The Judas syndrome or why Patriarch Theodore II recognized the OCU
Most recently, Patriarch of Alexandria Theodore II stated that in Ukraine there is only one canonical Church - the UOC, and only one canonical Primate - His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry. What happened? Why did the position of the head of the Alexandrian Patriarchate suddenly change so radically and, most importantly, how should ordinary believers react to this?
Affirmation of the split
The fact that an attempt to legalize the non-canonical religious structure of the OCU will not lead to anything good was clear from the very beginning. Now, after the falling away from the Church (and this is exactly what we need to talk about - without mincing words or diplomacy) of most of Hellas, and now Africa, you and I are forced to admit: the split of world Orthodoxy has become an inevitability, a historical and religious fact.
Moreover, it was after the fall of Alexandria that the schism virus removed almost all the obstacles that prevented its spread, and now the speed of its growth will be equal to the speed of free fall of the body under gravitational conditions. Those. the closer to the ground, the higher the speed of fall.
Lately we have been hearing ambiguous statements from the Primate of the Cypriot Orthodox Church, Archbishop Chrysostomos, hearing voices in support of the OCU from the Georgian Orthodox Church, being surprised by the position of some Bulgarian hierarchs and observing the rather strange policy of the Romanian Church. The question that worries many is who is next? And, no matter how scary it may sound, the answer to it is also simple: it does not matter at all which Church will fall away from Christ next, what matters is who remains with Christ.
The schism of world Orthodoxy has become an inevitability, a historical and religious fact.
In this regard, it is worth recalling that the Church is the Body of Christ. The Creed clearly indicates Her nature - Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The grace of the Holy Spirit is always present in the Church, it has a conciliar structure (because only through it can egoism and the thirst for power be overcome), and She has apostolic succession. The absence of any of these factors turns the community of believers into an organization with signs of religion, into an ideological or other party, but not into the Church.
Therefore, in connection with the “Ukrainian question,” we can state not only the fact of the destruction of apostolic succession among schismatics and those who entered into communion with them, but also the destruction of the principle of conciliarity. The whole situation around the OCU - from beginning to end - is an attack specifically on the Catholicity of the Church.
Attack on the Conciliarity of the Church
The head of the Orthodox Church is Christ. This is an axiom from any Orthodox catechism or textbook on dogmatic theology. The classic catechism of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) reads: “To believe in the Church means to reverently honor the true Church of Christ and obey its teachings and commandments with the confidence that grace abides in it, acts savingly, teaches and governs, poured out from its One Eternal Head, the Lord Jesus Christ." In other words, the Church has taught throughout history that Her Head is only the Lord Jesus Christ.
However, recently the Phanariots and their adherents from the Greek-speaking Churches have put forward a theory, completely wild for the Orthodox consciousness, that the head of the earthly Church is the Patriarch of Constantinople.
For example, Metropolitan Eustathius of Sparta stated that today in the world there are “approximately 900,000,000 Orthodox Christians who recognize the Patriarch of Constantinople as the head of Orthodoxy on earth, although in general we consider Christ to be the Head of our Church. But on earth this is the Ecumenical Patriarch.” According to him, it is the Patriarch of Constantinople, and not Christ, that is the center of Orthodoxy.
And one should not think that this statement is an isolated incident. Many bishops of both Greece and Phanar will agree with the words of the Metropolitan of Sparta.
Recently, the Phanariots and their adherents from the Greek-speaking Churches have put forward a theory, completely wild for the Orthodox consciousness, that the head of the earthly Church is the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Therefore, one should not be surprised that the Ukrainian issue is being resolved not conciliarly, but behind the scenes, through behind-the-scenes negotiations, bribery, threats and blackmail. For example, the Synod of the Greek Church granted the right to recognize or not recognize the OCU to its primate, Archbishop Jerome. The Patriarch of Alexandria went even further - he recognized the OCU even without a synodal decision.
