.png "English"){kind=small}
Greek-English
The Ecumenical Patriarch's Letter in Response to the Letter of the Archbishop of Albania (01/14/2019)
Prot. No. 104
Your Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios of
Tirana and all Albania, most beloved and precious brother, concelebrant
in Christ our God of our Modesty: We address Your venerable Beatitude
with exceeding delight, even as we greet you with a fraternal embrace.
We received and thoroughly examined your
fraternal letter of last January 14, 2019, following our letter of
December 24, 2018, related to the canonical ecclesiastical acts that we
initiated in Ukraine, and we would like to respond herewith so that, in a
spirit of sincere instruction – which, as by God’s mercy Archbishop of
Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, we bear responsibility
before all holy brothers throughout the world – we may present the
following:
The God-bearing Fathers, who through the
holy and sacred canons have entrusted the Throne of Constantine with
its universally recognized hallowed and dread responsibilities that
transcend borders – not in the form of privileges but of self-sacrifice –
foresaw with the guidance of the Holy Spirit the necessity for a
definitive resolution to the problems emerging across the Local
Churches, which are unable to settle them by themselves.
This legacy of our Great Church of
Christ has been served without blemish throughout all previous centuries
in a spirit of prudence and with fear of God, by our blessed and
ever-memorable Predecessors, always within the sanctified and
canonically immutable system of the Pentarchy of Ancient Thrones,
through appropriate fraternal and reciprocal mutuality “united in
spiritual concord and harmony, through love in the Holy Spirit,
supporting one another.”[1]
In this constant reciprocal
relationship, the preeminent position of Constantinople is universally
declared without ever eliciting any reservation or consternation on the
part of the other Patriarchates, since after all everyone knows very
well that there has never been any danger whatsoever that “the cloudy
delusion of the world would conceivably penetrate the Church of Christ,
which offers the light of simplicity and dawn of humility to those who
desire to see God.”[2]
Indeed, as our late predecessor, Neophytos VII, explains, “supporting
and inherently assisting the needs likewise of the other most holy
Patriarchal and Apostolic Thrones is something that our own most holy
Patriarchal, Apostolic and Ecumenical Throne has historically deemed
very appropriate, without either seizing or coveting their rights out of
a sense of greed – something we would neither act upon nor even dare to
entertain. For the former is proper and right of itself, whereas on the
contrary the latter is unjust and improper.”[3]
In the midst of such solemn declarations
of respect for the canonical rights of internal administrative autonomy
of the local sister Churches, we also record the decision of Anthimos
VI to the Church of Antioch, according to whom “ . . . the Great Church,
heaven forbid, never sought to abolish the canonical rules and rights
possessed by the most holy Throne [of Antioch] by any interference or
imposition, whether during a vacancy of its throne or any other time. On
the contrary, it always supported the prerogatives [of Antioch] and
provided ardent protection on numerous occasions of dire circumstance
pertaining to the safeguarding of the Orthodox in the face of
adversarial assault. There are countless examples that testify to such
patronage and stressful protection of the Church [of Constantinople] for
the Throne [of Antioch], including the recent restoration of the church
in Amida, for which a considerable amount was and continues to be
expended, but also previously the events in the Metropolis of Aleppo as
well as countless other circumstances, when the Great Church has acted
favorably – always without the slightest self-centered intention but
with genuine self-sacrifice – from a position of authority, striving in
manifold ways for the spiritual interests of the Throne [of Antioch] and
the Orthodox who comprise it, while personally assuming many of its
burdens.”[4]
All these points perfectly corresponded
with the divinely and inviolably sanctified practice of the Church,
which from the earliest times professed that “according to the custom
prevailing from above, the most reverend Bishops residing in the
illustrious City [Constantinople], whenever circumstances so demand,
should convene and determine specific ecclesiastical affairs that emerge
in order to honor the petitioners with appropriate resolutions.”
Accordingly, not only in cases of
Doctrine, holy Tradition, and Canonical Church Regulations, or even of
general matters concerning the entire body of the Church, but also in
all matters pertaining to important issues of specific interest to one
or another Local Church, the supervisory provision and protection of the
Great Church of Christ intervenes – sometimes ex officio and out of
obligation, at other times at the request of interested parties – in
order to offer an effective contribution for the sake of arbitration and
resolution of differences arising among the holy Churches of God, to
settle differences between shepherds and their flocks, to avoid
inflaming difficulties and facilitate the return of Ecclesiastical
affairs to a Canonical path, to bolster the occasional inadequate
ministry of spiritual leaders in certain Churches, to support the weak,
wavering, or misled in the Orthodox faith, and overall never to delay or
eschew suppressing all kinds of moral and material danger that
threatens the stability of the most holy Churches.
Therefore, whoever thinks that this
essential and completely necessary ministry of the Mother Church on
behalf of the Universal Body of the Orthodox Church constitutes a
product of later years is undoubtedly deceived because it undeniably
derives its origin from much earlier times. In this regard, we submit,
simply by way of illustration, the decision of Kallistos I in the matter
of Germanos II of Tarnovo, who attempted to claim real patriarchal
privileges beyond the mere title of “Patriarch” that he received from
the Great Church. In response, Kallistos declared that “notwithstanding
this, should the throne of Constantinople review and resolve, or
advocate and validate the decisions of the other Patriarchs of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as the sacred Canons have determined
and the Acta have witnessed, how much more is the Throne [of
Constantinople] also sovereign over the Church of the Bulgarians, by
which it was honored with the name of Patriarch”?[5]
Moreover, as Luke I Chrysoberges has stated, whoever appears before us
as exercising the right “of overseeing, rectifying, and resolving
judgments over disputes among other Thrones,”[6]
is on the same basis qualified to invalidate the penalty of deposition
against Bishop John of Amathous issued by Archbishop John of Cyprus and
his Synod.
