The Church of Constantinople and Patriarch Bartholomew promised autocephaly to Ukraine

Bartholomew (Archondonis)

Dimítrios Archontónis

1940

Orthodox Church of Constantinople

Third generation of modernists

San: patriarch

Graduated from: Halki Theological School, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Ecumenical Institute in Bosse, University of Munich, Pontifical Gregorian University

Taught at: Khalka Theological School

,
Pontifical Gregorian University
Influenced by: Melito (Hatzis)

Direction: ecumenism

,
Church reform
,
environmental consciousness
,
Greek nationalism
Modernism

Πατριάρχης Βαρθολομαῖος, Dimitrios Archondonis, also green Patriarch[1], Pat riarch of solidarity[2]

(1940) - a well-known figure in the ecumenical movement, participant in ecumenical prayers, Greek nationalist, modernist, representative of environmental consciousness. Participant in the preparation of the Eighth Ecumenical Council. The creator of the non-canonical “Ukrainian Holy Land Autocephalous Orthodox Church”, the initiator of the schism with the Russian Orthodox Church[3].

Content

• 1 biography
• 2 education
• 3 hierarchy
• 4 Ecumenism 4.1 World Council of Churches
• 4.2 Teze community
• 4.3 dialogue with Islam
• 4.4 Orthodox-Jewish dialogue
• 4.5 Orthodox-Monophysite dialogue
• 4.6 Orthodox-Catholic dialogue

biography

From 1961 to 1963 he served in the Turkish army.

Turkish patriot. Participant of the March 14, 2011 Summit of Changes, which was held in Istanbul on the initiative of the Turkish authorities.

On October 24, 2013, Patriarch Bartholomew paid a visit to the Turkish consulate in Thessaloniki, which is located in the house where Kemal Atatürk was born. During a conversation with Consul General T. Biltekin, he stated that he wanted the repose of Ataturk’s soul and the preservation of the results of his reforms, which gave the Turkish state a secular and modern character.

A monument was erected to Patriarch Bartholomew during his lifetime on September 27, 2015 by representatives of the Bulgarian government in the presence of the Patriarch himself.

education

In 1961 he graduated from the Theological School in Halki.

From 1963 to 1968 he studied at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, the Ecumenical Institute in Bosse (Switzerland) and the University of Munich. He defended his doctoral dissertation “On the codification of sacred canons and canonical decrees in the Orthodox Church” at the Pontifical Gregorian University. He taught at the Gregorian University.

In 1969 he began teaching at the Theological School in Halki. Appointed assistant dean.

Bartholomew destroyed the so-called UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate

“The Ecumenical Patriarchate is trying to undo its own decisions of the 17th century. Russia as such has not yet existed, Europe and Ukraine even more so, the situation is a bit anecdotal, a similar situation is developing in Turkey. All this smacks of extremeness and it looks wild. The whole point of the existence of Orthodoxy today from other faiths is an ancient tradition, but then a very strange story begins,” the expert said.

On the situation in Ukraine and the impact on Orthodoxy in the country, Russian journalist Fr.

hierarchy

In 1961 he was ordained deacon. In 1969 he was ordained to the priesthood by Patriarch Athenagoras (Spirou).

In 1970, Patriarch Athenagoras elevated him to the rank of archimandrite in the patriarchal chapel of St. Andrey.

Under Patriarch Demetrius, Bartholomew (Archondonis) in 1972 became the Patriarch's personal secretary. In 1973 - Metropolitan of Philadelphia. Since March 1974, member of the Patriarchal Synod and many Synodal commissions. In 1990 – Metropolitan. Chalcedonian.

On October 22, 1991 he was elected Patriarch of Constantinople, and his enthronement took place on November 2.

As Patriarch, Bartholomew (Archondonis) followed the path of the ecumenical fusion of the Orthodox Church with the Gentiles, the globalist involvement of Orthodoxy in the political, economic and environmental problems of this world.

Bartholomew’s assistant does not like the Russian Orthodox Church’s decision to stop communicating with Constantinople

The decision of the Russian Orthodox Church to cease communion of the Eucharist with the Universal Church does not honor the hierarchs, and everyone is dissatisfied with this decision.

This opinion was expressed in an exclusive interview with Ukrinform by Bishop Makarios of Christopol, assistant to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, permanent professor at the Patriarchal Academy of Crete.

“I don’t want to judge the decisions of churches or the statements of their leaders. I do not agree with what is happening, with the fact that some are making personal attacks even against the Ecumenical Patriarch. I do not like this tactic, and it does not honor us, as hierarchs of the Orthodox Church. When we want to say something, we must correctly apply our church and canonical postulates. The clergy and people understand and judge everything,” said Bishop Makarios, commenting on the decisions taken by Moscow regarding the complete cessation of communication with Constantinople.

He also said that he did not like the decisions of the Moscow church:

“I think everyone is unhappy with this decision. But since they decided to go this way, I respect their decision. I offer my prayers and hope that the problems will later be overcome and Eucharistic communion in Jesus Christ will be restored.”

The Bishop also addressed the Ukrainian people:

“I ask the Ukrainian people to be united. Preserve wonderful Ukrainian traditions and customs. To love our Holy Patriarch and pray for him. Pray that hatred and malice do not arise between people, but that love and peace reign. I ask the Ukrainian people never to forget about the good deeds of the great Church of Constantinople.”

ecumenism

Active participant in Orthodox-Catholic, Orthodox-Islamic, Orthodox-Jewish dialogue.

Bartholomew (Archondonis) represented the Patriarchate of Constantinople at numerous ecumenical forums, and accompanied Patriarch Demetrius on all his foreign trips, including in 1987 to the USSR. Participant in interreligious prayer in Assisi (2002).

World Council of Churches

He took part in the General Assemblies of the World Council of Churches in Uppsala (1968), Vancouver (1983) and Canberra (1991). Member of the Central Committee and the Executive Committee of the WCC. Since 1975, Bartholomew (Archondonis) has been a member of the WCC “Faith and Church Order” commission; for 8 years (until 1983) he was vice-president of this organization. With his participation, the Lima Document was developed [2].

In 1991 he headed the delegation of Orthodox ecumenists at the Seventh Assembly of the WCC in Canberra, where he was elected a member of the Central Committee and the Executive Committee of the WCC.

Member of the XII Assembly of the Conference of European Churches (2003).

Organizer and participant of the interreligious World Conference “Religions for Peace” (Riva del Garda. Italy, November 1994). During the conference, he called on Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, Judaists, Mohammedans, pagan Hindus, Buddhists and Confucians “not just for reconciliation, but for union and joint efforts in the name of the spiritual principles of ecumenism, brotherhood and peace, since we are all united in the Spirit of the One God."

On November 26, 2012, he spoke in Vienna at the opening ceremony of the “King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz International Center for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue”[4].

Participant of the IX Assembly of the World Conference “Religions for Peace” (Vienna, November 2013). The theme of the Assembly: “Welcoming the Other: Human Dignity, Citizenship and Shared Well-Being.”

Teze community

Participant in contacts of the pseudo-monastic ecumenical community with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Met in 2005 with Prior Teze.

In 2013, Patriarch Bartholomew invited “brother” Alois to come to Istanbul with several brothers and a hundred young people. Members of the ecumenical community attended Vespers at the Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity on Taksim Square in the center of Istanbul.

On April 25, 2021, Patriarch Bartholomew became the first Orthodox Patriarch in history to visit the ecumenical community of Teze. In the presence of 1,500 people, he participated in the Teze service at the Temple of Reconciliation. In his speech during the prayer, Patriarch Bartholomew called Teze a center of spiritual ecumenism, a “melting pot of reconciliation”[5].

Patriarch Bartholomew maintains contacts with the pseudo-monastic community of Bose and the Uniate monastery in Shevtoni.

dialogue with Islam

Patriarch Bartholomew is known for his respectful and conciliatory gestures towards Mohammedanism.