Cleric of the European Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Alexander Zanemonets wrote on his Facebook page: “Such and such a patriarch recognized the new Ukrainian Church, but such and such did not... But who will be the first to stop talking about the Church - “this is our internal matter”? Whose initiative will be here? Shouldn't issues of this magnitude be resolved collectively, and not through behind-the-scenes negotiations? And so I wanted to see the end of St. Bartholomew’s pontificate in a return to church conciliarity, and not to a universal monarchy.”
There is a gross violation of the principle of Sobornost. And not only within individual Orthodox Local Churches, but also at the all-church level. Through the destruction of Sobornost right before our eyes, people who were recently in the Church are tearing it into small pieces, which ultimately leads to the transformation of the Church into a political instrument.
A few days ago, Patriarch Kirill stated:
“I’ll say, perhaps, a somewhat unexpected thing. Why is papism dangerous? Of course, because papism does not stem either from the Word of God or from the Tradition of the Church. But I will offer one more, completely different argument: papism is dangerous because it is much easier to influence one person than a group of people. Both the pope and the patriarch who wants to become pope become a very attractive target for the powers that be, and outside influence on one person can destroy the Church.
When the system of conciliar government of the Church was formed, the holy apostles understood well what they were doing. It is impossible that in the context of the Roman Empire, only one person could be responsible for the entire Church - after all, he could be arrested, he could be persuaded to cooperate, he could be frightened. However, these dangers disappear when the Church is governed collegiately, conciliarly.
Therefore, in our time it is necessary to defend the conciliar government of the Universal Church. We do not dispute the primacy in honor of the Patriarch of Constantinople, but we do not agree with any encroachments on universal power. The Patriarch of Constantinople, staying in Turkey, is personally very vulnerable. Therefore, all that remains is to pray that the Lord will deliver him from influences that could have a detrimental effect on the life of the entire Church.”
Factors of influence: State Department, ethnophyletism and loss of faith
The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church is completely right: without Conciliarity, the Church is only a tool for solving fleeting problems. The emergence and recognition of the OCU is a perfect illustration of this.
The church schism in Ukraine was created in the early 1990s with the help of state power in the person of the former functionary of the Communist Party, and later the first President of Ukraine and the anathematized Metropolitan Philaret.
The same applies to the OCU - President Petro Poroshenko and the same Filaret created a new “Church”. At the same time, they enjoyed the full support of the US State Department and political forces inside Ukraine.
With the help of the same State Department, they are exerting unprecedented pressure on the Primates of other Local Churches in order to recognize the OCU, and this pressure is bearing fruit.
Greek chauvinism plays a major role in the pan-Orthodox crisis. A strange desire to revive the former greatness of the Byzantine Empire leads many Greeks to the actual usurpation of Orthodoxy. For example, in relation to Ukraine, the Hellenes constantly emphasize that the Orthodox faith is their gift to us, that we have received from them the teachings of Christ and the apostles.
At Phanar they always focus on the maternal character of the Church of Constantinople, and not only for Ukraine, but for the whole world.
With the help of the State Department, the United States is exerting unprecedented pressure on the Primates of Local Churches in order to recognize the OCU, and this pressure is bearing fruit.
That is why many Greek hierarchs perceive the Phanar’s struggle for the OCU in the context of the pan-Orthodox struggle of Hellenism against the Slavic world, which leads to completely unpredictable consequences.
However, behind all this external struggle there are internal reasons, the main one of which is the diminishment of faith. It is very sad to observe how the heirs of the apostles connect their aspirations and hopes not with the help of God, but with the help of the State Department or other political structures. By relying on strength and the human factor, Orthodox bishops abandon the Providence of God, and this will inevitably lead to decline in all areas.
The problem with the whole situation with the OCU is not that some hierarchs recognized a structure that other hierarchs do not recognize, but that this structure is anti-canonical, graceless and schismatic. It is based on the struggle against the very principle of churchliness, and ultimately against the Church itself. This is a virus that can only be accepted without the immunity of faith.
To understand how deeply this virus has affected the Orthodox hierarchs, it is enough to compare their positions and statements two or three years ago and today. What will we see? That until recently all bishops and theologians affirmed their adherence to the canons of the Church, stood guard over the purity of doctrine and argued that the Ukrainian schism was a graceless institution.
