.png "English"){kind=small}
By Vladimir Burega, professor at the Theological Academy of Kiev
We will start with the fact that the tomos signed at the Phanar on
January 5, 2019 carries on a certain tradition of issuing similar
documents that has been formulated at the Patriarchate of Constantinople
over the past two centuries. It began with the issuing of the tomos on
the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Greece (that is, the church
within the borders of the Greek state) in 1850. This was followed by the
tomoi on the granting of autocephaly to the Churches of Serbia (1879),
Romania (1885), Poland (1924), Albania (1937), Bulgaria (1945) and
Czechia and Slovakia (1998). In 1990, a tomos was likewise issued on the
recognition and approbation of the autocephalous status of the Orthodox
Church of Georgia. Thus, the tomos for Ukraine wasn’t created from
scratch. Both its form and its content follow a certain rule. In
ecclesiastical documents of this level, there are always traditional,
ritual phrases as well as clear, practical, immutable formulations. At
the same time, almost every one of these tomoi has its own
characteristics, reflecting the specific situation in each local church.
We will try to sort out what in the Ukrainian tomos is typical and what
is, so to speak, specific.
Name, Primate, Diptychs
Let’s start with the banal things. It is understandable that in tomoi the name of the newly-established church is always indicated. Moreover, this name is always (!) tied to the name of the state on whose territory it is being created. For example: “The Orthodox Church in the Kingdom of Greece”, “The Holy Autocephalous Church of the Kingdom of Serbia”, “The Orthodox Church of the Kingdom of Romania”, “The Holy Orthodox Church in Poland”, “The Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania”. Such names indicate that the basis of the creation of autocephalous churches always relies on the territorial principle. Each local church is a church that brings together the Orthodox Christians in a certain territory.
Let’s start with the banal things. It is understandable that in tomoi the name of the newly-established church is always indicated. Moreover, this name is always (!) tied to the name of the state on whose territory it is being created. For example: “The Orthodox Church in the Kingdom of Greece”, “The Holy Autocephalous Church of the Kingdom of Serbia”, “The Orthodox Church of the Kingdom of Romania”, “The Holy Orthodox Church in Poland”, “The Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania”. Such names indicate that the basis of the creation of autocephalous churches always relies on the territorial principle. Each local church is a church that brings together the Orthodox Christians in a certain territory.
The tomos from January 5 names the newly-created church “The Holy
Church of Ukraine. In the charter of the newly-created church, accepted
in Kiev in December, it is called “The Orthodox Church of Ukraine”
(OCU). So far as we know, during the preparation of the tomos the
Patriarchate of Constantinople a slightly different name: “The Orthodox
Church in Ukraine”. Such a name would, of course, further emphasize the
territorial character of the ecclesiastical structure being created, but
a slightly corrected formulation was adopted. This, however, also fits
quite well with the tradition of naming local churches according to the
names of the states.
In all the tomoi on the granting of autocephaly, the title of the new
church’s primate is clearly established. True, there have been cases
when a synodal form of government was introduced into the church being
created (for example, in Greece). In such cases, the synod was at the
head of the church, as a kind of “collective primate”. In the case of
the OCU, her primate bears the title “His Beatitude the Metropolitan of
Kiev and All Ukraine”. At the same time, in the tomos it is especially
emphasized that “no additions or subtractions to this title are allowed
without the agreement of the Church of Constantinople.” We have not seen
such reservations in any other tomos. Its appearance in the Ukrainian
tomos of January 5 was, of course, Patriarch Bartholomew’s reaction to
the Kiev Patriarchate’s attempts to a reference to the patriarchate in
the new primate’s title. We should emphasize that the tomos from January
5 does not suggest using one title for the primate “for internal use”
and another for communication “with the outside world”… The title is
secured in the tomos rather firmly and unequivocally.
All tomoi about the granting of autocephaly without exception contain
the requirement that the primate of the church being created
commemorates the Patriarch of Constantinople and all the other primates
of the local churches in the diptychs. We should explain that the
diptych is the generally-accepted list of heads of local Orthodox
churches. Each primate commemorates at each of his liturgies all the
other primates in the order of the diptychs. Moreover, the primate of
each autocephalous church is obliged when entering into his rights to
send letters announcing it to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the
other heads of local churches. There are analogous requirements in the
tomos from January 5.
