.png "English"){kind=small}
Patriarch Bartholomew and Metropolitan Epiphany during the Tomos of autocephaly delivery ceremony.
Francis’ trips in Eastern Europe are bound to intercross the
lacerations of Orthodoxy. Where individual Churches are beginning to
take sides regarding the management and potential developments of the
«Ukrainian crisis»
rome
Pope Francis’ next trips on the agenda are fatally destined to cross
the storm that is rocking the Orthodox Churches of Byzantine origin. A
storm so far concentrated in Ukraine, but that could soon widen sucking
into its vortex other lacerations - latent or acclaimed - already
marking the body of the whole Orthodoxy.
The Macedonian puzzle
The official announcement of Pope Francis’ visit to Romania (31 May-2
June) was recently released. But first, in the same month traditionally
dedicated to Our Lady (May 5-6), the Bishop of Rome will make a flash
trip to Bulgaria and Macedonia, landing in one of the faults where the
intra-Orthodox tensions are more vehemently discharged. Throughout
history, the Orthodox communities of the present Macedonian territories
have been subject to the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Church and then
to the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, before
passing - from the early decades of the twentieth century onwards -
under the direction of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In 1967, the
Macedonian metropolitans decided to break away from the Serbian
Patriarchate and proclaim their own autocephaly (independence). Since
then, and until now, no other Orthodox Church has recognized the
canonical legitimacy of the "schismatic" Macedonian Orthodox Church. In
recent years, Macedonian Orthodox hierarchs have tried to reconnect at
least with the Bulgarian Church, declaring themselves willing to
recognize it as their own "Mother Church". Up Until the end of May 2018,
when the controversy between Constantinople and Moscow over the project
of autocephaly of Ukrainian Orthodoxy had already begun, the Ecumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople announced its intention to take charge
also of the "Macedonian issue" (after receiving a letter in which the
Prime Minister of Macedonia, Zoran Zaev, declared that he supported the
request for autocephaly coming from the ecclesiastics of his country).
Now that all the members of the Synod of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople have signed the Decree granting autocephaly to the new
Ukrainian Orthodox Church now independent from the Moscow Patriarchate,
exponents of the Serbian Orthodox Church speculate (and fear) that the
same scheme could be repeated in Macedonia, with the Ecumenical
Patriarch willing to canonically re-legitimize the Macedonian
"schismatic" Orthodox and to grant them full independence of the Serbian
Patriarchate. Perhaps that is also why the Serbian Orthodox Patriarch
Irinej has so far been one of the most determined Orthodox Primates to
try crushing the concession of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church, calling into question in his Christmas message "angry
chauvinists, the Russophobes, led by corrupted politicians " who "with
the assistance of Uniates, and unfortunately with the noncanonical
participation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, have deepened and
spread the existing schisms and have seriously endangered the unity of
Orthodoxy in its entirety".
With regard to the new interventionism of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in
the controversial situations that fuel conflict and cut off from
Orthodox communion large groups of faithful - as has happened for
decades in the cases cited in Ukraine and Macedonia - several analysts
have drawn attention to a passage included in the Tomos on autocephaly
for Ukraine that seems to recognize robust prerogatives of the
Constantinopolitan See as a guide and orientation towards the individual
Orthodox Churches. "In the case of great questions of an
ecclesiastical, doctrinal and canonical nature", one reads in the decree
granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church "the Metropolitan
of Kiev and of the whole of Ukraine must, in the name of the Holy Synod
of its Church, address our most holy patriarchal and ecumenical Throne,
seeking his authoritative opinion and his final support".
Reactions and hesitations
After the handing over of the Tomos on autocephaly for Ukrainian
Orthodox Church by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, an explicit support for
the birth of the new Ukrainian Church was expressed by the U.S.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who in a statement dated 11 January
described it as "a historic achievement as Ukraine seeks to chart its
own future". Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Primate of the
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, also greeted with great emotion the
birth of the Ukrainian autocephalous Orthodox Church, valuing it as a
positive step toward the restoration of full communion among all the
Ukrainian Churches: "Today - the head of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics
said in a manifesto interview - it is necessary to make every effort not
only to overcome the division within Ukrainian Orthodoxy, but also to
seriously theologize, pray, and work to restore the original unity of
the Kiev Church in its Orthodox and Catholic branches. And the UGCC
bears the mystical Church memory of the undivided Christianity of the
first millennium. Although today we live in full communion with the
successor of the Apostle Peter, we consider our Mother Church to be the
Church of ancient Constantinople.”
Meanwhile, the other Orthodox Churches, apart from the Patriarchate of
Moscow, have not yet expressed official reactions to the proclaimed
autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church legitimized by the
pronouncement of their respective synods. Some Orthodox Churches, such
as that of Greece, have announced that the issue will be addressed at
the next synodal meetings of their bishops. While some primates have
already expressed opposition to the way in which autocephaly was
granted, raising alarm on its potential consequences. Yohanna X,
Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, wrote on 31 December a
letter addressed to Bartholomew, in which he invited the Ecumenical
Patriarch "not to take any decision that does not express the consent of
the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches", recalling that "it is
unreasonable to put an end to a schism at the expense of the unity of
the Orthodox world".
After the handing over of the Tomos on autocephaly to the Ukrainian
Metropolitan Epiphany, the efforts of persuasion of the parties involved
also focused on the Patriarchate of Jerusalem: some bishops of the new
Ukrainian autocephalous Church announced their intention to visit the
Holy Land in the hope of being able to concelebrate with the Greek
Orthodox Patriarch Theophilos and with other bishops of the Patriarchate
of Jerusalem, also to attest to their canonical legitimacy. Not even
the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem has so far issued public
statements on the final developments of the Ukrainian crisis. But
previously, Patriarch Theophilos himself had always indicated
Metropolitan Onufry, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church canonically
linked to the Patriarchate of Moscow, as the only legitimate Ukrainian
primate, who remained outside - with its ninety or so bishops - the
"Council of Unification" that on 15 December elected Metropolitan
Epiphany as primate of the "new" Ukrainian autocephalous Church. In
recent days Theophilos himself met again with Metropolitan Hilarion of
Volokolamsk, head of the department for external relations of the
Patriarchate of Moscow, on a visit to the Holy City.
The Pope and the Orthodox “thorns”
As he is preparing to travel in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Romania, the
Bishop of Rome does not seem to fear the risk of being caught up in the
conflicts that is tearing apart the Orthodox. The papal indication that
Catholic Churches must not "meddle" in the "internal affairs" of
Orthodoxy – which Pope Francis reiterated on 30 May last, during a
meeting with a delegation from the Patriarchate of Moscow - has
contributed to creating a paradoxical situation: all the Orthodox
leaders, while they are dividing themselves, look to the bishop of Rome
with brotherly affection. They trust him. They count on his closeness.
The Church of Rome, in this difficult moment, offers despite all odds
its merciful service to unity also for the benefit of all Eastern
Churches. And it does so without siding on one side or the other,
without exploiting the other side’s difficulties to reaffirm ascendency,
and without claiming roles as "arbiter" of ecclesial conflicts.
On this uncharted path, the desire to return to full sacramental
communion between Catholics and Orthodox can be guarded in hope. Even at
a time when the tested paths of ecumenical dialogue are objectively
made unfeasible by the divisions within Orthodoxy. And the painful
Orthodox lacerations risk making those appeals to apply "synodal"
organizational systems of ecclesial praxis all too abstract and
idealistic.