On January 6, 2011, on the day of Epiphany in the new style, Bartholomew I interrupted the service when he heard that a call for midday prayer was heard in nearby mosques. Bartholomew I continued to serve only after the sounds of the adhan ceased.

On August 4, 2011, Patriarch Bartholomew I took part in a gala dinner hosted by the mayor of Istanbul at the Mevlevihane dervish monastery in Galata. A ritual dance of the whirling dervishes was performed in front of the crowd. The event was timed to coincide with the Muslim fast of Ramadan, which began on August 1.

On June 27, 2012, Patriarch Bartholomew I took part in an evening reception in honor of the Ramadan fast, hosted by Turkish President Abdullah Gul. During a conversation with A. Gul, Bartholomew I wished him to have a good fasting month of Ramadan.

Orthodox-Jewish dialogue

Participant in the Orthodox-Jewish dialogue: the Fifth (Thessaloniki, May 27 - 29, 2003) and the Seventh meeting of representatives of Orthodox Christianity and Judaism (Athens, November 10 - 12, 2009).

Performed at the Park East Synagogue (New York, October 28, 2009) [6].

Orthodox-Monophysite dialogue

Participant of the Orthodox-Monophysite dialogue. In 1992, he recognized the “Egyptian Document” (1989), asserting the absence of disagreements between the Orthodox and the Monophysites. He accused Patriarch Diodorus of Jerusalem of “interfering in the affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople” when he spoke out against the union.

In 1995 he made a visit to the Monophysite Patriarch of Ethiopia, during which a joint celebration of Epiphany took place. Bartholomew (Archondonis) declared in Ethiopia: “We came here as brothers to brothers in Christ, as members of the one ancient and undivided Eastern Orthodox family, which, unfortunately, lost this unity fifteen centuries ago, and today seeks and finds unity by the grace of God "

Orthodox-Catholic dialogue

Under Patriarch Bartholomew (Archodonis), the Balamand Union was concluded (1993), a document in which the Catholic Church was recognized as a “sister church” and the activities of the Uniate Latin churches were legitimized. Honorary member of the Uniate Foundation “Pro Oriente”.

On June 27-30, 1995, Bartholomew (Archondonis) traveled to visit Pope John Paul II in Rome. During the meeting, the Patriarchate’s decision to continue fraternal communication and cooperation with the Catholic Church was announced, and a joint declaration of the Patriarch and John Paul II was signed on the long-term tasks of the bilateral dialogue between Constantinople and Rome.

In November-December 2006, at the invitation of Bartholomew (Archondonis), Pope Benedict XVI visited Istanbul. The Pope took part in joint prayers and attended the Divine Liturgy in the Church of St. George in Phanar, read the “Our Father”. The Pope and Bartholomew (Archondonis) prayed together, gave the “kiss of peace” and blessed those praying. During this same visit, Bartholomew (Archondonis) was present and prayed at Mass at the Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Spirit, Istanbul.

In June 2008, Bartholomew (Archondonis) made an official visit to the Vatican. In October 2008, he prayed with the pope in the Sistine Chapel during an interfaith meeting convened to fight fundamentalism and promote religious tolerance.

On October 11, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI celebrated a solemn mass in the square in front of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, thereby marking the opening of the so-called “Year of Faith,” proclaimed in connection with the 50th anniversary of Vatican II. The service was attended by a large ecumenical delegation, including Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople,

In 2013 he attended the enthronement of Pope Francis.

On May 25, 2014, he concelebrated with Pope Francis during the ecumenical liturgy in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

November 29, 2014 Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and Archbishop. American Demetrius attended the papal mass at the Catholic Istanbul Cathedral of the Holy Spirit.

On November 30, 2014, Pope Francis prayed during the Divine Liturgy in the Church of St. George at Phanar (Istanbul). The pope also recited the Lord's Prayer and delivered a sermon.

What did Polycarp say?

A short interview with Polycarp (Stavropoulos) appeared after his meeting with Pope Francis. The Metropolitan of Italy and Exarch of Southern Europe was in audience after taking office on March 11. In the introduction, the journalist speaks enthusiastically about “the path to unity between Catholics and Orthodox, which is beyond doubt,” and is encouraged by “the gestures and closeness of Francis and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.”

Metropolitan Polycarp accepts this submission, speaking unequivocally. “...One of the main lines of our archdiocese: ecumenical dialogue with all people of good will, and above all with our Catholic brothers. This is the main goal of our diocese, especially in this beloved and holy land, which coincides with the seat of the Catholic Church, Rome,” said Polycarp (Stavropoulos). — The path of Catholics and Orthodox Christians to complete unity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is approaching the finish line. I think that at the level of believers this goal has already been achieved, and this is more important than at the institutional level... We are already walking together, it is not a question of “whether we want it or not”, we must walk together in a world that is becoming a village. There is no doubt about it."

Polycarp (Stavropoulos) - Metropolitan of Italy, Exarch of Southern Europe of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. From the point of view of his position, his contacts with the Papal Throne are an honorable duty. And one might assume that what is expressed is a private point of view. However, he is not an ordinary hierarch of Constantinople, and not just “one of the 149.” He assumed the position of Archimandrite of the Ecumenical Throne more than 20 years ago, back in 1998, and represented the patriarchate at countless events: in missions, at conferences, etc. And from April 2007 to the fall of 2021 he was Metropolitan of Spain and Portugal, then He is a very experienced bishop and well understands the true background of the processes.

Eighth Ecumenical Council

Bartholomew I took part in the preparation of the Eighth Ecumenical Council. He was a participant in the Third Pre-Conciliar Conference in Chambesy in 1986.

He chaired the meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Commission for the preparation of the Holy and Great Council in Chambesy in 1990.

In his role as Patriarch, Bartholomew I made consistent efforts to convene an Ecumenical Council. He convenes the Inter-Orthodox Commission for the preparation of the Holy and Great Council (1993 and 2009), the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Conference in Chambesy (2009).

“We have decided to speed up the process of convening the Holy and Great Council of all Orthodox Churches,” Patriarch Bartholomew said in an interview with the Vesti-24 TV channel, which was recorded on Sunday, May 30, 2010, in the Konstantinovsky Palace in Strelna near St. Petersburg.

In September 2010, he stated that preparations for the Council were coming to an end: “Faith is alive, and Orthodoxy is alive. Orthodoxy will live and the Holy and Great Council will be held, the preparation of which is approaching its end. At the beginning of 2011, the penultimate meeting of the preparatory commission will probably take place in our patriarchal center in Geneva, and it will become a big event. Such events have not occurred since 787; since the 8th century we have not had a similar Ecumenical Council of this scale. And this will be good, with God’s grace, both for Orthodoxy and for our connections with other Christian Churches and confessions” [7].

On September 1-2, 2011, Patriarch Bartholomew invited the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as well as the head of the Church of Cyprus, to Istanbul. Together they make up the so-called “pentarchy”, which, according to Patriarch Bartholomew, should replace the fullness of the Orthodox Church. The Primates of the Slavic Local Churches, which became autocephalous after the era of the Ecumenical Councils, were not invited to the meeting.

In 2014, he convenes the Meeting of Primates of the Orthodox Churches, at which a decision is made to convene the Ecumenical (Pan-Orthodox) Council in 2021.

On January 21 - 28, 2021, he convened and headed the Meeting of the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches in Chambesy.

• Archbishop Georgy (Wagner) and Bud. Patriarch Bartholomew at the Third Pre-Conciliar Conference (Chambesy, 1986).

Organizer and participant of the Holy and Great Council in Crete from June 17 to June 26, 2021.

What they write in Russia

RIA News

“The message from the Patriarchate of Constantinople means that an extraordinary synod of all Orthodox churches will be convened. This means that there will be a Russian Orthodox Church, and other Slavic churches, and all other churches and patriarchies. 14 Orthodox churches will gather in Phanar (the residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Istanbul - ed.) to discuss the request. But they will not decide to grant autocephaly.”