These quite standard clauses raise one awkward question in the
Ukrainian context. The head of the OCU, Metropolitan Epifany, today is
commemorating in the liturgy all the primates of the local Orthodox
churches with the exception of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. He has
bluntly stated that he refuses to commemorate Patriarch Kirill on
account of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine. At the same
time, Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew does commemorate the
Patriarch of Moscow. The tomos on the granting of autocephaly directly
obliges the Metropolitan of Kiev to commemorate all the primates of the
local churches without exception (and hence also Patriarch Kirill). The
refusal to commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow in the diptychs
contradicts the unequivocal requirement of the tomos.
Constantinople as the Highest Juridical Authority
In all the tomoi on the granting of autocephaly, there are
requirements to refer to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the other
local church on the most important dogmatic and canonical issues. Of
course, this requirement has been formulated in different ways in
different historical periods. In the 19th century tomoi, it sounds quite
soft, almost like an optional recommendation. For example, in the tomos
on the autocephaly of the Serbian Church (1879), it is stated that the
Metropolitan of Serbia should, “according to ancient custom” refer to
the Orthodox patriarchates and other autocephalous churches “on issues
of common ecclesiastical significance which require a common voice and
approval.” Here the Patriarchate of Constantinople is in no way set
apart from the other local churches. But in the 20th century tomoi one
can see completely different rhetoric.
Already in the tomos on the autocephaly of the Polish Orthodox Church
it states that the Patriarchal See of Constantinople is entrusted with
the duty “of caring for the Orthodox churches finding themselves in
need.” Therefore, on issues “exceeding the jurisdictional boundaries of
each autocephalous church,” the Metropolitan of Warsaw should refer to
the Patriarchal See of Constantinople, “through which communion with the
entire Orthodox Church is maintained.” This requirement is practically
repeated verbatim in the tomos on the autocephaly of the Albanian
Church, while in the tomos on the autocephaly of the Church of Czechia
and Slovakia, it is quite clearly stated that the See of Constantinople
is “entrusted with taking care of all the holy churches of God.” In this
tomos it even states that the Church of Czechia and Slovakia can invite
hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in important cases.
All these expressions are not merely ritual phrases. Since the early
1920s, a doctrine has been formulated about the special rights of the
Ecumenical Patriarch. As is well known, today this teaching is actively
challenged by the Patriarchate of Moscow, wherein lies one of the
sources of the profound conflict between the Sees of Constantinople and
Moscow.
In the tomos on the autocephaly of the OCU, we also find unequivocal
statements about the special status of the See of Constantinople. Here
it is clearly stated that for resolving important issues of a
ecclesiastical, dogmatic or canonical character, the Metropolitan of
Kiev should refer to the Ecumenical See in order to receive an
authoritative explanation about it. The tomos does not suggest appeals
to other autocephalous churches for similar explanations.
Additionally, in the tomos from January 5 stipulates the Patriarch of
Constantinople’s right to receive appeals from the Ukrainian bishops if
they disagree with juridical decisions about them. In such cases, the
verdict of the Ecumenical Patriarch will be final and not subject to
revision.
Church and State
In the 19th century tomoi, the special role of the state in creating
new autocephalous churches was always emphasized. In that century, the
Patriarchate of Constantinople always emphasized that the desire to
proclaim autocephaly came not only from ecclesiastical hierarchs, but
from the leadership of their respective states. For example, in the
tomos on the autocephaly of the Serbian Church (1879), it is stated that
the request for the proclamation of independent ecclesiastical status
was directed to Constantinople first of all by the Serbian King Milan
Obrenovic and secondly by Metropolitan Michael of Belgrade. In the tomos
on the autocephaly of the Church of Greece (1850), no mention is made
of ecclesiastical hierarchs appealing to Constantinople. Here it is
stated that the Patriarch of Constantinople learned of the desire of the
Greek people and clergy for their own independent church “from the
letter from the pious ministers of the God-protected government of
Greece.” That is, it was the Greek government’s appeal that initiated
the process of granting autocephaly.