This ancient practice of the Church,
which concurs with the Ecclesiastical Canons, is also explicitly
confirmed by the four Patriarchs of the East, namely our own Predecessor
Dionysios III, Paisios of Alexandria, Makarios of Antioch, and
Nektarios of Jerusalem, in a Tomos of the year 1663, by which they
settled twenty-five chapters of inquiries posed to them by clergy of the
Russian Church. In the eighth question: “Whether every decision of
other Churches may be appealed to the Throne of Constantinople for final
determination in all Ecclesiastical matters?”, they replied that “This
prerogative belonged to the Pope before he broke with the Catholic
Church. . . . Since the Schism, however, matters of all Churches are
referred to the Throne of Constantinople, from which they receive
determination.” The same is repeated in responses to the twenty-first
and twenty-second questions.[7]
Therefore, Your Beatitude, we can all
appreciate what responsibility the Throne of Constantinople bears and
how history has endowed him with exceptional prerogatives. From all
these verified and established arguments, it may be unequivocally
concluded that specific inter-Orthodox efforts and initiatives of the
Holy Great Church of Christ during the previous and present centuries
were perhaps erroneously interpreted by some as an abrogation of its
unwavering responsibilities and at the same time ministerial privileges
in the face of a parliamentary federation – as has unfortunately even
been stated – of individual Local Churches, which supposedly decides on
all matters with the Ancient Thrones.
The practice of the Mother Church has,
in a spirit of kenosis, always aspired and continues to aspire to
communion in love of Christ and clarity of heart among the local holy
Churches of Christ for abundance of wisdom and grace, for guidance and
comfort in pastoral matters, and finally for edification of the body of
faithful. The newer so-called “autocephalies” were and are granted by
the Church of Constantinople as the common source of nourishment of the
Orthodox for a better and more orderly internal organization of Church
affairs, but not for any modification of the holy commonweal of the
Church, which emerged from the long and sacred canonical development of
the Ecumenical Councils, or the creation of a false concept of
self-sufficient local churches and division of the one and undivided
Body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
When autocephaly is isolated and
exaggerated, it is rendered problematic inasmuch as it does not serve
the purpose for which it was considered beneficial to the Church. We
should add here that the status of autocephaly, which was ceded on
certain conditions and in various ways by the Mother Church for the
occasional and circumstantial vital needs of Her children throughout the
Oikoumene, does not comprise an immutable or static system but is
adapted to current pastoral needs of the time, with holiness and much
circumspection.
These few thoughts have been highlighted
by way of providing a correction about the preeminent and sacrificial
character of the Holy Mother and Great Church of Christ and an
expression of a wholesome ecclesiology overall, even as we stand in the
presence of blessed personalities, who served before us as Patriarchs,
so that we may not be judged by the Lord of History or by them as
diminishing what they established and preserved in the midst of pains
and labors and difficult times, bearing the cross of responsibility for
the Church.
Since this is the truth about our
ecclesiastical affairs, the canonically established appellate provision
of our Modesty appears clear and indisputable, just it was also
exercised in the case of the Most Reverend Metropolitans Filaret,
formerly of Kyiv, and Makariy of Lviv. There is, Your Beatitude, an
extremely important treatise by someone who performed miraculous signs
while still living – a man cultivated in virtue and profound in matters
of the sacred canons, namely, the late Metropolitan Basil of Anchialos
and subsequently of Smyrna. This treatise, composed and synodally
ratified in 1877, pertained to the validity of ordination of clerics by a
deposed, schismatic, or even heretical Bishop. We are attaching it
herewith for you because it describes in many and convincing arguments
the timeless position of the Orthodox Church on this issue.
While we do not wish to convey all of
the cases delineated in the treatise, suffice it for us to note how the
Holy and God-bearing Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea
resolved the Melitian schism with the articulation of Canon 8 that
reflects the Novatians. The said Melitios, Bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt,
was accused of committing a whole series of unlawful acts, including
denying the faith and sacrificing to idols. He was defrocked around the
year 302 AD. Rejecting the defrocking, he formed an opposition and
created the so-called Melitian schism. When reconciliation was achieved,
according to the account of Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of
Alexandria, the saint’s predecessor, Alexander of Alexandria, submitted a
register or list of those ordained during the period of this schism –
which included bishops, priests, and deacons – all of whom were restored
to their proper rank without re-ordination. This schism troubled the
Church up until the seventh century, while those reconciled were
admitted into communion with the Church without re-baptism or even
through Holy Chrism, as Theodore the Studite informs us all in his Great
Epistle to Nafkratios.
Furthermore, in more recent years as
well, when in 1945 our Holy and Great Church of Christ forgave the
Bulgarians and their Church condemned by the Holy and Great Synod of
1872 – which not only defrocked but even excommunicated them – how did
their restoration come about? Was it through re-ordination? Or were
those forgiven perhaps the same as those condemned? Not only this, but
those elected and chosen by them were also the same as those who
succeeded them. And when the Church of Russia recently – under brazen
political pressure – forgave the theretofore schismatic members of
ROCOR, how did it receive them into communion? Was it through re-baptism
or re-ordination?
Your Beatitude,
Glory to the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit for manifesting to us according to the likeness of the
Triadic glory those things accomplished and established in the Church
not only through Holy Scripture, like the Protestants, but also through
the most honorable, kenotic, and sanctified holy practice of the Church
over its two thousand-year journey on earth. This is why, in presenting
the above, we understand that the tolerance and long-suffering stance of
the Great Church of Christ has been construed by those who greatly
benefited from Her as an abdication from the ongoing journey of the
Church.