One of the first among this host of hierarchs was the Alexandrian Patriarch Theodore.
Betrayal: Judas, Theodore and others
After the rupture of Eucharistic communion with Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, the first primate in the Diptych, which the Patriarch of Moscow read at every service, was the name of His Holiness Patriarch Theodore. His personal position towards the Ukrainian schismatics, until yesterday, was irreconcilable.
Even during the Cretan Council, at which the primates unofficially discussed the issue of recognition of the then UOC-KP, Patriarch Theodore clearly and unequivocally expressed his support to His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev: “Let him know that the Patriarchate of Alexandria and we all stand next to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under leadership of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g4AbSuaPYc
In fact, he repeated the same words during his visit to Odessa in October 2021: “We, together with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, together with those who want Orthodox unity, <...> remain faithful to the canonical Church.”
In June 2021, he said: “I believe that a solution can be found. Just let each of us leave personal interests aside and see first of all the interest of the Church. <…> I lived in Ukraine, I experienced the pain and schism of the Ukrainian Church. But I also know the Russian Church very well, because I lived in its depths for ten whole years, and the Patriarchate of Alexandria has emotional ties with it.”
Probably, it was precisely because of these “emotional” connections that the act of Patriarch Theodore in relation to the UOC was perceived in the same light as the act of Judas in relation to Christ. We have again witnessed betrayal.
It is unfortunate that these betrayals have become more and more frequent lately. One can also recall the statements of Archimandrite Ephraim of Vatopedi. For example, in 2015 he stated: “I appeal to the Ukrainian people and ask them to adhere to the canonical Orthodox Church, which is headed by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry. And I ask you with love that we become members of the canonical Church. And the entire Holy Mountain accepts and recognizes only the canonical Ukrainian Church led by Metropolitan Onuphry.”
In December 2017, he addressed our people as part of the “Word to Ukrainians” project, where he said the following: “The schism cuts like scissors, and those who went into schism must understand: they are no longer in the bosom of the Church. Here, on the Holy Mountain, we are very sad because of the schism of the Ukrainian Church, which was committed by Filaret. Therefore, we ask all our brothers who have left the canonical Church, we turn and ask that they return to the fold of the Orthodox canonical Church.”
But, as you know, in the end the person who said these words agreed to be present in Kyiv at the “enthronement” of Sergei Dumenko.
Pressure on monks, or how much conscience costs
Many say, including in our Church, that those who agree with the recognition of the OCU are under pressure - the State Department, the government, the geopolitical situation, internal church problems...
They put pressure on Archbishop Jerome, on Archimandrite Ephraim, on Patriarch Theodore: “Patriarch Theodore, who is personally against the recognition of the OCU, was pressured by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through this department the Greek state finances the Patriarchate of Alexandria). This structure threatened to stop funding if Theodore did not recognize the OCU. This pressure from Greek diplomats was supported by a group of metropolitans from the Patriarchate of Alexandria, who threatened to overthrow the patriarch.”
And we understand that this is true, and they were really under pressure.
But, on the other hand, how can you put pressure on a person who died for the world? How can you put pressure on someone who imitates the martyrs and speaks of monasticism as a life equal to the angels?
Here, for example, are the words of Archimandrite Emilian, a famous Athonite ascetic and elder: “Monasticism is the assumption of lifelong torment, the perception of the consciousness of a martyr, which, of course, rejoices in the struggle and is never satisfied with what has been achieved.”
How can you put pressure on a person who died to the world? How can you put pressure on someone who imitates the martyrs and speaks of monasticism as a life equal to the angels?
And the Monk John Climacus emphasized: “All those approaching this good deed, cruel and cramped, but also easy, should know that they have come to be cast into fire, if only they want immaterial fire to take possession of them.”
It turns out that all the pompous words of the monks mentioned above are just words that have no meaning not only for us, but also for them? It turns out that it is possible just like this, simply by using certain “negotiation tactics,” to convince monks to go against their conscience, beliefs and, most importantly, their Church?
As the famous gangster Al Capone once said, “You can do much more with arguments and a revolver than with arguments alone.” It’s just a pity that these words also apply to the people of the Church.