“Since Patriarch Kirill and other churches friendly to Moscow will be at the synod, there cannot be any decision on the acceptability of granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church.”

tolerance

A prominent place in the activities of Bartholomew (Archondonis) is occupied by the promotion of the ideas of tolerance, “human rights” and religious tolerance. Bartholomew (Archondonis) spoke at the European Parliament (1994, 2008), at the UNESCO General Assembly (1995), at international forums in Davos (1999) and Prague Forum 2000 (1999). Awarded the US Congressional Gold Medal.

Organizer and participant of the Conference “Peace and Tolerance” (Istanbul, 1994), which brought together Christians, Mohammedans and Jews, during which the so-called “Bosphorus Declaration” was adopted. It states that “a crime committed in the name of religion is a crime against religion.”

Organizer (together with the President of the European Commission Romano Prodi) and participant in the interreligious (Christianity, Mohammedanism, Judaism) meeting in Brussels “The Peace of God in the World” (2001). The conference rejected the claim that religion contributes to the clash of civilizations and pointed to the role of faith “as a constructive platform for dialogue among civilizations” (“Brussels Declaration”).

Bartholomew (Archondonis) also spoke at the UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Intolerance (Durban, South Africa, 2001).

The Orthodox-Islamic meeting in Bahrain in 2002 was held under the leadership of Bartholomew (Archondonis). It was recognized as necessary to overcome the prejudices and prejudices that exist between different religions (“Bahrain Declaration”).

In 2005, together with Rabbi Arthur Schneier, he acted as organizer of the Istanbul “Conference on Peace and Tolerance.”

On May 12, 2012, Bartholomew I was awarded the Franklin Roosevelt Foundation Religious Freedom Medal. The award ceremony took place in the Dutch city of Middelburg in the presence of Queen Beatrix of Holland.

Valery Alekseev: “Bartholomew cannot wash away the sin of schism even with the blood of martyrdom”

Andrey SAMOKHIN

19.12.2019

The dramatic events of recent years in the relations between the Orthodox Churches have long gone beyond purely church boundaries, turning into one of the main geopolitical and even eschatological nodes of our time. The consistent steps of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople led to the largest schism in a millennium and, as is already quite obvious, are aimed at seducing the Orthodox into a union with Catholics. The President of the International Public Foundation for the Unity of Orthodox Peoples (IOPHEPN), Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of Moscow State University Valery Alekseev told Culture about how to respond to these formidable challenges of the time.

culture:

Some compare the current schism in Orthodoxy with the fatal one that occurred in world Christianity in the 11th century...
Alekseev:
I think the comparison is lame. Then, after mutual anathemas (and before that, several centuries of divergence), the final break between Rome and Constantinople occurred, the Christian ecumene split into two parts: western and eastern. It was a geopolitical split. Today we are talking about an artificial schism in the Orthodox world, with Ukraine chosen as the wedge. Goal: replay history, returning to the state before 1054. Preparations are openly underway for a union with the Vatican, that is, simply put, the absorption of Orthodoxy into Catholicism, which Rome has not ceased to strive for all these centuries.

culture:

It doesn't seem to be documented yet.
Only, according to eyewitnesses, Patriarch Bartholomew, while on Mount Athos this fall, in the Pantocrator monastery, called for preparations for the inevitable union... Alekseev:
Why is it not confirmed? All words of a person invested with such dignity are documented. And this call of Bartholomew to the actual renunciation of the Orthodox faith in the presence of the abbots of the two monasteries, the brethren and guests of the monastery is a fait accompli. It is noteworthy that none of those present objected to these treacherous words, but only a few cried. But this is not the only evidence of heresy.

Back in 2014, Patriarch Bartholomew let it slip that by 2025 they were preparing to hold an Ecumenical Uniate Council together with Rome. It is noteworthy that the Vatican then remained significantly silent. A few months ago, at the House of St. Martha, the residence of the Pope and the cardinal's hotel in Rome, during one of his many stays there, Patriarch Bartholomew met with the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics Svyatoslav (Shevchuk). They discussed issues of the upcoming “Great Union,” which Shevchuk himself happily shared with the public later. Moreover, the Ukrainian Uniates, having united with the new OCU and led by the Phanar, according to this plan, should play the role of a Trojan horse for other autocephalous Churches in order to Catholicize as many Orthodox Christians as possible. This was also the true meaning of convening the Council of Crete, which was prepared by the Phanariots and which actually failed. The first step towards this goal would have to be the unconditional recognition by all churches of the “canonical” primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople, his “right” to indicate standards of behavior to everyone, to give and take away tomos - a kind of eastern papism that Bartholomew always strived for. The obliging Greeks have already invented a new title for him: “His All-Holiness, His Holiness.” And this “exalting” tautology is not funny to him... How many troubles he has already caused along this path! This is the “schism” in Estonia, and his ugly actions in the Balkans: in Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, where he plays with the Churches, promises tomos, then changes his mind, threatens punishment for those who go against the will of the Phanar. He collaborates with political provocateurs in power, for example, with the President of Montenegro Milo Djukanovic, who is trying to split the Serbian Orthodox Church exactly according to the same scenario as Poroshenko in Ukraine.

culture:

At the same time, we see that Bartholomew and his neighbors threaten punishments that are by no means heavenly.
A well-known Montenegrin social activist who advocates for the unity of the Serbian Church, Miodrag Dak Davidovich, was recently wounded in Belgrade from a sniper rifle... Alekseev:
Of course, I cannot draw clear conclusions before the investigation, but, in general, all this looks ominous. Apparently, this can be considered as a direct threat to everyone who opposes the general line of the Phanar and the United States behind it. It should also be taken into account that criminals are beginning to get involved in church affairs. We have already seen this in Ukraine, where churches of the canonical UOC are captured by armed bandits, not always even pretending to be parishioners.

culture:

What to do in the difficult situation of the Russian Orthodox Church?
Shouldn't we directly declare Bartholomew a schismatic and a heretic? Alekseev:
The various spiritual fornications of the current Patriarch of Constantinople have really gone beyond all limits. Even if we do not consider his latest, clearly heretical steps - for example, a call for priests to give communion not only to Orthodox Christians, talk about the right of priests to remarry, etc., then his schismatic actions, the “removal” of the anathema from the head of another schismatic, Filaret Denisenko, in themselves lead to heresy and excommunication from the Church. As is known from the canons, “seducing these little ones” is a sin that cannot be washed away even by the blood of martyrdom.

culture:

But the Phanar itself accuses the Moscow Patriarchate - they say, we are the schismatics, since we do not recognize the decisions of the Church, the first in the diptych, from which we received the Light of Christ at one time...
Alekseev:
Constantinople recognized the autocephaly of the Russian Church five centuries ago, and the annexation of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate - three centuries ago. Moscow, unlike Phanar, has not taken a single non-canonical action in current history. On the contrary, Constantinople suddenly legalized the schismatics, which it considered them to be for many years, and ceased to recognize the legitimate head of the Ukrainian Church, whose guest he had been in Kyiv on several occasions. That is, Patriarch Bartholomew changed his position 180 degrees. This is pure voluntarism of a person who has appropriated powers that he does not possess. He set this ideologeme of the “Orthodox pope” before himself when he convened the Cretan Council in 2016, to which, as is known, representatives of ours and several other Churches did not attend. I met Bartholomew not long before. In his cautious speeches, the hope of establishing and consolidating his primacy in Crete shone through strongly.