We are at a loss as to how this
impertinence and slander against the Mother Church and our Modesty
personally is tolerated by some and – wittingly or unwittingly –
sometimes espoused in the form of affirmation or repetition of arguments
by those who avenge their benefactor. Do these disciples love the
Church and its unity more than their teachers? Surely not!
At the Phanar, we preach the genuine
inheritance of ecclesiology because we draw from the wellspring of our
Fathers and not from self-interest or other trivial motivations and
political expediencies. Consequently, it is the responsibility of all
others to assimilate these disclosed truths – not, of course, in order
to validate them, inasmuch as they are already authentically validated
by ecclesiastical practice, but rather to restore the precious and
authentic experience of the Fathers, who hoped in God alone, to the
proper and sanctified way. To Him be glory and dominion unto the ages.
Amen.
February 20, 2019
Your reverent Beatitude’s
beloved brother in Christ
Your reverent Beatitude’s
beloved brother in Christ
[1] Official Patriarchal Letter of Gabriel III on the election of Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, Kallinikos Delikanis, Official Documents Preserved in the Archives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, vol. 2, Constantinople, 1905, p. 468.
[2] Letter of the Fathers of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine, at the conclusion of the Canons of this Council.
[3] Kallinikos Delikanis, Official Documents, vol. 2, p. 217.
[4] Kallinikos Delikanis, Official Documents, vol. 2, p. 314.
[5] F. Miklosisch and I. Müller (eds), Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, vol. 1, Vienna, 1862, p. 438.
[6] Matthew Blastaris, Constitution according to Elements, Element 2, in G. Ralli and M. Potli Constitution of the Holy and Sacred Canons, vol. 6, Athens, 1859.
[7] Manuel Gedeon, Canonical Regulations, Athens, 1979, vol. I, pp. 341–346.
Απαντητικό Γράμμα του Οικουμενικού Πατριάρχου στην από 14.01.2019 επιστολή του Αρχιεπισκόπου Αλβανίας
Ἀριθμ. Πρωτ. 104
Μακαριώτατε Ἀρχιεπίσκοπε Τιράνων καί
πάσης Ἀλβανίας, ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ λίαν ἀγαπητέ καί περιπόθητε ἀδελφέ καί
συλλειτουργέ τῆς ἡμῶν Μετριότητος κύριε Ἀναστάσιε, τήν Ὑμετέραν
σεβασμίαν Μακαριότητα ἀδελφικῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ κατασπαζόμενοι, ὑπερήδιστα
προσαγορεύομεν.
Ἐλάβομεν καί διεξοδικῶς ἐμελετήσαμεν τό
ἀπό 14ης παρελθόντος μηνός Ἰανουαρίου ἐ.ἔ Ὑμέτερον ἀδελφικόν Γράμμα κατ᾿
ἀκολουθίαν τῶν ἀπό 24ης Δεκεμβρίου ἡμετέρων τοιούτων,
σχετικῶς πρός τάς ἐν Οὐκρανίᾳ ὑφ᾿ ἡμῶν κανονικῶς γενομένας
Ἐκκλησιαστικάς Πράξεις καί ἐπί τήν ἀπάντησιν ἥκοντες προαγόμεθα, ὅπως,
ἐν πνεύματι ἀληθευούσης διδαχῆς, περί ἧς ὡς ὁ ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Νέας Ρώμης καί Οἰκουμενικός Πατριάρχης ἔχομεν χρέος
ἔναντι τῶν ἑκασταχοῦ ἁγίων ἀδελφῶν, ἐκθέσωμεν Ὑμῖν τά ἀκόλουθα:
Οἱ Θεοφόροι Πατέρες, οἱ καί διά τῶν
Θείων καί Ἱερῶν Κανόνων ἀναθέσαντες εἰς τόν Θρόνον τῆς τοῦ Κωνσταντίνου
τάς γνωστάς τοῖς πᾶσιν πανιέρους καί φρικτάς αὐτοῦ ὑπερορίους εὐθύνας,
οὐχί ἐν εἴδει προνομιῶν ἀλλά θυσίας, διεῖδον, Πνεύματι Θεοῦ ἀγόμενοι,
τήν ἀνάγκην ὁριστικῆς διευθετήσεως τῶν ἀνά τάς Τοπικάς Ἐκκλησίας
ἀναφυομένων προβλημάτων τῶν μή δυναμένων ἵνα ἐπιλυθῶσιν ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν. Αὕτη ἡ
κληρουχία τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς Μεγάλης τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίας διηκονήθη
ἀδιαστίκτως καθ᾿ ὅλους τούς παρελθόντας αἰῶνας ἐν πνεύματι συνέσεως καί
μετά φόβου Θεοῦ ὑπό τῶν μακαρίων καί ἀοιδίμων Προκατόχων ἡμῶν ἐντός
πάντοτε τοῦ καθηγιασμένου καί κανονικῶς ἀμεταθέτου καθεστῶτος τῆς
Πενταρχίας τῶν Πρεσβυγενῶν Θρόνων διά τῆς φιλαδέλφου, ὡς εἰκός,
ἀλληλοπεριχωρήσεως "εἰς μίαν σύμπνοιαν καί συμφυΐαν πνευματικήν ἑνούμενοι, διά τῆς ἐν Ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι ἀγάπης, ἀλλήλων ἀντ[ιλαμβανόμενοι]"[1].