I will build My Church...
The Church was created by Christ Himself, and no storms and disturbances of the outside world can destroy It. There are a huge number of examples in history when it seemed that the days of the Church of Christ on earth were numbered, that heresy, schism or persecution had won.
Suffice it to recall the Arian heresy, which affected virtually the entire territory of the Byzantine Empire. There were very few Orthodox Christians left at that time - the episcopate, clergy, monastics and laity supported the Alexandrian presbyter Arius in huge numbers. But then a man spoke out against him, who went down in the history of the Church with the name Athanasius the Great, first as a deacon, and later as a bishop. They persecuted him, tried to kill him, persecuted him, but despite this, Saint Athanasius did not betray his faith and the Church. And it was he who ultimately won.
One can also recall the Monk Maximus the Confessor, who during the triumph of the Monothelite heresy was one of the few Orthodox Christians in the entire Byzantine Empire who refused to recognize the new heretical teaching. Bishops and nobles came to him, persuaded him to stop persisting, promised rewards and titles with which the emperor would shower him as soon as he accepted the heresy, they said that the entire Church, together with the Patriarch of Constantinople, already professed monothelitism. To this the Monk Maxim replied: “Truly, all the power of heaven will not force me to do this, for what would I answer - I do not say to God, but to my conscience - if for the sake of human glory, which in itself has no existence, I swore to renounce the faith, saving those who love her? For these words, the Monk Maxim was anathematized, his hand and tongue were cut off, and he was sent into exile to the Caucasus, where he soon died. But in the end, it was Maxim who won.
Various schisms were no less destructive for the Church. For example, in the early 1920s, state power in the Soviet Union created the so-called Renovation Church, which was then supported by representatives of the same patriarchs as now - Constantinople and Alexandria. However, very soon, having lost the support of the state, the renovationists were marginalized and disappeared from the historical arena, leaving behind a shameful memory.
Tomos of discord
The greatest harm from the Tomos and the recognition of the OCU by representatives of various Local Orthodox Churches is that by their actions they bring confusion into the minds and souls of those who are not strengthened in the faith and disgrace the Church in the eyes of the rest of the world. This temptation, which looks very much like a millstone, is the one that most harms the preaching of the Gospel. And we remember what Christ said about this.
But you cannot despair and be despondent about what is happening. No matter who recognizes the OCU, no matter how authoritative this person is in the spiritual world, we must always remain with Christ. Man is changeable, weak, subject to external influences, but the Truth preached by Christ is eternal and unchanging.
The Apostle Paul urged Christians to remain faithful to this Truth, even if an angel from heaven preaches something different. The same applies to us. We know that the Church, whose children we have the honor to be called, was founded by Christ Himself, is His Body and makes it possible to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the main thing. And everything else is just grass of the field, which exists today, but tomorrow will be thrown into the oven (Matthew 6:30).
Siberian Journal of Journalists
Title history
According to the sixth canon of the First Ecumenical Council (325) and the second canon of the Second Ecumenical Council (381), the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria extended “over all Egypt”[4]. Before the rise of Constantinople, Alexandria was the main Christian center in the East.
Since the middle of the 3rd century, the Bishop of Alexandria bears the honorary title of Pope. The first primate of the Alexandrian Church mentioned as pope was Herakles of Alexandria (231–248)[5][6][7]. Since 451, the title of patriarch was also established for the Bishop of Alexandria.
The name of Patriarch Theophilos (Philotheus) II is associated with a legend about his resolution around 1015 of the dispute between the Byzantine Emperor Basil II and the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius II, for which the High Hierarch of Alexandria was awarded the title “Judge of the Universe” (Κριτής της Οικουμένης), having received the right to wear two epitas Rachel and tiara [4].
Patriarch Meletius II (1926-1935) extended the jurisdiction of the Alexandrian Patriarchate to all of Africa, replacing[?] in the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria the words “all Egypt” with “all Africa”[8].
Since October 9, 2004, Theodore II has been the primate of the Alexandrian Orthodox Church.