The diptych is not even a canon, but a tradition: “primacy of honor”, ​​adopted during the heyday of the Byzantine Empire solely due to the capital of the see in Constantinople. The emperor's bishop was to be considered "first", since all the other Churches were then also Greek. It was a political, even to some extent purely “protocol” championship. And today Bartholomew imagined that he was almost the first in holiness.

culture:

In this situation, of course, the Council is more important than ever - if not pan-Orthodox (some Churches will obviously not go), then, in any case, quite representative, at which the Russian Church will play a special role...
Alekseev:
The proposal to hold such a Council was made to the entire Orthodox plenitude two weeks ago by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilos III (Elijah Yiannopoulos) from Moscow. He invited them to gather on his canonical territory - in the capital of Jordan, Amman. This call became an extremely responsible, courageous and wise step of His Beatitude.

culture:

Why are there so many excellent epithets?
Alekseev:
Here several important factors came together providentially. First, the “who.” Theophilus is the primate of the most ancient Christian Church, which, in truth, should be called the “Mother of Churches.” She has not stained herself with any hesitations or wobbles in canonical issues - neither in relation to schismatics, nor in the sense of the purity of Orthodoxy. He is Greek - that is, he was able to overcome the pressure of his compatriots from Phanar and Athens, to renounce national preferences in this matter in the name of standing in the Truth. Secondly, it is important that his invocation speech was made precisely from the platform for awarding the heads of Churches with the MOFEPN Prize in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, and, for example, not in the context of a meeting with Patriarch Kirill or Vladimir Putin. The third important point: where did he invite the primates. Some are perplexed: why not in Jerusalem? But here the answer lies on the surface. Israel is a US ally that receives subsidies from overseas. And support for the current split comes precisely from there. Therefore, the Pan-Orthodox Council in Jerusalem and any other Israeli city could be complicated or even disrupted by influential ill-wishers. And the Jordanian monarch agreed to officially become the patron of both Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land back in the 1920s, when, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, these territories were transferred to the mandate of Great Britain. Of course, Theophilus agreed on the initiative with King Abdullah II before his trip to Moscow. Therefore, the invitation to Amman is impeccable from the church and canonical side.

culture:

But why not to Moscow?
After all, a Pan-Orthodox conference took place in the Mother See in 1948 with the approval and even with some assistance of Stalin... The Greeks, by the way, did not come then either, geopolitically focusing on the British and Americans. Alekseev:
Among church historians there is some persistent myth about the secret geopolitical structure of that meeting, that it was supposedly some kind of analogue of the Pan-Orthodox Council and Stalin’s idea. I had the opportunity to study this event in closed archives while still working at the CPSU Central Committee. Then, at the invitation of Patriarch Alexy (Simansky), the primates of several Churches came to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church. And nothing more. Issues of a new “church map” of Europe were discussed, since after the war it had undergone changes: old Orthodox Churches were revived and new Orthodox Churches appeared. It was also necessary to respond to the collaboration of a number of hierarchs with the fascist regime. Before this, Patriarch Alexy I visited Jerusalem in 1945, solemnly passing through all the ancient patriarchates. He was greeted as the primate of the Church of the main victorious country.

This already at that moment caused, by the way, enormous jealousy and rejection on the part of the Sees of Constantinople and Greece. A real revolution took place at Phanar: Exarch Athenagoras was hastily brought from America to the shores of the Bosphorus, who removed Maximus, who sympathized with the Soviet liberating soldiers, from his post... Therefore, Moscow, in connection with the victory over fascism and on the occasion of the historical anniversary, turned out to be the most important place for everyone except the Greeks. an acceptable place for a meeting.

culture:

Isn't that the case now?
Alekseev:
Today Moscow is the capital of a country that is under international sanctions. Not every primate is free in his decisions about such trips. For example, in the Georgian or Bulgarian churches. And this cannot be ignored.

culture:

What are the prospects for the implementation of the Jordanian project?
Does he already have many supporters? Alekseev:
All heads of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches responded most attentively to the invitation of His Beatitude Theophilus. It is impossible to ignore him. Now we are receiving only the first responses, which, however, are encouraging. A definite answer requires a conciliar decision of each Church. So far, I have the personal opinions of two primates with whom I personally met - the Serbian and American churches. His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of Serbia, who heads the Board of Trustees of the Serbian branch of our foundation, personally received me. Being last year’s laureate of the MOFEPN Prize, he also powerfully spoke from this platform in Moscow then, calling on the Orthodox Churches for unity on the issue of non-recognition of Ukrainian schismatics. Patriarch Irenaeus still stands on this courageous and absolutely canonical position today. His opinion, as far as I understand, regarding Amman is clear: we need to go and overcome the schism being imposed on Orthodoxy.

I also talked with His Beatitude Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada Tikhon (Mollard), who arrived in Moscow on a visit.

The Primate of the Orthodox Church in America listened to me very carefully, and the clear impression was that he was entirely in favor of such a meeting in Amman. I also have ideas about the personal positions of the heads of some other autocephalous Churches. I think that in the near future, before the Orthodox - Old Calendar - Nativity of Christ, we will receive responses from all of them, no longer personal, but synodal. Today we have a clearly expressed position on the non-recognition of the Ukrainian schismatic “church” (OCU) by the primates of the Polish, Czechoslovak, Georgian, Antiochian, and Albanian Orthodox churches. Official Athens, by the way, in its support of the Phanar, together with the State Department and the CIA, act very harshly and even rudely in order to suppress the resistance of the heads of the autocephalous Churches and persuade them to recognize the UOC.

culture:

As we know, not all primates withstood this pressure...
Alekseev:
You, of course, mean Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria. Yes, his story is regrettable, shameful and largely symbolic. Frankly speaking, I feel sorry for him in a Christian way. He came to Moscow and Ukraine many times, kissed Patriarch Kirill and Bishop Onuphry, loudly called on Ukrainian believers to stick to the latter and not follow the schismatics. He actively collaborated with our foundation. And suddenly, overnight, he turned in the opposite direction, recognizing the OCU. It is clear that he was forced, but what does “forced” mean? Like the Christian martyrs of the first centuries - under torture, or our new martyrs of the 1920s and 1930s? They simply threatened him with deprivation of his allowance from Athens, and he immediately became pliable and servile.

Unfortunately, a strange and far-fetched accusation against His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' was recently voiced by the head of the Cypriot Orthodox Church, Chrysostomos II, saying that Moscow is seeking to crush everyone else under itself. It seems that this was also said under pressure. Cyprus is in debt to Europe.

This, by the way, is an interesting situation with the Greeks. For example, Greece is under external financial control, like a bankrupt country. The country's entire budget is managed by the EU troika. And imagine, in that liberal European paradigm, where there is no place for Christianity at all, considerable sums are allocated from the deficit Greek budget not only for the national Greek Church, but so that it can finance the Greek Orthodox Churches of other countries!

culture:

Apparently, this direction is of great importance for the rulers of the world...
Alekseev:
Yes, but here it is important to note that not all the bishops of the Alexandrian, Greek and even Constantinople churches agree with their primates, as well as with the right of Bartholomew to make such decisions individually. I’m not even talking about all the clergy and laity who understand what is happening and where such “shepherds” can lead them. That is, trouble has been sown within these church communities.

culture:

The phenomenon of Greek church nationalism has long been known, the adherents of which consider other Orthodox peoples to be “barbarians” who were mercifully granted enlightenment from Constantinople, for which they should be eternally grateful and obey the “elder brother.”
However, in this geopolitical game, big brother seems to be sitting in the leadership of the US and the EU, and the Greek proud people are simply being used as puppets? Alekseev:
I would not downplay the factor of ethnophyletism of the Greeks. Its roots are very deep. The “Greek disease” was noted by the saints of the first millennium. And today, nationalists from Athens are pursuing their goals, which for the time being simply coincide with the American ones. By the way, they put the interests of the Patriarchate of Constantinople above the interests of the Church of Greece. This is the foreign policy line of Greece. At the same time, it is disastrous for the Greeks to live in isolation from the Russian Orthodox Church. They position themselves as leaders of Orthodoxy when they feel the powerful Russian Church and huge Russia behind them. And without us they will simply cease to be taken into account. For the Vatican, they are important only as the “piper” who will lead all “schismatics” to the foot of the papal throne.