Ἐκ ταύτης τῆς διαρκοῦς δισυποστάτου σχέσεως τοῦτο μέν, ἡ πρωτεύουσα τοῦ
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θέσις παντάπασι διακηρύττεται οὐδένα ἐνδοιασμόν ἢ
ἀνησυχίαν προκαλέσασα πώποτε παρά τοῖς λοιποῖς Πατριάρχαις, καθ΄ὅσον
εἴπερ τις καί ἄλλος ἐγίγνωσκον κάλλιστα ὅτι οὐδείς ἀπολύτως κίνδυνος
ὑπῆρχεν εἰς "μή τόν καπνώδη τύφον τοῦ κόσμου δόξωμεν εἰσάγειν τῇ
Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥτις τό φῶς τῆς ἁπλότητος καί τῆς ταπεινοφροσύνης τήν
ἡμέραν τοῖς τόν Θεόν ἰδεῖν ἐπιθυμοῦσι προσφέρει"[2] τοῦτο δέ, ὅτι "τό ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι μέν καί ἐκ τῶν ἐνόντων βοηθεῖν-καθ᾿ ἅ Νεόφυτος Ζ,΄ὁ μακαρίᾳ τῇ λήξει Προκάτοχος ἡμῶν, περιγράφει-πρός
τάς χρείας καί τοῖς λοιποῖς ἁγιωτάτοις Πατριαρχικοῖς Ἀποστολικοῖς
Θρόνοις, πάνυ προσῆκον ἐκ παλαιοῦ ἡγεῖται ὁ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς οὑτωσί ἁγιώτατος
Πατριαρχικός Ἀποστολικός Οἰκουμενικός Θρόνος, ἀφαιρεῖσθαι γε μήν ἐκείνων
τά δίκαια καί πλεονεκτεῖν ἀδικοῦντα, οὐχ ὅπως πράττειν ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ
ἀκούειν ἀνέχεται. Ἐκεῖνο μέν γάρ ἄξιον καί δίκαιον ἑαυτοῦ, τοῦτο δέ
τοὐναντίον ἄδικόν τε καί ἀπρεπές"[3].
Ἐν μέσῳ τοιούτων πανηγυρικῶν δηλώσεων
εὐλαβείας πρός τά Κανονικά δικαιώματα τῆς ἐσωτερικῆς διοικητικῆς
αὐτοτελείας τῶν κατά τόπους ἀδελφῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ἐπιπροσθέτως καταγράφομεν
τήν ἀπόφανσιν καί Ἀνθίμου Στ΄ πρός τήν Ἐκκλησίαν Ἀντιοχείας καθ᾿ ὅν "...οὐχί
ἅπαγε πρός κατάργησιν τῶν Κανονικῶν λόγων καί δικαιωμάτων ἅπερ κέκτηται
ὁ ἁγιώτατος αὐτός Θρόνος καί πρός τά ὁποῖα οὐδέποτε ἀπέβλεψεν ἡ Μεγάλη
Ἐκκλησία νά μετέλθῃ ἐπέμβασίν τινα καί ἐπίθεσιν, εἴτε ἐν χηρείᾳ αὐτοῦ
εἴτε ἄλλοτε, τοὐναντίον δέ μάλιστα ἀείποτε ὑπεστήριξε τά προνόμια αὐτοῦ
καί ἐπεχορήγησε θερμουργόν προστασίαν εἰς τοσαύτας κατά καιρούς δεινάς
περιστάσεις ἀφορώσας τήν συντήρησιν τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων ἀπό πάσης τῶν ἐναντίον
προσβολῆς· καί ταύτας τάς προστασίας καί ἐναγωνίους ὑπερασπίσεις τῆς
Ἐκκλησίας ὑπέρ τοῦ Θρόνου ἄπειρα διακηρύττουσι παραδείγματα, καθώς καί
αὐτή ἡ ἐσχάτως ἀποκατάστασις τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀμίδης, ὑπέρ οὗ ἐδαπάνησε καί
ἐξακολουθεῖ δαπανᾶν ἁδράς ποσότητας, καθώς καί πρό αὐτῆς τά κατά τήν
Μητρόπολιν Χαλεπίου συμβάντα, καί ἄλλαι ἄπειροι περιστάσεις, κατά τάς
ὁποίας ἡ Μεγάλη Ἐκκλησία, μακράν παντός ἰδιορρύθμου σκοποῦ ἀλλά καί μέ
πραγματικάς θυσίας, προὐνόησεν, ὡς ἐξ ἀνωτάτης περιωπῆς, καί πολυειδῶς
ἠγωνίσθη ὑπέρ τῶν πνευματικῶν συμφερόντων τοῦ Θρόνου καί τῶν
ἀποτελούντων αὐτόν Ὀρθοδόξων, ἀναλαμβάνουσα εἰς ἑαυτήν πολλά αὐτοῦ βάρη"[4].
