically appeared several times in the 20th century in Ukraine (without continuous continuity) in the person of clerics who separated from the church hierarchy, and the self-proclaimed so-called "Kyiv Patriarchate", which was created in 1992 by the then Metropolitan of Kyiv Filaret Denisenko, having separated from the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (after failing to become the Patriarch of Moscow) and began to call himself the Patriarch of Kyiv, although there was never a patriarchate in Kyiv. Neither of the two schismatic structures was recognized by any local Orthodox Church, because their separation from the Body of Christ was not canonical, but spontaneous. Filaret Denisenko was even defrocked by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (in 1992), whose long-term member he had previously been. Moreover, because he did not repent of the sin of schism, but continued to persist in it, Denisenko was canonically officially excommunicated from the Church (1997).
The Patriarch of Constantinople was also not in Eucharistic communion with Filaret and the Ukrainian schismatics, because it was clear to everyone that their schism was based on nationalism and power-hunger, and at the same time in Ukraine there is a canonical Holy Synod of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is an autonomous, i.e. self-governing Church, which has always been recognised by all the Local Churches The UOC only could not make Holy Myrrh (at the moment the UOC makes Holy Chrism on its own, – Ed), which it received from the Moscow Patriarchate, but was administratively and spiritually governed, as it is to this day, by its Holy Synod in Kyiv.
Patriarch Bartholomew's attitude towards Ukrainian schismatics before 2018
Thus, for example, the Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew wrote to the Russian Patriarch Alexy II in his letter dated 26 August 1992 on the occasion of the defrocking of the Kyiv Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko): "Our Holy Great Church of Christ, recognizing the exceptional fullness of competence in this matter of Your Holy Russian Church, accepts the corresponding synodal decision for the above, not wanting to cause any difficulties to your Sister Church. “
Another letter of Pat. Bartholomew to Pat. Alexy II of April 7, 1997 regarding the anathematization (excommunication) of Filaret (Denisenko) says: "Having received information from you about the mentioned decision, we communicated it to the hierarchy of our Ecumenical See and asked it not to have any future ecclesiastical communion with the said persons."
On April 7, 2009, at the meeting with Moscow Patriarch Kirill in Istanbul, Patriarch Bartholomew "promised not to interfere in the affairs of Ukrainian Orthodoxy and not to accept into communion the Ukrainian schismatics led by the unrecognized Kyiv Patriarch Filaret". The fact that the two schismatic groups – UAOC and the so-called "Kyiv Patriarchate" – are non-canonical is also recognized by Dveri.bg .
In 2016, Patriarch Bartholomew repeatedly stated that he recognises Metropolitan Onuphry of Kyiv and All Ukraine as the only canonical head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine; he made such a statement at a public hearing during the Synaxis of the Heads of the local Orthodox Churches in January 2016.
In April 2018, Ukrainian President Poroshenko, along with Ukrainian schismatics Filaret and Makariy, sent a petition to Patriarch Bartholomew to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church - not to the canonical, true one but to the schismatic, false.
In June 2018, at his meeting with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP) delegation, "Patriarch Bartholomew said that he does not want to interfere in the affairs of the UOC, that he has always considered that there is only one canonical Church in Ukraine , and all other organisations that call themselves churches are not recognised – they are schismatic groups. Once again, it was emphasised that the former Kyiv Metropolitan Filaret, who heads the so-called "Kyiv Patriarchate is looked upon by the Phanar as a person who has committed a schism”.
Patriarch Bartholomew's attitude towards Ukrainian schismatics after 2018
Shortly afterwards, however, Pat. Bartholomew changes his position and is now ready to legitimise the schismatics. In October 2018, Constantinople uncanonically and on its own "restored" the unrepentant schismatic Filaret and his group (provided that this can only be done by the canonical UOC-MP, from which the schismatics fell away – including because restoration requires repentance and confession, not seeking a side entrance into the Church).