culture:

What will the Amman Council mean for the Orthodox world?
Can he recognize the Patriarch of Constantinople as a heretic and stop the schism? Alekseev:
Well, firstly, Bartholomew has already stated that he will not go there. As for recognition as a heretic and defrocking, or even more so excommunication from the Church, this is a complex question and is unlikely to come to that. Even hypothetically we cannot predict this. The fact is that the Greeks themselves consider any church decisions that they did not make themselves illegitimate. “The Greeks are wicked,” wrote the Monk Nestor the Chronicler. They are masters of weaving cunning words with which they will try to present the essence of things in a light favorable to them. By the way, not a small number of bishops, even in those Churches that generally agree with our position, believe that the prerogative of convening such councils still belongs to Bartholomew. My personal opinion as an Orthodox layman is that it is absolutely necessary to go to Amman, even if a “small flock” gathers there. It is on this “rock” that true Orthodoxy must be strengthened.

culture:

What do you think about the actualization of the old doctrine “Moscow is the Third Rome, and there will be no fourth,” according to which Russia is destined to serve as the last stronghold of world Orthodoxy?
Alekseev:
This concept has always been not only religious, but also geopolitical. Since the “second Rome” - Byzantium fell, not only as an empire, but also as the guardian of Orthodoxy, having agreed to the Florentine Union with the Vatican, this concept has always remained a relevant ideologeme. And under the Rurikovichs, and under the Romanovs, and even under the Soviet regime, being decorated in different clothes. Here is the very doctrinal nature of Russia, its special status, goal setting. A dull burgher existence, satisfying material needs, achieving satiety - this is not about us. Bringing goodness and justice to the world, protecting traditional values, humanity itself - this is Russia’s mission. And this doctrine does not diverge at all from the Islamic worldview; it can unite not only all the peoples living in our state, but also other nations, nationalities, and individual people of good will. True, it is important to ensure that all these wonderful principles become generally accepted within our Fatherland.

Photo at the announcement: Zurab Javakhadze/TASS

environmental consciousness

Bartholomew (Archondonis) consistently defends both universal and natural (ecological) values ​​in general. Since 1992, Bartholomew (Archondonis) has issued an annual District Message on the State of the Environment on September 1, promoting the idea of ​​proclaiming this day a “day of prayer for the preservation of God’s creation.” In 1997 he proclaimed the Gnostic idea of ​​the connection between spirituality and ecology.

Bartholomew (Archondonis) fully accepted the alarmist worldview of environmentalists. In 1995, he initiated a program "to integrate modern scientific knowledge about the oceans with the spiritual approach of the world's religions to water, especially ocean water."

During the implementation of this anti-scientific and blasphemous program, international environmental seminars were held: on the island of Halki “Environment and Religious Education” (1994), “Environment and Ethics” (1995), “Environment and the Media” (1996), “Environment and Justice" (1997), "Environment and Poverty" (1998).

Participated in environmental forums in Japan and Great Britain (1995). In September 1995, under the chairmanship of Bartholomew (Archondonis), celebrations were held on the island of Patmos (Greece) on the occasion of the 1900th anniversary of the Revelation of St. John the Theologian. In this regard, the following were convened: the Holy Assembly of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, which sent a circular message to the whole world; International Symposium on Ocean Conservation. The delegation of the Russian Church refused to take part in the assembly due to the schismatic actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Church.

Together with Jacques Santer, he acted as organizer of the environmental symposium “The Black Sea in Crisis” (Odessa, 1997). Under the leadership of Bartholomew (Archondonis), symposia “Ecological Institute in Halki” (1999) and a scientific conference in Istanbul (2000) were held. Bartholomew (Archondonis) gave environmental speeches in Kathmandu, Nepal at the conference “Sacred Gifts to the Living Planet” (2000).

Organizer - together with Romano Prodi - and participant in a series of international interreligious symposia "Religion, Science and Environment": "scientific-religious" cruise on the Danube "River of Life" (1999), "Adriatic Sea in Danger" (2002), "Baltic the sea is a common heritage" (Estonia, 2003), "The Arctic: a mirror of life" (2007). These “scientific” symposia took the form of sea cruises, during which Bartholomew (Archondonis) and other Orthodox environmentalists prayed together “for the planet” with Judaism, Mohammedans and Buddhists.

In 2002, together with Pope John Paul II, he signed the “Venice Declaration,” which contains slogans in the spirit of the undifferentiated spirituality of the New Age: “It is not too late now. God's peace has incredible healing powers. Because “now is the opportune time,” a decisive moment in human history when we can change everything. Because “now is the time” for us to save the soul of our planet.”

Winner of the UN Prize “Fighter for the Protection of Planet Earth” (2005).

Winner of the Cardinal Paul Poupard Foundation Award for Environmental Protection (2010).

illustrations

• The Amazon Valley - the source of life (conference) (2006).
• “Prayer for the Planet” in the Arctic during the international interreligious symposium “Arctic: Mirror of Life” (2007).

Where Patriarch Bartholomew is wrong

Residence of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul

“The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” continues the conversation about the crisis in inter-Orthodox relations and the non-canonical nature of the decisions and actions of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. In the April 2019 issue, we introduced the reader to the historical plot of the current events. In this article, Doctor of Church History, Candidate of Historical Sciences, priest Alexander Mazyrin explains what, in his opinion, are the theological misconceptions of the modern head of the Phanar and why the canons do not give any exclusive rights to the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

Stand and keep the traditions...

(2 Thess. 2:15)

In recent months, the Orthodox world has been experiencing a crisis, the likes of which have probably not been seen since the Great Schism a thousand years ago. The similarity of events is obvious. Just as then, the leading see (at that time the Roman See, now the Constantinople See) came forward with claims for the exclusivity of its position and power over other Local Churches that were unacceptable to the Orthodox consciousness. Then this led to the falling away from Orthodoxy of the Roman popes; now the Patriarchate of Constantinople has taken this path.

First without equal?

The Ukrainian church issue, which found itself at the epicenter of the clash, has far from local significance. He exposed a problem of a special magnitude and revealed such distortions of ecclesiology on the part of the Phanar that it is difficult to qualify anything other than heresy.

The Patriarch of Constantinople directly declared himself the head of all Orthodox Patriarchs and Primates, and not as a private opinion, but more than officially - in the Tomos on the “granting of autocephaly” to the so-called Holy Church of Ukraine. Claiming, following the long-standing example of the Popes of Rome, that the entire Orthodox Church is headed by him, what place does the Patriarch of Constantinople leave for Christ, Whom since Apostolic times the Church has confessed as its Head (Eph. 1:22)?

Proclaiming himself the head of the entire Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew imagines that he can make what was not what was (to cancel the transfer of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate, carried out more than 300 years ago) and, on the contrary, to make what does not exist exist (to make the graceless false hierarchy of Ukrainian schismatics with the stroke of a pen graceful).

By accepting schismatic semi-self-saints into the “real rank”1 and granting them “autocephaly,” Patriarch Bartholomew simultaneously ignores the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, despite the fact that in terms of the number of flocks and parishes it surpasses not only all local autocephalists combined, but also the Patriarchate of Constantinople itself. Moreover, this is being done in clear contradiction with the position of the other Local Churches and with a categorical refusal to submit the issue to a pan-Orthodox decision.

Patriarch Bartholomew and his apologists openly proclaim and put into practice the doctrine that among the Primates of the Orthodox Churches he is not first among equals, but first without equal (primus sine paribus)2. At the same time, it is stated that the source of his primacy is not the Church, but he himself, like God the Father in the Holy Trinity3. What is this if not an ecclesiological4 heresy? A heresy, aggravated by the distortion of the Orthodox teaching about God the Trinity, since the historically conditioned changeable relationships of the Local Churches in this false teaching correlate with timeless intra-Trinitarian relationships, introducing into them an element of subordination (subordination)5, which is already a step towards Arianism6.