Ταῦτα πάντα συνίσχυον ὁμοῦ μετά τῆς
Θεόθεν καί ἀπαραβάτως καθηγιασμένης πράξεως τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἥτις ἐκ τῶν
πρώτων χρόνων διαγορεύει ὅτι "συνήθεια ἄνωθεν κεκράτηκε, τούς
ἐνδημοῦντας τῇ μεγαλωνύμῳ Πόλει ἁγιωτάτους Ἐπισκόπους, ἡνίκα καιρός
καλέσῃ, περί ἀναπιπτόντων τινῶν Ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων συνεῖναι καί
διατυποῦν ἕκαστα καί ἀποκρίσεις ἀξιοῦν τούς δεομένους". Ὡς ἐκ
τούτου, οὐ μόνον ἔνθα περί Δογμάτων καί ἱερῶν Παραδόσεων καί Κανονικῶν
Ἐκκλησιαστικῶν Διατάξεων ἤ περί γενικῶν ζητημάτων ἀφορώντων εἰς
ὁλόκληρον τό σῶμα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀλλά καί ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς σχετικῶς
σπουδαίοις ἐπί μέρους ζητήμασι τοῖς ἐνδιαφέρουσι ταύτην ἤ ἐκείνην τήν
Τοπικήν Ἐκκλησίαν, ἡ κηδεμονική πρόνοια καί ἀντίληψις τῆς Μεγάλης τοῦ
Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίας παρεμβαινούσης-ποῖ μέν, αὐτεπαγγέλτως καί ὡς ἐκ
καθήκοντος, ποῖ δέ, κατ᾿ ἐπίκλησιν τῶν ἐνδιαφερομένων-καί παρεχούσης τήν
ἀποτελεσματικήν αὐτῆς συμβολήν, πρός διαίτησιν καί ἐπίλυσιν διαφορῶν
ἀναφυεισῶν μεταξύ τῶν ἁγίων τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησιῶν, πρός διευθέτησιν
διαφωνιῶν μεταξύ ποιμένων καί ποιμνίου, πρός ἀπαλλαγήν ἀπό
ἐπιπρουσθουσῶν δυσχερειῶν καί ἐπάνοδον τῶν Ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων εἰς
τήν Κανονικήν αὐτῶν τροχιάν, πρός ἐπίρρωσιν τῆς ἔστιν ὅτε ἀνεπαρκοῦς
ἐνεργείας τῶν πνευματικῶν ἀρχηγῶν τῶν ἐπί μέρους Ἐκκλησιῶν, πρός
στήριξιν τῶν ἀσθενῶν καί σαλευομένων ἤ καταρραδιουργουμένων ἐν τῇ
Ὀρθοδόξῳ πίστει, πρός ἀποσόβησιν, συνελόντι εἰπεῖν, τῶν παντοίων ἠθικῶν
καί ὑλικῶν κινδύνων τῶν ἐπαπειλούντων τήν εὐστάθειαν τῶν ἁγιωτάτων
ἐκείνων Ἐκκλησιῶν οὐδέποτε καί οὐδαμοῦ βραδύνει ἤ ἐλλείπει. Πλανᾶται,
λοιπόν, ἄνευ ἀμφιβολίας ὁ θεωρῶν ὅτι αὕτη ἡ οὐσιώδης καί ὅλως ἀναγκαία
διά τό Καθολικόν Σῶμα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας λειτουργία τῆς Μητρός
Ἐκκλησίας ἀποτελεῖ προϊόν τῶν κάτω χρόνων καθώς ἀδιαψεύστως ἕλκει τήν
ἀπαρχήν αὐτῆς εἰς πολλῷ ἀρχαιοτέρους χρόνους. Καί πρός τοῦτο φέρομεν
ὅλως ἐνδεικτικῶς ἐν προκειμένῳ τό τοῦ Καλλίστου Α΄ σχετικόν πρός τήν
ὑπόθεσιν τοῦ Τιρνόβου Γερμανοῦ Β΄, τοῦ ἀποπειραθέντος ἵνα διεκδικήσῃ
πραγματικά πατριαρχικά προνόμια παρά τόν ψιλόν τίτλον τοῦ "Πατριάρχου",
ὅν ἐκ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας ἔλαβεν, καθ᾿ ἅ Κάλλιστος ἀπεφήνατο ὅτι "καί
χωρίς δέ τούτου, εἰ ὁ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Θρόνος καί τάς τῶν ἄλλων
Πατριαρχῶν Ἀλεξανδρείας καί Ἀντιοχείας καί Ἱεροσολύμων κρίσεις
ἐπανακρίνει καί διευθετεῖ καί ἐπιψηφίζεται καί τό κῦρος δίδωσιν, ὡς οἱ
θεῖοι Κανόνες διαγορεύουσιν καί αἱ πράξεις ἐπεμαρτύρησαν, πῶς οὐ πολλῷ
μᾶλλον τῆς τῶν Βουλγάρων Ἐκκλησίας ὁ Θρόνος οὗτος κύριος ἔσται, παρ᾿ οὗ
καί τό ὀνομάζεσθαι Πατριάρχης τετίμηται"[5], ὡς καί Λουκᾶ Α΄ τοῦ Χρυσοβέργη, ὅστις παρουσιάζεται ἡμῖν ὡς ἐξασκῶν τό δικαίωμα "τοῦ τάς ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις Θρόνοις γινομένας ἀμφισβητήσεις ἐπιτηρεῖν καί διορθοῦσθαι καί πέρας ἐπιτιθέναι ταῖς κρίσεσι",[6]
καί ἐπί τῇ βάσει αὐτοῦ ἀκυρῶν τήν ὑπό τοῦ Ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κύπρου Ἰωάννου
καί τῆς περί αὐτόν Συνόδου ἐκδοθεῖσαν ποινήν τῆς καθαιρέσεως κατά τοῦ
Ἐπισκόπου Ἀμαθοῦντος Ἰωάννου. Τήν ἀρχαίαν ταύτην πράξιν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας,
ὡς τοῖς Ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς Κανόσι συνᾴδουσαν, ἐπιβεβαιοῦσι περιτράνως καί
οἱ τέσσαρες Πατριάρχαι τῆς Ἀνατολῆς, ἤτοι ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων Προκατόχων
Διονύσιος Γ΄, ὁ Ἀλεξανδρείας Παΐσιος, ὁ Ἀντιοχείας Μακάριος καί ὁ
