.png "English"){kind=small}
On March 29, 2019, the official internet portal of the Albanian
Orthodox Church published the text of a letter written by His Beatitude
Anastasios, Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania, to the Primate of the
Church of Constantinople. As it is noted in the introductory part of the
publication, in his previous correspondence with the Patriarch of
Constantinople, Archbishop Anastasios did not receive an answer to the
perplexities set forth in the Letter of January 14, in which the Holy
Synod of the Albanian Church was reported to refrain from the
recognition of the so-called ‘Orthodox Church of Ukraine’ created by the
Patriarchate of Constantinople.
In his published letter, His Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios pointed
out that the decisions made by Patriarch Bartholomew on the Ukrainian
problem have failed to heal the divisions while creating a threat of
dividing Universal Orthodoxy. His Beatitude gave special attention to
the problem of the apostolic succession of the Ukrainian schismatic
leaders and their followers admitted to communion with the Patriarchate
of Constantinople.
Below is the full text of the letter.
Your Holiness Most Divine Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and
Ecumenical Patriarch, Most Beloved and Dearest Brother in Christ God
and Co-celebrant of our Humbleness in Christ our God, B a r t h o l o m e
w, kissing Your Most Divine All-Holiness we address You in a most
amiable manner.
Having awaited with great anticipation the reply of Your Venerable
Prominence, on the question of overcoming the concerns of the Orthodox
Autocephalous Church of Albania, regarding the Primate of the new
Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Ukraine, we received the Letter of Your
Prominence dated 20th of February 2019 and in the session of our Holy
Synod of the 7th of March of this year we studied carefully its content.
Due to the critical importance of the subject we are obliged to offer,
always in sincere respect, certain explanations and assertations.
1.Our Letter of the 14th January of the present year did not express
any doubt as to the right and responsibility of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate to grant Autocephaly, whenever this is called for by the
circumstances. Our questions mainly refer to procedure and especially to
an ecclesiological question of utmost importance for Orthodoxy. The
contents of the first pages of Your Letter of reply obviously do not
refer to our query. For this reason, we shall not refer to them here. We
restrict ourselves simply – far removed from any influence of arguments
of other Autocephalous Churches – to focus on just three questions
directly related to the holy spiritual tradition and conscience of the
Orthodox Church: a) The Holy Eucharist b) Apostolic Succession c)
Conciliarity.
Our worry was focused particularly on the crucial subject of the
ordination of bishops, of Apostolic Succession. It was on account of
this, that the cunning role of the self-proclaimed “Supreme Honorary
Patriarch of Kiev and All Rus-Ukraine” Filaret was underscored and
theological reservations were articulated as to the holy spiritual
validity of the ordinations that he has performed, considering that
divine Grace does not act when the celebrant of the Sacrament is
defrocked, has been aphorised or anathematised; and that a Bishop
celebrating canonically is not acting by his own power, but in the name
of the Church, the only agent of the Grace of God. We wonder, whether
the restoration of Mr. Filaret to canonical order renders the
ordinations which he performed automatically valid.
2.The correlation and analogy of the Ukrainian question to the
Melitian Schism of the 4th century, which is extensively referred to in
Your Letter, has not answered our queries. On the contrary, its careful
study leads to different conclusions: According to the Treaty of
Metropolitan of Anchialos and later of Smyrni Vassilios of blessed
memory, which was sent to us, in the Annex “On the Schism of the
Melitians, more extensively” the following are recorded: “The case was
corrected through the acceptance of Melitios, on one hand, back only to
the bishop’s honor, without the right to celebrate the sacraments and,
on the other hand of those ordained by him, while defrocked, as bishops,
priests, and deacons, under the same condition and in the sameway as it
was ordered by the eighth canon on the acceptance of the Katharoi or
the Novatians, that is through a simple laying on of hands, with a
prayer confirming each to their respective hierarchical ranks”. The last
explanatory phrase was omitted in Your Letter.