In support of the supposedly exclusive rights of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, a reference is made to the 9th and 17th rules of the IV Ecumenical Council. They say that if anyone “is offended by his metropolitan,” he can be sued before the throne of Constantinople. However, according to the explanation of the most authoritative canonists (Greek, it should be noted), there is no talk of any worldwide jurisdiction of this throne, and the Patriarchs of Constantinople can accept appeals from “offended” clergy only within the limits of their canonical territory, which, in accordance with 28- m rule of the same Council, is limited to the Pontic, Asian and Thracian regions (this is mainly the territory of modern Turkey).

Thus, John Zonara (12th century) directly wrote that “the Patriarch of Constantinople is not appointed judge over all metropolitans without exception, but only over those subordinate to him.” He further explained that the metropolitans of Syria are subject to the court of the Patriarch of Antioch, of Palestine - of Jerusalem, of Egypt - of Alexandria7. The Monk Nicodemus the Holy Mountain (XVIII-XIX centuries), in his interpretation of the “Pidalion” (Greek “Helmsman”), wrote quite unequivocally that “The Primate of Constantinople is the first, the only judge over the metropolitans subordinate to him - but not over those who are subordinate to the rest of the Patriarchs.” 8. Thus, the canons do not give any exclusive rights to the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

It should be noted that the same 17th canon of the IV Ecumenical Council, which the Phanariots love to refer to, also speaks of the deadline for initiating episcopal disputes about the boundaries of canonical territories - 30 years. If the Patriarchs of Constantinople had any complaints against the Moscow Patriarchs regarding the Kyiv Metropolis, they should have been declared 300 years ago. And the statements that the Phanar can “take away” autocephaly from the Moscow Patriarchate, which was conciliarly approved back in the 16th century, sound completely absurd.

Prerequisites and background of the current crisis

Although just a year ago hardly anyone could have imagined such a rapid deterioration in affairs in world Orthodoxy, the crisis that has broken out is not accidental and is by no means reducible to the position of Patriarch Bartholomew. We can say that it matured over decades and even centuries. In part, its prerequisites are of an ethnophyletic nature (preference for national interests over general church interests - Ed.) in nature, and in part - geopolitical. There is also a corruption component in the case.

The most profound, almost eternal factor that undermines church unity is the cultural and religious chauvinism inherent in some Greek figures, which they sublimely call Hellenism. Of course, no one can deny the greatness of Byzantine Christian culture or ignore the fact that the books of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, and most of the patristic works, and the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, and liturgical monuments, and many other most important works of church literature were born in Greek language. From the moment of its inception, the Church of Christ was in close contact with the world of Hellenistic culture and learned a lot from it.

However, despite all this, the Church since apostolic times has unquestionably confessed that in Christ there is neither Greek, nor Jew, nor Scythian (Col. 3:11). No people, no matter what trace they leave in church history, can claim any kind of religious exclusivity and demand on this basis supremacy over other Christian peoples and their subordination. Nevertheless, such claims from Greek spiritual leaders (not all, of course) were and are heard.

The volume of Hellenic claims to church supremacy was determined primarily by the political situation. It is clear that after the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, when Russia became the only Orthodox kingdom to whose intercession the Greeks were forced to constantly resort, Phanar, in relations with the Russian Church, willy-nilly had to moderate its ambitions. Although other Orthodox peoples on the territory of the Ottoman Empire at the same time fully experienced the oppression of not only the Turks, but also the Phanariots.

In 1917, the Orthodox monarchy in Russia was overthrown, after which the Russian Church went from being protected by the state to being brutally persecuted. Almost simultaneously, Turkey suffered a heavy defeat in the First World War, and the Greeks found themselves on the winning side, hoping that they would soon be able to realize the “Great Idea” of reviving the former greatness of their power with its capital in Constantinople. In the official publications of the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Alexandria, pathetic articles were published that “the Greek nation will be happy and proud to see” how Constantinople “will finally become the center of Orthodoxy, and its bishop, towering above nations and tribes, will become the visible head and common link a link of all Orthodox federative Churches”9.

The Greeks then pinned their special hopes on the final victory over the Turks in Great Britain, and in order to strengthen the alliance with which the Phanar tried to get as close as possible to the Anglican Church, while expressing its readiness to make all sorts of concessions. According to the recollections of an Anglican bishop who negotiated with the Phanariots in 1920, they did not hesitate to tell him on the sidelines: “If England can get St. Sophia for us, we will gladly recognize any ordination and agree with almost any teaching.”10

However, at the critical moment England did not help. The crazy campaign of the Greek army deep into Asia Minor (with an attempt to take the far-from-coastal Ankara) turned into a terrible disaster in 1922. After it, the question arose about whether the Patriarchate of Constantinople would remain in its historical location at all. For the Phanar, the time began, on the one hand, of a struggle for survival, and on the other, of unbridled expansion around the world in attempts to compensate for the loss of church property in its canonical territory with acquisitions in other places and at the expense of other Local Churches, primarily at the expense of the oppressed Bolsheviks of the Russian Church.

In such a situation, the Phanar’s beginning flirtation with the schismatic renovationists who appeared on the Russian stage in 1922 was quite understandable. The Orthodox people in Russia for the most part reacted with disgust to the newly emerged schismatics, seeing in them accomplices of the atheists. But for the Phanar, the Renovationists were interesting because, on the one hand, they were ready to support his power claims in the Orthodox world (which could not be expected from His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, against whom the schismatics fought), and on the other hand, it was convenient to contact them for assistance to the Bolsheviks, since the latter not only retained power in Russia, but even gained a certain influence on the victorious Kemalists in Turkey. The church modernism declared by the renovationists was also of interest to the Phanar in the light of the reforms it initiated, designed to bring the Orthodox Church closer to the heterodox (calendar reforms, etc.).

As soon as the self-appointed renovationist “Higher Church Administration” arose, the main Bolshevik curator of the schism, L. D. Trotsky, was informed that the Moscow representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Archimandrite Jacob (Dimopulo), hastened to inform the renovationists that ““his master, the most holy ecumenical patriarch” (Meletios Metaxakis . - Author), could have come to the council in Moscow, recognized the Supreme Church Administration, participated in the trial of Patriarch Tikhon, in a word, done everything that the Supreme Church Administration needed, right up to the deposition of Tikhon “according to all canonical rules.” He made it clear that in general it was worth: returning to the time of the arrival of “his Holiness” in Moscow the house of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and 10,000 Turkish liras”11.

It must be assumed that Patriarch Meletios personally was attracted to this matter not by the money and the building of the former metochion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which had previously been used as an apartment building, which had not become municipal, but by the opportunity to demonstrate to the whole world the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarch in order to once and for all establish his domineering primate.

However, other representatives of the Phanar, in their traditional manner, did not forget about the material side of the matter. Thus, the successor of Meletius (Metaxakis), Patriarch Gregory VII, signed the Tomos of autocephaly of the Polish Church in 1924 (of course, without any consent of the Russian Church), for which, as documented, the Polish government paid the Phanar 12 thousand pounds sterling in dollar equivalent. Prime Minister of Poland V. Grabski was interested in whether “it is possible to obtain blessings cheaper,” but they explained to him that “in similar situations in the past, the Phanar demanded significantly larger sums”12. Moreover, 12 thousand pounds were paid only for a copy of the tomos given to the Polish ambassador. The document itself still had to be solemnly delivered to Warsaw, which happened the following year and additionally cost the Polish treasury a considerable amount spent on the reception and gifts of the high-ranking Greek delegation.

In the 1940s, as a result of World War II, the political landscape again underwent significant changes. The Soviet leadership abandoned its earlier course of destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church and even began to contribute in some way to strengthening its external position. The Patriarchate of Constantinople could no longer ignore it, as in the 1920s and 1930s.