Ἱεροσολύμων Νεκτάριος ἐν ἔτει 1663 ἐν Τόμῳ δι᾿ οὗ ἐπέλυσαν εἴκοσι καί
πέντε κεφάλαια ζητημάτων προβληθέντα αὐτοῖς ὑπό τοῦ κλήρου τῆς Ρωσσικῆς
Ἐκκλησίας. Εἰς τήν η' ἐρώτησιν: "Εἰ τῷ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Θρόνῳ ἐφεῖται πᾶσα κρίσις ἄλλων Ἐκκλησιῶν καί παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ λαμβάνει ἑκάστη ὑπόθεσις Ἐκκλησιαστική πέρας;" ἀπήντησαν ὅτι "Τό
προνόμιον τοῦτο τοῦ Πάπα ἦν πρό τοῦ διαρραγῆναι τῆς Καθολικῆς
Ἐκκλησίας....ἤδη δέ ἐκείνου διαρραγέντος, αἱ ὑποθέσεις πασῶν τῶν
Ἐκκλησιῶν εἰς τόν τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Θρόνον ἀναφέρονται καί παρ᾿
αὐτοῦ τάς ἀποφάσεις λαμβάνουσιν..". Ἐπαναλαμβάνουσι δέ περί τούτου καί εἰς τάς κα΄ καί κβ΄τοιαύτας"[7]
Ὁρῶμεν, οὖν, Μακαριώτατε, ποίας εὐθύνης
Θρόνος ἐστίν ὁ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως καί ποίων τρόπων μέτοχος καί
διάδοχος ὀφείλει ἵνα ἀνυπερθέτως καθίσταται ὁ κατά καιρούς καί χρόνους
Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος αὐτοῦ καί Οἰκουμενικός Πατριάρχης. Ἐξ ὅλων τῶν ἀσφαλῶν καί
ἑστώτων τούτων συνάγεται ἀδιαμφισβητήτως ὅτι αἱ ἐπί μέρους κατά τόν
παρελθόντα καί τόν νῦν αἰῶνα διορθόδοξοι προσπάθειαι καί πρωτοβουλίαι
τῆς Ἁγίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας ἐσφαλμένως ἐξελήφθησαν τυχόν ὑπό
τινων ὡς ἀπεμπόλησις τῶν τοιούτων ἀμετακινήτων εὐθυνῶν ἅμα δέ καί
διακονικῶν προνομιῶν αὐτῆς ἐν ὀνόματι οἱονεί τινος κοινοβουλευτικῆς
ὁμοσπονδίας- ὡς καί ρητῶς ἐλέχθη ἀτυχῶς- τῶν ἐπί μέρους Τοπικῶν
Ἐκκλησιῶν, ἥτις συναποφασίζει μετά τῶν Πρεσβυγενῶν Θρόνων ἐπί παντός
θέματος. Ἡ τοιαύτη ἐν πνεύματι κενώσεως πάντοτε πρᾶξις τῆς Μητρός
Ἐκκλησίας ἀπέβλεπε καί ἀποβλέπει εἰς τήν ἐν ἀγάπῃ Χριστοῦ καί ἀφελότητι
καρδίας κοινωνίαν τῶν κατά τόπους Ἁγίων τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησιῶν, πρός
πλησμονήν σοφίας καί χάριτος, πρός καταρτισμόν καί σύμπλευσιν ἐν τοῖς
ποιμαντικοῖς θέμασι, πρός οἰκοδομήν ἐν τέλει τοῦ σώματος τῶν πιστῶν. Τά
νεωστί καί οὕτω καλούμενα "αὐτοκέφαλα" ἐδόθησαν καί δίδονται ὑπό τῆς
κοινῆς τροφοῦ τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Κωνσταντινουπολίτιδος Ἐκκλησίας διά τήν ἐν
τοῖς ἐπί μέρους καλλιτέραν καί εὔρυθμον ἐσωτερικήν ὀργάνωσιν τῶν καθ᾿
ἕκαστα Ἐκκλησιῶν καί οὐχί διά νά παραλλάσσεται τό ἅγιον πολίτευμα τῆς
Ἐκκλησίας, τό προκῦψαν ἐκ τῆς μακρᾶς ἱεροκανονικῆς ἐν Οἰκουμενικαῖς
Συνόδοις παραγωγῆς πρός δημιουργίαν ἐσφαλμένης ἀντιλήψεως αὐταρκῶν
τοπικῶν ἐκκλησιῶν καί κατακερματισμοῦ τοῦ ἑνός καί ἀδιαιρέτου Σώματος
τῆς Μιᾶς, Ἁγίας, Καθολικῆς καί Ἀποστολικῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίας. Ἡ
Αὐτοκεφαλία ἀπομονουμένη καί ὑπερτονιζομένη καθίσταται προβληματική
καθώς δέν ὑπηρετεῖ τόν σκοπόν δι᾿ ὅν αὕτη ἐθεωρήθη εὔχρηστος ἐν τῇ
Ἐκκλησίᾳ. Εἰρήσθω δ᾿ ἐνταῦθα ὅτι τά Αὐτοκέφαλα καθεστῶτα, τά ὑφ᾿ ὅρους
καί τρόπους παραχωρούμενα ὑπό τῆς Μητρός Ἐκκλησίας διά τάς κατά καιρούς
καί χρόνους ζωτικάς ἀνάγκας τῶν ἀνά τήν Οἰκουμένην τέκνων αὐτῆς, οὐ
τυγχάνουσιν ἀμετακίνητον καί στατικόν σύστημα ἀλλά προσαρμοζόμενον εἰς
τάς ποιμαντικάς ἐπιταγάς τῆς σήμερον, μεθ᾿ ἱερότητος καί πολλῆς
περισκέψεως. Τά ὁλίγιστα ταῦτα ἐπεσημειώθησαν πρός ἐπανατροχιασμόν τοῦ
πρωτευθύνου καί θυσιαστικοῦ χαρακτῆρος τῆς Μητρός Ἁγίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ
Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας καί πρός ἔκφρασιν ὑγιοῦς κατά πάντα ἐκκλησιολογίας,
καθώς ἱστάμενοι ἐνώπιον τῶν μακαρίων μορφῶν τῶν πρό ἡμῶν
Πατριαρχευσάντων μή κριθῶμεν ὑπό τοῦ Κυρίου τῆς Ἱστορίας καί ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν
ὡς ἀπομειώσαντες, ἅ ἐκεῖνοι ἐν μέσῳ κόπων καί μόχθων καί ἐν δυσχειμέροις
καιροῖς ᾠκοδόμησαν καί περιεκράτησαν αἴροντες τόν σταυρόν τῆς εὐθύνης
ἔναντι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.