Indeed, in relation to the process of the correction of the Schism,
Athanasios the Great clarified: “it was decided… that those who were
appointed by him to be restored to communion after being confirmed
through a μυστικωτέρᾳ χειροτονίᾳ βεβαιωθέντας mistikotera hierotonia
veveothendas (mystical, inaudible ordination), it should additionally be
stated that they could have the honor and even participate in the
sacraments, on the condition that they were strictly of second rank in
relation to everyone else in each community”(1). As mentioned,
Metropolitan Vassilios adopted the opinion that they were accepted in
communion, by a simple laying on of hands with a prayer. The learned
historian, Archbishop of Athens, blessed Chrysostomos Papadopoulos,
summarizes: “The Council considered also the matter of Melitios, Bishop
of Lycopolis (Can.4). Melitios was allowed to remain in Lycopolis,
maintaining the honor of Bishop, but with no right to administer the
Diocese of Lycopolis or to ordain. Alexandros of Alexandria demanded
from him (Melitios) a “brebion” (list) of the Bishops he had ordained,
which numbered 29. The Council, acting in philanthropy, recognized them
in their own rank through a new laying on of hands, “μυστικωτέρᾳ
χειροτονίᾳ βεβαιωθέντας”, on the condition that they remain second after
the canonical bishops, that they come under the Archbishop of
Alexandria, and that they do not participate in the process of election
of new Bishops. They could be elected to vacated Episcopal seats.
Melitios alone could not be elected”(2).
Consequently, the correction of the Melitians’ Schism and the
reception, by economy, of those invalidly ordained by Melitios went
though the following phases: a) repentance, b) laying on of hands by a
canonical Bishop – a minimum requirement for the seal of Apostolic
Succession, c) prayer and d) finally the achievement of peace. This is a
principle applied to all cases of re-induction of schismatics into the
Orthodox Church, which defines an interesting outlet to the existing
problem.
In as much as the case of Mr. Filaret is surprisingly similar to that
of Melitios, who returned only “with ψιλῇ (bare) episcopal honor”(3)
without any ecclesiastical power or authority, the tolerance displayed
to him remains inexplicable. Mr. Filaret was re-inducted into the
canonical Church (it is unknown whether he even asked for forgiveness)
and his previous in-substantial ecclesiastical acts were validated in
their totality only through a Synodical Act. He publicly boasts,
repeatedly, that “He was, is, and will remain the Patriarch of Kiev and
All Rus Ukraine” and continues to wear the particular Russian
Patriarchal Koukoulion, behaving as if he were a Patriarch. He remained
the chief orchestrator of the “Uniting Synod” that was convened to elect
the invalidly “ordained” by him Mr. Epiphanius, he is today a permanent
member of the Synod and he proclaims that he is the Prelate of all the
parishes of Kiev. These facts are evidently not unknown nor without
ecclesiastical importance.
In conclusion, it is beyond doubt that the Melitian Schism was not
healed by a decision of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, in the
jurisdiction of which Melitios belonged, but by a decision of the 1st
Ecumenical Council.
3.On the other hand,the case of the Ukrainian question has no analogy
to the case of ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia). The
latter refers to the severance of the Russians in Diaspora from the
Church of Russia, which was then under Soviet supervision. No aphorisms
or anathemas existed and apostolic succession was not in doubt. When the
atheist regime collapsed, reunification occurred. It is worth noting
that the correction of the fracture was achieved through a special
church service and prayer of reintegration in the Cathedral of Christ
the Savior.
As for the Bulgarian Schism, no relation or analogy to the Ukrainian
question is identified. The latter is an internal rift of a local
Church, while the Bulgarian Schism referred to the long-term withdrawal
of an entire nation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate and all Orthodoxy.
Its correction started in the context of the Panorthodox Committee,
which was convened for the preparation of the Panorthodox pre-Council in
the Monastery of Vatopedion (June 1930). A basic condition, which was
laid down and finally observed, was the application for forgiveness by
the Church of Bulgaria. Finally, after lengthy and complicated
negotiations, the Schism was resolved in 1945, with the result of the
subsequent attainment of peace in the Panorthodox oikoumene.