At the same time, the Phanar completely reoriented itself towards the United States, which was able to promote the American Archbishop Athenagoras (Spira) to the see of Constantinople. He directly stated to the US Consul General in Istanbul that “he sees the promotion of American ideals as the cornerstone” of his activities as Patriarch. The American diplomat was even shocked by such frankness and wrote to his State Department: “I would be inclined to recommend doing everything in our power to add greater sophistication to the Patriarch’s expressions of his understandable pro-American sentiments, and to build our future relations with him so delicately as to avoid too close associating him with us"13. After this, the Phanar may have become more verbally “refined,” but its association with the American government has not disappeared.

In recent years, it seemed to Patriarch Bartholomew and his entourage that the geopolitical situation had become most favorable for the realization of the Phanar’s long-standing aspirations to establish its hegemony in world Orthodoxy. First, an attempt was made to achieve this goal “in an amicable way,” through the Cretan Council, the meaning of which was, of course, not to sign several declared declarations, but to approve a new model of governance of the Orthodox Church with an unparalleled Ecumenical Patriarch at its head.

After, by the grace of God, this idea failed, Phanar moved on to the fight for its sovereignty in a “bad way”, using the West’s policy of isolating Russia and the desire of the Ukrainian leadership to sever the last remaining ties between Kyiv and Moscow. At the same time, it is quite obvious that the Phanar itself is being used by forces hostile to the Orthodox Church to destroy it from within.

How to respond to the hostile actions of Constantinople?

The Russian Orthodox Church does not fight for primacy, power, territory or anything like that. The idea “Moscow is the Third Rome”, voiced in the 16th century, is not the ideology of the Russian Orthodox Church, which remains apolitical. As the holy Patriarch Tikhon wrote back in 1923, “all attempts, no matter from whomever they come, to plunge the Church into a political struggle must be rejected and condemned”14.

Of course, organizational solutions are needed to protect the Church from the danger of papism. It is clear that the model of inter-Orthodox interaction, which is built on the special powers of the Patriarch of Constantinople and which the Russian Orthodox Church agreed to in 2021 on the eve of the Council of Crete, has lost its relevance. The Patriarch of Constantinople used the greatest trust placed in him for evil - to strengthen his ecclesiological heresy. To agree after this with his exclusive rights means to condone this heresy.

It is necessary to defend the purity of the canonical tradition preserved by the Orthodox Church and reject all attempts by papist perversion, whether from the West or the East. It is required to identify in detail and comprehensively the dogmatic, canonical, and moral and ethical inconsistency of the claims and actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Moreover, Patriarch Bartholomew himself alienates even those who were previously completely loyal to him (for example, the Russian Western European Archdiocese).

If the Russian Orthodox Church stands firmly in the truth of Christ, all sincere Orthodox people, including the Greeks, will be convinced of the blatant wrongness of Patriarch Bartholomew and his entourage. Then the church crisis he provoked will be overcome.

Eastern papism

In line with the tradition of Eastern papism, Bartholomew (Archondonis) claims primacy in the Orthodox world. This contrasts sharply with the negligible international influence and extremely humiliated position in Turkey of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Bartholomew (Archondonis) baselessly claims that he represents the entire Church unity, heads all Orthodox believers in the world, coordinates and initiates the actions of Local Churches. This supposedly implies the leading role of Constantinople in convening councils, inter-church and inter-confessional meetings.

On this basis, Bartholomew (Archondonis) continued the policy of schismatic actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in relation to the Local Churches. In 1996 he recognized the “autonomy” of the Estonian Church from the Russian Church, from mid. In the 1990s, he actively intervened in the church schism in Ukraine on the side of the schismatics. The statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on this matter stated that the acceptance by the Patriarchate of Constantinople into full church communion of schismatic groups in the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia and Ukraine caused serious damage to the prospects for relations between the Churches (1995).

In 2006, Bartholomew (Archondonis) committed a new non-canonical act of interference in the affairs of the Local Russian Church, receiving the former administrator of the Sourozh diocese, Bishop, who had gone into schism. Vasily (Osborne) and his followers. Chairman of the DECR, Metropolitan. Kirill of Smolensk (now Patriarch Kirill) stated on this occasion: “We deny the possibility of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to interfere in the jurisdiction of other Churches. It is this idea that we share with Rome today.”

Bartholomew (Archondonis) makes visits to Estonia (October 2000) and Ukraine (July 2008) without notifying the Russian Church.

Due to the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople did not notify the Patriarch of Moscow of his intention to visit the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, which is Estonia, the press service of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate stated in 2000 that “neither the primate of our Estonian Orthodox Church himself, nor the clergy, “nor the people of our Local Church will take part in the events of the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew and will not have communication with him during this visit.”

According to the explanation of Metropolitan. Kirill of Smolensky, at the beginning of the 20th century in Constantinople, an unconventional reading of the role and significance of the Patriarch of Constantinople began to develop, “in no way connected with the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church.” As a result of this, a split in Orthodoxy occurred in the Baltic states, Finland, Poland and among the Russian emigration. “We do not believe that the Patriarch of Constantinople has authority among other local Orthodox Churches. We believe that there is no such center where appeals can be made. Only the Pan-Orthodox Council can be such a place,” said Metropolitan. Kirill.

It's quite risky to spoil relations with Moscow

Since there are no canonical or doctrinal differences between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow, the main benefit of Kyiv from autocephaly lies in the political plane.

“The Tomos of the Patriarch will strengthen our independence, remove the rudiments of that political project called the “Russian world” and which, by the way, was invented by the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church,” Petro Poroshenko said in parliament.

But Russia can take a number of countermeasures, both religious and political in nature. Firstly, the Moscow Patriarchate does not recognize the independence of the Ukrainian Church and will retain its influence over part of the Orthodox Ukrainians. After all, Poroshenko has already promised that the UOC-MP will continue to operate in the country.

A more severe option is the threat of a schism in Ecumenical Orthodoxy, which, according to some religious scholars, could become the largest since 1058, when Christianity was divided into Catholics and Orthodox. The Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow claim primacy in Orthodoxy, and after the Patriarchate of Constantinople grants independence to the Ukrainian Church, the Moscow Patriarchate may interrupt prayerful communication with it.

Now all 14 Orthodox churches in the world are part of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy, recognize each other and are in prayerful and Eucharistic communion with each other. That is, the church sacraments (confession, communion, funeral service, etc.) of one church are recognized by all others. If it is terminated, the question of recognition of each other by the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates may arise.

“Bartholomew will have enough conscience, courage and wisdom to oppose. If not, then it will be an unethical act in relation to the Russian Church. It’s quite risky to spoil relations with Moscow,” the Russian publication Pravda.ru quotes the words of one of the Moscow priests.

And the very process of creating a United Local Ukrainian Church can last for many years, as was the case with the Georgian and Polish Orthodox Churches. Moscow recognized their autocephaly 26 and 24 years after the proclamation.

Negative political consequences cannot be ruled out. In retaliation for the recognition of the Ukrainian Church by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Russia may freeze the negotiation process on Donbass. And the situation in the region may also worsen.

Before the meeting with Poroshenko, Bartholomew spoke with Putin

Before Petro Poroshenko’s visit to Istanbul on April 9, where he discussed with the Patriarch of Constantinople the issue of granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church, Patriarch Bartholomew had a telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin on April 3.