Οὕτως ἐχόντων τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς
ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων ἐμφαίνεται σαφῶς καί ἀδιαφιλονικήτως ἡ
κανονικῶς τεθεσπισμένη ἔκκλητος πρόνοια τῆς Μετριότητος ἡμῶν, πρόνοια,
ἥντινα ἠσκήσαμεν καί εἰς τήν περίπτωσιν τῶν Ἱερωτάτων Μητροπολιτῶν πρ.
Κιέβου κυρίου Φιλαρέτου καί πρ. Λβώφ κυρίου Μακαρίου. Ὑπάρχει,
Μακαριώτατε, μία σπουδαιοτάτη πραγματεία τοῦ ἐγνωσμένης, διά
θαυματουργικῶν σημείων ἔτι ζῶντος, ἀρετῆς τοῦ ὀτρηροῦ καί ἐμβριθοῦς περί
τά ἱεροκανονικά ζητήματα ἀειμνήστου Μητροπολίτου Ἀγχιάλου καί εἴτα
Σμύρνης Βασιλείου συνταχθεῖσα καί ἐν ᾳωοζ΄ἔτει συνοδικῶς κυρωθεῖσα περί
τοῦ κύρους τῆς χειροτονίας κληρικῶν ὑπό Ἐπισκόπου καθῃρημένου ἤ
σχισματικοῦ ἤ καί αἱρετικοῦ χειροτονηθέντων, ἥνπερ καί συνημμένως
ἀποστέλλομεν Ὑμῖν, εἰς τήν ὁποίαν περιγράφεται διά πολλῶν καί βεβαίων ἡ
διαχρονική θέσις τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας περί τοῦ ζητήματος τούτου. Μή
ἐπιθυμοῦντες ἵνα μεταφέρωμεν αὐτόθι ἁπάσας τάς ἐν αὐτῇ ἐκτεθειμένας
περιπτώσεις ἀρκούμεθα εἰς τό ὑπό τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ τό πρῶτον συνελθόντων
Ἁγίων καί Θεοφόρων Πατέρων ἐπιλυθέν σχίσμα τῶν Μελιτιανῶν, συνωδᾷ τῇ
περί Ναυατιανῶν διατάξει τοῦ η΄ Κανόνος. Ὁ διαληφθείς Μελίτιος ἦτο
Ἐπίσκοπος Λυκοπόλεως ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καί ἐκατηγορήθη ἐπί σειρᾷ ὅλῃ παρανομιῶν
καί ἐπί ἀρνήσει τῆς πίστεως καί θυσίᾳ εἰς τά εἴδωλα. Καθῃρέθη δέ περί
τό 302 μ.Χ. Μή στέρξας τήν καθαίρεσιν ἐδημιούργησε περί ἑαυτόν παράταξιν
καί ἐποίησε τό λεγόμενον σχίσμα τῶν Μελιτιανῶν. Ὅτε δέ ἐπετεύχθη ὁ
συμβιβασμός μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, καθ᾿ ἅ περιγράφει Ἀθανάσιος ὁ Μέγας,
Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Ἀλεξανδρείας, παρέδωκεν εἰς τόν προκάτοχον τοῦ Ἁγίου,
Ἀλεξανδρείας Ἀλέξανδρον βρέβιον ἤτοι κατάλογον τῶν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ
χειροτονηθέντων κατά τό διάστημα τῆς ποινῆς αὐτοῦ Ἐπισκόπων, πρεσβυτέρων
καί διακόνων, ἁπάντων ἀποκατασταθέντων ἄνευ ἀναχειροτονίας εἰς τούς
οἰκείους αὐτοῖς βαθμούς. Τό δέ σχίσμα τοῦτο ἐταλάνισε τήν Ἐκκλησίαν ἕως
καί τῆς ἑβδόμης ἑκατονταετηρίδος, οἱ δέ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστρέφοντες ἐγένοντο
δεκτοί εἰς τήν κοινωνίαν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἄνευ ἀναβαπτισμοῦ οὐδέ χρίσεως
διά τοῦ Ἁγίου Μύρου, καθ᾿ ἅ πληροφορεῖ πάντας ἡμᾶς Θεόδωρος ὁ Στουδίτης
ἐν τῇ Μ΄ Ἐπιστολῇ αὐτοῦ πρός Ναυκράτιον.