In the 19th century tomoi, there was one more characteristic detail.
In them, the proclamation of new autocephalous churches is always
motivated by the creation of independent states. The appearance of the
Greek, Serbian and Romanian Churches followed shortly after
international recognition of Greece, Serbia and Romania, respectively.
In the texts of the 20th century tomoi, the government’s role is, as a
rule, not so forcefully emphasized. In the tomoi on the autcephaly of
the Churches of Poland, Bulgaria and Czechia and Slovakia, nothing is
said about civil authorities. In the tomos on the autocephaly of the
Albanian Church, although the state is mentioned, it is not the
initiator of creating the new church. Here it is only stated that the
civil authorities gave the Patriarch of Constantinople guarantees that
members of the Orthodox Church of Albania would have “complete
independence and freedom to prosper.” It is quite obvious that the 20th
century tomoi reflected a new situation in church-state relations.
Governments now declare their secularism and non-intervention in
ecclesiastical affairs.
In this regard, the Ukrainian tomos clearly takes us back to the 19th
century. Here the creation of an autocephalous church is motivated,
above all else, by an independent Ukrainian state having existed for
almost three decades. It is especially stressed that throughout this
time the leaders of Ukraine have repeatedly appealed to the See of
Constantinople with requests for autocephaly. It is specifically stated
in the tomos that it is being awarded not only to the Metropolitan of
Kiev, but also to the President of Ukraine. It could be said that the
tomos was written from a perspective of symphonia between secular and ecclesiastical authority, which looks like a blatant anachronism at the start of the 21st century.
Holy Chrism
In almost all the tomoi on the granting of autocephaly, there is
discussion of the need for newly-created churches to receive holy chrism
from the Patriarch of Constantinople. This rule also requires a brief
explanation.
Holy chrism is the special substance used in performing the sacrament
of chrismation. In the Orthodox tradition, chrismation is performed on a
person immediately after baptism. Through chrismation, the person is
given the gifts of the Holy Spirit, allowing him to fully enter the life
of the Church. For this reason, the sacrament of chrismation has great
significance for the Church.
Holy chrism is prepared by the heads the local churches. Today,
however, not all primates have the right to prepare and sanctify chrism.
This right is reserved only for patriarchs. Thus the heads of such
churches as Greece, Albania, Poland or Czechia and Slovakia receive
chrism from Constantinople.
The tomos from January 5 states that the OCU should also receive
chrism from the Patriarch of Constantinople. In the text of the tomos,
it is stated that this is a symbol of the Church’s unity.
It must be said that attempts by patriarchs of Constantinople to
retain their right to prepare holy chrism for newly-created
autocephalous churches has sometimes given rise to conflicts. Young
churches saw in this a restriction of their independence and and
Constantinople’s aspiration to hold on to power over them. Thus, for
example, in the early 1880s, the Romanian Church entered into a tough
conflict with Constantinople in order to gain the right to independently
prepare its own holy chrism. And it won. In the tomos on the granting
of autocephaly to the Romanian Church (1885), there is no rule about the
mandatory receiving of chrism in Constantinople. Neither is there such a
rule in the tomos on the granting of autocephaly to the Bulgarian
Church (1945).
Internal Structure
As a rule, tomoi on the granting of autocephaly do not contain a
detailed description of the internal structure of the church being
created. They merely state the the primate should lead the church
together with the bishops who make up the synod. In this regard, the
tomos on the autocephaly of the Church of Czechia and Slovakia (1998) is
a distinct exception. Here, its internal structure and system of upper
leadership is spelled out in significant detail.
The tomos on the autocephaly of the OCU also pays attention to
certain aspects of the new church’s structure. Here, for example, it is
indicated how the synod of the OCU should be formed. It should include
in alternation all bishops who have eparchies in Ukraine, in order of
seniority. It is specifically stipulated that the provisions of the
OCU’s charter must fully comply with the tomos.