The Russian President expressed special gratitude to the Patriarch for his constant support for the unity of the Orthodox world. Patriarch Bartholomew said that “the Ecumenical Patriarchate will continue to fulfill its coordinating role in favor of pan-Orthodox unity.” After this conversation, Russian experts came to the conclusion that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is unlikely to enter into conflict with Moscow.

events

organizer

• Eighth Ecumenical Council (June 19, 2016)
• II International Conference on Electronic Media and Orthodox Pastoral Care (June 18, 2018)

participant

• IV General Assembly of the WCC (4 July 1968)
• V General Assembly of the WCC (November 23, 1975)
• VI General Assembly of the WCC (24 July 1983)
• Third Pre-Conciliar Meeting (October 28, 1986)
• Meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Commission for the preparation of the Holy and Great Council, 1990 (November 10, 1990)
• VII General Assembly of the WCC (February 7, 1991)
• Consultation of Orthodox Theological Schools, Halki, 1994 (13 August 1994)
• VI World Conference “Religions for Peace” (November 3, 1994)
• Religion, Science and the Environment (Symposium) (September 20, 1997)
• Prayer in Assisi, 2002 (24 January 2002)
• V meeting of representatives of Orthodox Christianity and Judaism (May 27, 2003)
• XII General Assembly of the CEC (27 June 2003)
• The Amazon Valley - the source of life (conference) (July 13, 2006)
• II Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions (September 12, 2006)
• Concelebration of Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I. Vatican, June 29, 2008 (June 29, 2008)
• XIII General Assembly of the CEC (July 15, 2009)
• Prayer in Assisi, 2011 (27 October 2011)
• IX World Conference “Religions for Peace” (November 20, 2013)
• Meeting of Primates and Representatives of Local Orthodox Churches in 2014 (March 6, 2014)
• Meeting of Primates of Local Orthodox Churches 2021 (January 21, 2016)
• Eighth Ecumenical Council (June 19, 2016)
• Prayer in Assisi, 2021 (September 18, 2016)
• The Gift of Hospitality (Symposium) (September 6, 2017)
• Meeting dedicated to the situation of Christians in the Middle East. Bari 2021 (July 7, 2018)
• No one is saved alone (ecumenical meeting) (October 20, 2020)

quotes

If we truly desire the unity of the Church and the unity of the world, we must resist the destruction of the Earth's ecology and its environment.

Our Ecumenical Patriarchate has embarked on the path of a truly global apostolic ministry, which seeks to awaken and expand the consciousness of our human family - to come to the understanding that we all live in one house.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has always been a beacon for the entire human family and the Christian Church. From the depths of this historical experience of ours, we offer to the modern world the eternal message of eternal human value.

The goal of Orthodoxy is to weave together seemingly separate issues about man and the environment and climate change. Because, as the mystical teaching of the Eastern Church teaches, man and the environment constitute a single fabric, a seamless tunic that connects all sides and parts of the created world with God the Creator.

The environment unites us, beyond our religious and philosophical views, as well as political and cultural differences. We must learn to feel our universal interconnectedness, because ultimately we will be judged according to the tenderness with which we have treated people and nature.

The ecosphere contains us all.

Our attitude towards God cannot be separated from the way we treat other people or from our treatment of nature.

We are all brothers and sisters of the One Heavenly Father, and on this delightful planet, for which we are all responsible, there is a place for everyone.

Great religions, like the United Europe project, can be a force for overcoming nationalism, and can even transcend nihilism and fundamentalism, by focusing believers on what unites us as people and by encouraging dialogue about what divides us.

So let us continue to love each other, recognizing each other without any judgment as children of God.

Expert opinion

Georgy Kovalenko , archpriest of the UOC-MP, theologian (Facebook):

— We need to support any real actions of anyone if we see that they contribute to the restoration of Ukrainian Orthodoxy within, and also strengthen its connection with universal Orthodoxy. And those who believe that they have such a connection should be glad that others will receive it.

The creation of a United Orthodox Church and its autocephalous status is not a goal, it is a means that should promote real ideological changes in the church, state and society towards life according to God. But are our government officials, our church hierarchs, and, in the end, ourselves, ready to first agree to conscientiously fulfill at least two of the ten commandments - DO NOT LIE, DO NOT STEAL...

pathological speech

stamps

understanding

Dialogue is necessary first of all and primarily because it is innate to human nature. The dialogue of different cultures lies at the very core of what it means to be human, since no one culture embraces all people. Without such dialogue, differences between cultures reduce to the objectification of the “other” and lead to abuse, conflict, persecution, that is, to full-scale suicide of humanity, since we all belong to the same humanity. But where differences prompt us to meet each other and where this meeting is based on dialogue, there is mutual understanding and mutual respect, and even love.

openness

Orthodoxy in general and the Ecumenical Patriarchate in particular remain open towards non-Orthodox communities

. Our Church of Constantinople is very disposed to dialogue, especially since the time of my outstanding predecessor, Patriarch Athenagoras. We want openness to testify to our faith, express our point of view and at the same time help bring together Christians who are still divided[8].

utopia

• Germany, a great secular democracy, is an example of tolerance and religious freedom for the whole of Europe, and therefore for Turkey, with which it has excellent relations[9].

Merger or acquisition

“Ecumenical dialogue” is the idea of ​​pan-Christian unity, and it lasts a relatively short time, less than 100 years. The schism itself in the Christian Church lasts much longer: it occurred in 1054, dividing the church into Roman Catholic and Orthodox, respectively, “Rome” and “Constantinople”. It was based on a number of insurmountable contradictions on dogmatic, canonical, and liturgical issues. The most famous are the permission of marriages for altar servers in Orthodoxy and the vow of celibacy among Catholic priests, their indulgences and magnificent rituals. As a result, the mutual anathemas were lifted only in 1965 at a meeting between Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras.

“The unification of Christians is, of course, a good goal, and there is nothing bad in it, but there are serious reasons to believe that in this case we are talking, rather, about the joining of at least part of the Orthodox Christians to the Catholic Church than about acceptance Catholics of the Orthodox model of church structure. In other words, it will be a union, not an association,” religious scholar Alexei Smirnov explains to Vesti.

In addition, Catholics, apparently, will not abandon their doctrine of the papacy - this is the main stumbling block, therefore, the “unification” will be one-sided. By definition, church “union” presupposes recognition on the part of the Orthodox of the primacy and authority of the Pope. And in this regard, the statements of Metropolitan Polycarp (Stavropoulos) of Italy are a very clear symptom. “This is a manifestation of recognition, almost admiration for Rome, and this is far from the only such statement,” the expert notes.

“Vesti” was able to discover earlier phrases said by the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew himself, where he de facto acknowledges his readiness to recognize the papal throne - in 2007 he said literally: “If we, with God’s help, come to an agreement with the Catholic Church in that “As for the meaning of the term “primacy”, as it was in the first millennium, it will not be difficult for the Ecumenical Patriarch to recognize the primacy of the Roman See and take second place - the one he occupied before the schism.”

major works

• Patriarch Bartholomew I: Texts and Speeches (1994)
• Bartholomew (Archondonis), Patriarch.
  Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew I (2003)
• Bartholomew (Archondonis), Patriarch.
  Orthodox Theology: Divine Charisma and Personal Experience (2004)
• Bartholomew (Archondonis), Patriarch.
  Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today (2008) together with Met. Callistus (Ware)
• Bartholomew (Archondonis), Patriarch.
  The Ecumenical Patriarchate as a beacon of hope: insights into the role of religion in a changing world (2008)
• Bartholomew (Archondonis), Patriarch.
  Address of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the Plenary Assembly of the European Parliament (2008)
• Bartholomew (Archondonis), Patriarch.
  In the World, Yet Not of the World: Social and Global Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (2009)
• Bartholomew (Archondonis), Patriarch.
  Saving the Soul of the Planet – Address at the Brookings Institution (2009)
• Bartholomew (Archondonis), Patriarch.
  Speaking the Truth in Love (2010)

interview

• Bartholomew (Archondonis), Patriarch.
  We want openness... Interview with the newspaper Libre Belgique on the occasion of prayer for Christian unity (Brussels, January 20, 1998) // Church and Time. - 1998. - No. 3 (6). — P. 71-77.