On 3 November 2018, Ukrainian President Poroshenko met with Patriarch Bartholomew in Istanbul. As a result, on 15.12.2018, a new church structure was established in Kyiv on the initiative of Patriarch Bartholomew – the ‘Orthodox Church of Ukraine’ (OCU), headed by Epifaniy (Dumenko), who was previously ‘ordained’ by the schismatic Filaret.
Finally, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, presided over by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, officially signed the so-called ‘Tomos on autocephaly’ of the Ukrainian schismatic organisation called the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, with Epifaniy Dumenko as its head.
By 2018, the OCU was recognised as consisting of schismatics even by the Patriarchate of Constantinople itself. However, on 6 January 2019, schismatics from the OCU and the Patriarchate of Constantinople entered into liturgical communion, and the Tomos was officially granted.
Quite naturally, Epifaniy then introduced into the OCU the well-known ecumenical tool for breaking Orthodoxy – the new style, which is a logical continuation of the policy of retreat from church canons. And as always, when the new style is forced into a local Church, it happens with the cooperation of the godless secular power, which in Ukraine persecutes the canonical Church. The only difference in Ukraine is that the new style there was adopted by the schismatics, not by the true (and only) Orthodox Church in Ukraine - the UOC led by Met. Onuphry.
Assessment of the Tomos in view of the church canons
Therefore, the "Tomos" in question is non-canonical, legally invalid, because it was issued outside the authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Its release is in violation of Tradition and the following canons, which require that persons deposed and excommunicated by a local Orthodox Church be readmitted to communion by the same Church that deposed and excommunicated them:
– Canon 15 of the Synod of Antioch ("If any bishop, lying under any accusation, shall be judged by all the bishops in the province, and all shall unanimously deliver the same verdict concerning him, he shall not be again judged by others, but the unanimous sentence of the bishops of the province shall stand firm.");
– Canon 118 of the Council of Carthage ("Whoever has been excommunicated from church communion in Africa and has secretly crept into overseas lands to be received into communion, let him submit to excommunication from the clergy.");
– Canon 5 of the First Ecumenical Council ("Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others.");
– the Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine ("Premising, therefore, our due regards to you, we earnestly conjure you, that for the future you do not readily admit to a hearing persons coming hence, nor choose to receive to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us, because you, venerable Sir, will readily perceive that this has been prescribed even by the Nicene council. For though this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy, or the laity, how much more did it will this to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who had been suspended from communion in their own Province might seem to be restored to communion hastily or unfitly by your Holiness.")
Patriarch Bartholomew's recognition of Ukrainian schismatics is just as invalid as if, for example, he had recognised Christopher Sabev as Bulgarian patriarch at the request of the Bulgarian secular authorities (at the Phanar – Ed.), given that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church has a canonical patriarch and Holy Synod, which did not ask him (Patriarch Bartholomew – Ed.) to administer justice in the Bulgarian Church.
Tomos and jurisdictional boundaries
The Tomos is anti-canonical because the Patriarch of Constantinople has no right to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church, and for another reason - by a special Letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople dated 1686 Little Russia (Ukraine) and Belorussia as metropolises were handed over to the Moscow Patriarchate, i.e. for more than 330 years, all Orthodox autocephalous churches, without any objections or reservations, have accepted that the Ukrainian Church is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, not the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Therefore, the Moscow Patriarchate is the Mother Church for Kyiv, not the Constantinople. This also follows from Canon 17 of the IV Ecumenical Council and Canon 25 of the VI Ecumenical Council, according to which the limitation period for possible jurisdictional disputes is thirty years. This limitation period has expired more than 10 times, and during these 330 years the Patriarch of Constantinople has never claimed authority over the Ukrainian Church. And after the expiration of this limitation period, any jurisdictional rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople over Ukraine are excluded.
The arbitrary cancellation of the Letter of 1686 and the non-canonical appropriation by the Patriarchate of Constantinople of the right of jurisdiction over the territory of Ukraine, as well as the granting of "autocephaly" to the OCU, is an act of interference in foreign canonical territory and is in complete contradiction with the holy canons of the Orthodox Church, which do not allow the violation of jurisdictional boundaries and the existence in one space of more than one jurisdiction.
