.png "English"){kind=small}
Gjoko
Gjorgjevski, Dean of the Orthodox Theological Faculty in Skopje
In
the battle of the borders and territories of Orthodox churches, the
true mission of the church and, in general, of Orthodoxy, is
neglected.
It
is in this direction that the theologian, Prof. Gjoko Gjorgjevski,
Dean of the Orthodox Theological Faculty "St. Clement of Ohrid"
in Skopje, analyzes the latest developments in Orthodoxy, which
directly or indirectly influence the solution of the Macedonian
Church problem.
Several
years ago Gjorgjevski served as the ambassador of FYROM to the
Vatican, which complements his competence to analyze the situation of
the churches in Christianity.
“Either
every nation and every state should have its own independent church,
or no nation and no state should have it! Either the old
patriarchal system should be applied, which, as the most authentic to
the nature of the church, is independent of state and national
borders, and complete in the arrangement (supra-stately and
supranational), but in this historical context seems almost
impossible, or
equal
criteria should be applied to all the established national churches”
says Gjorgjevski.
Are the latest developments with the break of communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate mean a new big split in Orthodoxy and what will it mean for the Macedonian Orthodox Church-Ohrid Archbishopric?
- It is clear that this is one of the biggest church disturbances in Orthodoxy in recent history, even more so because it is a conflict between the most significant church (the First-See), and the most numerous Orthodox church. On the one hand, such unilateral interruptions of Eucharistic communion seem to have become a practice in mutual church misunderstandings about jurisdictions on certain territories, which to some extent dampers the sense of seriousness of the existing situation. In the 90s of the last century, among the same two Patriarchates, the Estonian church dispute led to several months of Eucharistic interruption, then the ban on Eucharistic communion was followed by the conflict between the Russian and the Romanian Orthodox Church for the church territories in Moldova, and there is a recent dispute over spiritual authority over Qatar between the Antiochian and the Jerusalem Patriarchates. On the other hand, the unwillingness of Orthodoxy to face the real reasons that lead to these and other such conflicts leaves room for serious concern, which I believe is shared by the Macedonian Orthodox Church – Archbishopric of Ohrid (MOC-OA). Bearing in mind the wisdom and experience of the heads of both dispersed churches, hope is not lacking that even if the situation does not get resolved, it will at least not be further complicated. On the one hand, there is the personality of the Patriarch Cyril, who was the only one among the Orthodox leaders without reservations, and always highlighted the Macedonian identity, language, and culture with respect, and on the other hand, Patriarch Bartholomew, in whom, despite the official restraint, sincere and paternal care for Macedonian believers, especially young people, was evident.
On
what arguments the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized the autocephaly
of the Ukrainian Church? And can this principle be applied in
the case of MOC-OA?
According to the announcement of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, issued on October 11 of this year, at the last held session, it was decided “to revoke the legal binding of the Synodal Letter of the year 1686, issued for the circumstances of that time, which granted the right through oikonomia to the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv, elected by the Clergy-Laity Assembly of his eparchy, who would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch as the First hierarch at any celebration, proclaiming and affirming his canonical dependence to the Mother Church of Constantinople”. According to this interpretation, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, although at some point gave up the Ukrainian territories to the Moscow Patriarchate, it never completely renounced its canonical authority over them. It is obvious that the Macedonian church history has different paths, but independently of them, based on the 9th and 17th canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Patriarch of Constantinople has the same right to intervene properly in our ecclesiastical case as well. In fact, it is generally known that the state of the MOC-OA is unique and incomparable with all other churches with unresolved status, and that, on the basis of all possible criteria and parameters, it has the right to its full independence. As a confirmation of this, I would also mention the consideration of the arch-priest Nikolai Danilevich, deputy chairman of the Department for external church relations of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, who in his interview with the “Union of Orthodox Journalists” and in relation to the Macedonian church question, argues that the Constantinople Patriarchate applies "a double standard and definite inconsistency". According to him, the document from 1686 for the Ukraine is no different than that from 1922 for Macedonia, highlighting that “the Macedonian Church has even more of a right to autocephaly, for the people there are united in their wishes, whereas the Ukrainian orthodoxy is divided into three parts…”.
Does
the MOC-OA in this situation hope to recognize its autocephaly by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, since that process has already begun with
Ukraine?
The
situation between the two churches is incomparable. The MOC-OA,
despite the unsuccessful attempts to break it by creating parallel
structures, is a national and united church, unlike the church
situation in Ukraine, where the strong division of Ukrainian
believers is noticeable, and not even the decision of the
Constantinople Patriarchate, unfortunately, guarantees the overcoming
of divisions and the unification of the church and Eucharistic life
in that country. Regarding the MOC-OA, the only thing that is
lacking is the required evangelical love and understanding by other
sister churches, and especially by the Patriarchate of
Constantinople.
Could
this whole situation lead to the unilateral recognition of other
churches by the ROC? And what should be the correct resolution
of this whole state in Orthodoxy?
There
were no previous announcements, and even less could this situation
give rise to the ROC to take such steps. Concerning the final
issue, the lack of a real critical approach to the existing conflict
situation is worrying. The problem is that all attention is
focused exclusively on symptoms and on seeking ways to remedy them,
without at least attempting to perceive the main causes, which would
enable the establishment of an accurate diagnosis, and then proper
treatment. The Church as the Body of Christ rests on truth,
goodness, love, and righteousness. It cannot and must not be a
promoter of falsehood, malice, hatred, and unrighteousness, because
at that moment it ceases to be a true church. This means that
for each member individually, and then for each nation, the church
must have the same measure. Double standards may be inherent in
the policy, but they are foreign to the church. That means that
either every nation and every state should have its own independent
church, or no nation and no state should have it! Either the
old patriarchal system should be applied, which, as the most
authentic to the nature of the Church, is independent of state and
national borders, and complete in the arrangement (supra-stately and
supranational), but in this historical context seems almost
impossible, or
equal
criteria should be applied to all the established national churches.
And in Europe today, all autocephalous Patriarchates, Archdioceses,
or Metropolises are exclusively national churches. The worst
thing is when some powerful politicized church centers self-proclaim
to be supranational, and with a transparent imperial agenda
abuse the holy church to secure the rule of their political and state
centers within and outside their borders, and at all costs impede
fair church organization, which is vital to the true unity of the
church. In this battle for borders and territories, the true
mission of the Church is neglected, forgetting the true nature of the
Church, which is that Christ's Church does not depend on the
territories, but on the people who live in those territories, the
territories of human hearts and souls in which God dwells.