This last rule is also not accidental. There is a recent case where
the rules of a tomos on autocephaly and the rules of the charter of an
autocephalous church differed significantly. I have in mind the Orthodox
Church of Czechia and Slovakia. Its charter, adopted in 1992, was
significantly different from the rules provided by the tomos issued in
1998. After having received the tomos, the Church of Czechia and
Slovakia continued to abide by its former charter. Only in 2016 did the
Patriarchate of Constantinople definitively put forward the requirement
that that the charter be brought in line with the provisions of the
tomos. So far as we know, this requirement is still unfulfilled.
It is quite obvious that today the Patriarchate of Constantinople is
trying to rule out such conflicts with the OCU. For this reason, a
strict requirement is made in the tomos for the mandatory complaince of
the charter with the provisions of the tomos.
Diaspora, Exarchates and the Right of Stavropegia
The tomos’ most painful provision may perhaps be the requirement that
the OCU refrain from creating its own structures outside of Ukraine.
Not a single one of the previously-issued tomoi had such requirements.
In the tomos from January 5, however, it is clearly stated that the
jurisdiction of the OCU is limited to the territory of Ukraine. The
Metropolitan of Kiev “cannot place bishops or found parishes outside the
state.” All ecclesiastical structures existing outside the borders of
Ukraine should henceforth come under the jurisdiction of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Here it is necessary to explain that under the “Orthodox diaspora” it
is customary to include all Orthodox residing in territories where
local Orthodox churches do not exist (this is primary Western Europe and
America). The Patriarchate of Constantinople considers the spiritual
nourishment of Orthodox believers in these territories to be its
exclusive right.
However, contemporary emigrants try to maintain ties to their
national churches. Not only Orthodox Ukrainians, but also Romanians,
Serbs and Bulgarians finding themselves outside their homeland are
extremely reluctant to integrate into the ecclesiastical structures of
other churches. Thus practically all local churches today have foreign
structures entrusted with the care of emigrants. But the OCU is
straightforwardly deprived of the right to create such structures. It is
thought that it will now have to conduct difficult negotiations with
the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the procedure for appointing
Ukrainian priests to serve in Ukrainian churches of communities abroad.
It is clear that the subordination of these communities to Greek priests
is unrealistic.
The last thing to which it is necessary to pay attention is a brief
phrase that the Patriarchate of Constantinople maintains its own
Exarchate in Ukraine as well as “sacred stavropegia”. Of course, it
would be important to read just how this rule is formulated in the Greek
original. In the Ukrainian translation, this sounds like the creation
of an exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Ukrainian
territory. In such a reading, the exarchate is apparently understood as a
special territorial structure separate from the jurisdiction of the OCU
and directly subordinate to the Ecumenical Patriarch. But it is
possible that here it is talking not about a territorial structure, but
about the exarchs of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who even after the
granting of autocephaly will continue to conduct their ministry in
Ukraine. In any case, this means that an official representation of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople headed by an exarch (or exarchs) is
maintained on the territory of Ukraine.
Stavropegia is the name for ecclesiastical structures (monasteries,
churches, brotherhoods) which are removed from the authority of the
local ecclesiastical hierarchy and are directly subordinate to the
patriarch. At one time, the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, the Kiev-Bratsk
Monastery, the Uspensky Brotherhood in Lviv and other ecclesiastical
structures on the territory of contemporary Ukraine were stavropegia of
Constantinople. There is no clarity about what will now be transferred
to the jurisdiction of Constantinople, but it is quite clear that a
certain number of stravropegia will be created in Ukraine.
* * *
As we see, the tomos establishes a rather rigid framework for the
further development of the OCU. The Patriarchate of Constantinople has
established quite a few restraints designed to prevent processes
undesirable to it within the OCU. And through the institution of exarchs
and stavropegia, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is creating for itself a
convenient mechanism for influencing the ecclesiastical situation in
Ukraine in the future.
It is not hard to predict that the OCU will not feel quite
comfortable within this framework. Will it somehow tear it up? Will the
Patriarchate of Constantinople demand strict observance of the
provisions of the tomos, or will it turn a blind eye to deviations from
the rules? The immediate future of the newly-established ecclesiastical
structure depends on the answers to these questions.
[Translated from the Russian original here. Vladimir Burega is a professor at the Theological Academy of Kiev.]orthodoxsynaxis.org