The unilateral and arbitrary interference of a local autocephalous Church in the internal affairs of another Church is a violation of the rules and a canonical offence, which is condemned by sacred canons such as Canon 2 of the II Ecumenical Council ( "The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches...." ) and Canon 8 of the III Ecumenical Council ( "…none of the God-beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors." ).
Even if the Patriarch of Constantinople had the right to grant autocephaly in the Ukraine (which he could do only with the consent of the other patriarchates), it was to be given to the canonical Church there, governed by Met. Onuphry and the Holy Synod of the UOC (but they did not ask him for this), not the schismatic structures.
Reaction of other Churches to the Tomos for the OCU
The sanction against non-canonical communion with excommunicated schismatics, which the Patriarchate of Constantinople has maintained until now, is a complete cessation of liturgical communion with the latter, according to the well-known canonical rule: ‘whoever serves with an excommunicated person must himself be excommunicated’ (Canons 10 and 11 of the Holy Apostles; Canon 2 of the Council of Antioch).
This is exactly what the Russian Orthodox Church did in fulfilment of its ‘Synodal Statement’ of 15 October 2018, as well as the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church in fulfilment of paragraph 5 of its ‘Resolution’ of 13 November 2018.
The Serbian Orthodox Church also mentions the cessation of communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople in paragraph 5 of its official resolution ‘Position of the Serbian Orthodox Church on the Church Crisis in Ukraine’ of 13 March 2019.
If all Local Churches reacted in this way, according to the sacred canons, then the Ukrainian schism led by Patriarch Bartholomew would be obvious even to unchurched people. But, unfortunately, because of apostasy from God and from striving for the Kingdom of Heaven, many bishops are afraid to denounce the now world-supported Patriarch Bartholomew so that they do not get into trouble here on earth. But do they please God with their silence?
Most of the bishops of the Greek and Alexandrian Churches fell so far that they not only did not expose, but even recognised the "Thomas" granted to the Ukrainian schismatics and entered into communion with them....
I wonder if any of them thought about the pain their betrayal represents for Metropolitan Onuphry and the canonical Ukrainian bishops, priests and laymen?
Metropolitan Luke of Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol (UOC) called the decision of the Synod of the Greek Church (to recognise the Tomos and schismatics) ‘betrayal of Christ’.
‘You have washed your hands like Pilate, but you have defiled your heart. Our temples are being seized, our parishioners are being beaten, blood is being shed in our land. And this is ‘only the beginning of pains’ (Matthew 24:8). While you philosophize for Christ and theologies in cozy offices for God, we will be killed for Christ.... God heard that you said ‘no’ to the Truth. You deliberately went against the Truth... The Jewish Sanhedrin sentences Christ to death for... a trivial reason - in order not to lose the comfort of life.... The same is done by the Greek bishops. They prefer to let the Body of Christ - the Church – suffer than to lose their European salaries, comfort and good relations with those pockets, from which they receive their salaries….," he writes.
Those bishops who enter into liturgical communion with Ukrainian schismatics show that they have lost love for their fellow canonical Church members in Ukraine, who since 2018 have been subjected to repression, beatings, imprisonment and persecution by the secular authorities and schismatics in Ukraine. I wonder how the silent bishops will justify themselves in not only failing to raise their voices in support of the persecuted Orthodox in Ukraine but even siding with the schismatics, i.e. the persecutors? It seems that the words of Christ come true, ‘And because lawlessness is multiplied, love in many will grow cold,’ (Matthew 24:12).