Ὅμως καί εἰς τούς ἐσχάτους χρόνους, ὅτε
ἐν ἔτει 1945 ἡ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς Ἁγία τοῦ Χριστοῦ Μεγάλη Ἐκκλησία συνεχώρησε
τοῖς καταδικασθεῖσιν ὑπό τῆς Ἁγίας καί Μεγάλης Συνόδου τοῦ ἔτους 1872
Βουλγάροις καί τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ αὐτῶν, οὕς οὐ μόνον καθῄρεσε τότε ἀλλά καί
ἀφώρισε, πῶς ἐγένετο ἡ ἀποκατάστασις; Δι᾿ ἀναχειροτονίας; Ἦσαν μήπως οἱ
συγχωρηθέντες οἱ αὐτοί τοῖς καταδικασθεῖσι; Μονονουχί, ἀλλ᾿ ἦσαν οἱ
ἐκλεγέντες καί κληρωθέντες ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν καί τῶν ἐπιγενομένων αὐτοῖς. Καί
ὅτε ἡ Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρωσσίας πρό τινων ἐτῶν, ὑψηλῇ πολιτικῇ πιέσει,
συνεχώρησε τοῖς σχισματικοῖς ἕως τότε μέλεσι τῆς ROCOR, τίνι τρόπῳ τούς
ἐδέχθη εἰς κοινωνίαν, δι᾿ ἀναβαπτισμοῦ καί ἀναχειροτονίας;
Μακαριώτατε,
Δόξα τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ Υἱῷ καί τῷ Ἁγίῳ
Πνεύματι ὅτι ἐφανέρωσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν τῆς Τριαδικῆς δόξης τά ἐν
τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ τελούμενα καί ἑδραζόμενα οὐχί μόνον ἐπί τῆς Ἁγίας Γραφῆς,
ὡς παρά Διαμαρτυρομένοις, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπί τῆς τιμιωτάτης καί κενωτικῆς καί
καθηγιασμένης ἱερᾶς πράξεως τῆς Ἐκκλησίας κατά τήν δισχιλιετῆ πορείαν
αὐτῆς ἐπί γῆς. Διό καί προβαλλόμενοι τά ἀνωτέρω, ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα ὅτι ἡ
ἀνοχή καί ἡ μακρόθυμος στάσις τῆς Μεγάλης τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίας
ἐξελήφθησαν ὑπό τῶν ὑπ᾿ αὐτῆς μεγάλως εὐεργετηθέντων ὡς παραίτησις αὐτῆς
ἐκ τῆς περαιτέρω πορείας τῆς Ἐκκλησίας. Καί ἀποροῦμεν πῶς αὕτη ἡ
προπέτεια καί κατασυκοφάντησις τῆς Μητρός Ἐκκλησίας καί τῆς ἡμῶν
Μετριότητος προσωπικῶς γίνεται ὑπ᾿ ἐνίων ἀνεκτή καί ἔν τισι
περιπτώσεσιν, ἑκόντων ἤ ἀκόντων αὐτῶν, υἱοθετεῖται ὑπό τήν μορφήν
ἀποδοχῆς καί ἐπαναλήψεως τῆς ἐπιχειρηματολογίας τῶν κινησάντων τήν
πτέρναν κατά τῆς εὐεργέτιδος. Ἀγαπῶσιν οὗτοι οἱ μαθηταί ὑπέρ τούς
διδασκάλους τήν Ἐκκλησίαν καί τήν ἑνότητα αὐτῆς; Μή γένοιτο. Κηρύττομεν
ἐν Φαναρίῳ τά αὐθεντικῶς κληροδοτηθέντα ἡμῖν περί ἐκκλησιολογίας, καθ᾿
ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ φρέατος τῶν Πατέρων ἡμῶν ἀντλοῦμεν καί οὐχί ἐξ ἰδιοτελείας ἤ
ἄλλων ταπεινῶν κινήτρων καί πολιτικῶν σκοπιμοτήτων. Συνεπῶς ἀπόκειται
εἰς πάντας ὑμᾶς ἡ εὐθύνη τῆς ἀφομιώσεως τῶν προεκτεθεισῶν ἀληθειῶν, οὐχί
βεβαίως πρός κύρωσιν αὐτῶν, ἅτε ὅλως γνησίως κεκυρωμένων ὑπό τῆς
ἐκκλησιαστικῆς πράξεως οὐσῶν, ἀλλά πρός ἐπανατοποθέτησιν ἐπί τό ὀρθόν
καί τό καθηγιασμένον ὑπό τῆς πολυτίμου καί γνησίας πείρας τῶν Πατέρων
τῶν μόνον εἰς Θεόν ἐλπισάντων, ᾯ ἡ δόξα καί τό κράτος εἰς τούς αἰῶνας.
Ἀμήν.
‚βιθ’ Φεβρουαρίου κ’
Τῆς Ὑμετέρας σεβασμίας Μακαριότητος
ἀγαπητός ἐν Χριστῷ ἀδελφός
Τῆς Ὑμετέρας σεβασμίας Μακαριότητος
ἀγαπητός ἐν Χριστῷ ἀδελφός
[1] Σιγιλλιῶδες Γράμμα Γαβριήλ Γ΄περί τῆς ἐκλογῆς τοῦ Ἱεροσολύμων Χρυσάνθου, Καλ. Δελικάνη, Τόμος ΙΙ, σελ. 468
[2] Ἐπιστολή Πατέρων τῆς ἐν Καρθαγένῃ Συνόδου πρός τόν Πάπαν Καιλεστῖνον, ἐν τέλει τῶν Κανόνων τῆς αὐτῆς Συνόδου.
[3] Καλ. Δελικάνη, Τόμος ΙΙ, σελ. 217.
[4] Καλ. Δελικάνη, Τόμος ΙΙ, σελ. 314.
[5] Miklosisch et Müller, Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, Τόμος Ι, σελ. 438.
[6] Ματθαίου Βλάσταρη "Σύνταγμα κτλ....Στοιχεῖον ΙΙ".
[7] Κανονικαί Διατάξεις" Μ. Γεδεών, Τόμος Ι, σελ. 341-346.