Attitude to the Tomos in Bulgaria
Some Christians in our country, not wanting to be persecuted or slandered for confessing the truth, cunningly cover up the Ukrainian schism with the words "The Hole Synod of the BOC has not ruled on the OCU yet", i.e. as if the canonical status of this schismatic structure is not clear and depends on the statements of the Holy Synod. This is certainly not true. The schismatic nature of the OCU, as well as the canonical/legal invalidity of the "Tomos of Autocephaly" issued by Pat. Bartholomew, are objective facts, not a matter of subjective judgment. They do not depend on the assessment of one or another local synod. Each bishop, as well as local synods, are subject to the Ecumenical Church of Christ and its rules. For this reason, even if the Holy Synod of the BOC adopts a decision that recognises the OCU as part of the Church and the brazen "Tomos" for the autocephaly of 2019 – as valid, this decision of the Holy Synod will be void on two grounds: first, because it would contradict the above canons; secondly, because Art. 69, para. 2 of the Statute of the BOC expressly states that the decisions of Holy Synods are mandatory only if they do not contradict the dogmas and canons of the holy Orthodox Church.
On the dogmatic violations of the Tomos
In the lawless "Tomos" of January 6, 2019, there are not only canonical but also dogmatic violations. Such is, for example, the lie that the Patriarch of Constantinople was the head of all local Churches: "...we declare that the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine recognises as its head (κεφαλὴν) the most holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical See, as other Patriarchs and Primayes do" ( from the text of the Tomos) This and the other dogmatic violations in the "Tomos" will be considered in a separate article, and as an explanation of these deviations of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, we shall confine ourselves to quoting three twentieth-century saints:
"We were quite embarrassed and amazed that... the head of the Church of Constantinople, without any prior reference to us as the legal representative and head of the entire Russian Orthodox Church, interfered in the internal life and affairs of the autocephalous Russian Church. The holy councils (2nd and 3rd Canons of the Second Ecumenical Council) of the bishop of Constantinople have always recognized only the primacy of honor but they have not recognised for him the primacy of power".
(Saint Tikhon the Confessor, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Message to Patriarch Gregory VII of Constantinople, July 1924)
“The Ecumenical Patriarchate, which has lost the significance of the Pillar of Truth and has itself become a source of division, and at the same time is gripped by excessive power-lust, is a pitiable sight, reminiscent of the worst times in the history of the Church of Constantinople.’
(Saint John of Shanghai and Saint Francis, from his report "The Situation of the Orthodox Church after the War", Acts of the Second All-Foreign Council of the ROCOR, Belgrade, 1939, pp. 389-394)
"The Ecumenical Patriarchs have long since departed from Orthodoxy. Here, they really are traitors..." (Saint Seraphim of Sofia, Life and Teachings, Orthodox classics, 2016, p. 74)
Conclusions
In conclusion, we will recall that the well-remembered Metropolitan Ioanniki of Sliven did not allow the priests of his diocese to enter into worship communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and even less with the Ukrainian schismatics. Unfortunately, we can already see that the problem with these schismatics is yet to deepen. May God give honesty and courage to our metropolitans so that they do not become complicit in this schism and do not cause another one - it is better for Christians to be persecuted for the unity of the Church than to become traitors.
Finally, it should be noted that the separation of the UOC from its Mother Church – the Russian Orthodox Church (without interruption of communion), proclaimed on 27 May 2022 in the Saint Panteleimon Monastery (Feophania), was also not carried out according to canonical order, but for now quite correctly the ROC shows leniency and patience towards this decision of the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it was taken in the conditions of daily terror against the Orthodox in Ukraine by the secular authorities and at the same time – in a military situation. All local Churches show understanding towards the emergency situation of Christians in Ukraine, therefore, while the Russian Orthodox Church (as the Mother Church) does not consider the Ukrainian Orthodox Church a schism, the other local Churches do not consider the Ukrainian Orthodox Church a schism. And the ROC is the Mother Church of the UOC, because before 1990 the UOC did not exist, and in Ukraine there was only the ROC, and it was the latter that authorized the creation of an autonomous UOC at the Council of Bishops of the ROC, held on 25-27 October 1990. The Council then made a decision to grant the UOC "independence and self-governance", and for the head of the UOC to bear the title "Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine" and to be a permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. As can be seen, the Patriarchate of Constantinople had no voice and no participation in these events.