4.We undoubtedly sympathize with the care of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, to grant a possibility for the faithful in Ukraine, who
are victims of a long internal division, to return to the bosom of the
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. However, it is obvious that
the sought-after peace has not been attained in as much as ninety
Bishops and over twelve thousand parishes are not in communion with the
Ecumenical Patriarchate. At the same time, the risk of a dissolution of
the Orthodox Church throughout the oikoumene is visible.
Regarding the particularly reproachful tone of this specific Letter
and the allegations that we were influenced by other Churches, we are
obliged to recall that for decades now, we have proven our brotherly
devotion through acts, particularly during the Synaxes of the Primates
and in the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in Crete,
acting always in coordination with the current initiatives of Your Most
Divine All-Holiness. At times, we articulated boldly our views, even
clashing with dear brethren of other Churches. This was always in
service of the cohesion and the proper witness of Orthodoxy. A recent
evidence of this un-influenced opinion and independent position is the
letters we sent directed to His Beatitude Patriarch of Moscow and All
Russia, Kirill (10 October and 7 November, 2018).
For the last three decades, we have continuously expressed and acted
with the deepest reverence and an upwelling of thankfulness to the
Ecumenical Throne, for the actions in favor of the Orthodox
Autocephalous Church of Albania. However, we are convinced that genuine
gratitude does not imply the abolishment of critical theological thought
and ecclesiastical experience, or a rejection of the freedom of
conscience. On the contrary, it means an increased obligation to
articulate assessments, always with lucidity and loving boldness.
The reciprocation of honor was given through deeds. We accepted a
mission of innumerable difficulties in Albania, leaving behind two
particularly beloved fields of diakonia: Africa and research in the
Science of Religions. The exceptionally demanding and uncertain mission,
which was entrusted to us by the Mother – the Great Church of Christ,
for the reconstruction from the ruins of the fully disintegrated
Autocephalous Church of Albania, was accomplished, by the grace of God,
in a sacrificial phronema, in deprivations, in illnesses, in dangers and
persecutions.
As to the Ukrainian question, the choice of false wisdom would be
safer, so as to avoid the sharp comments, the insulting personal,
unsubstantiable accusations by irresponsible persons. However, we
believe that the Primus of Orthodoxy loves and needs the encompassing
truth, especially at times of most crucial Panorthodox problems. Because
of this, we brought this up marking the historic correctness of events.
5.Our agony, Your All-Holiness, remains for the safeguarding of
Orthodox unity, which constitutes an irreplaceable pre-requisite for the
Orthodox witness throughout the world. Tremors are already apparent in
the Synods of Canonical Bishops of the Diaspora and in the
inter-Christian multi-party or bilateral dialogues.
It is the firm conviction of the Church of Albania, as well as of
many others, that at this historical moment, the healing of the painful
wounds and particularly of the looming Schism call for a Panorthodox
Consultation of some kind, aiming primarily at the spiritual support of
all the Orthodox faithful in the Ukraine and above all at the
safeguarding of Orthodox cohesion. And clearly we are ready to
contribute in a constructive way in this arduous crucial effort.
The different existing perceptionscannot be confronted through
extended monologues, statements, correspondence, the intervention of
irresponsible persons, deceptivecomments, or incoherent posts on social
media. Crises are overcome, according to the Orthodox Tradition, through
“Conciliarity”, which means the gathering together for mutual
consultation in prayer of the responsible representatives of the
localOrthodox Churches. Then, through the energy of the Grace of the
Holy Spirit, this Synod can, abiding in philanthropy, research original
solutions of clemency, forgiveness, and reconciliation and can make bold
decisions, commonly acceptable, aiming at the attainment of peace,
unity, and spiritual edification of the Orthodox faithful throughout the
Oikoumene. And the privilege of convening a Panorthodox Consultation
undoubtedly belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Through this entreaty
our reference to the Ukrainian question concludes.
However, in order to avoid any possible misinterpretation, we clarify
that in the case of a tragic outcome to Schism (May God not allow it!),
the Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania will remain with the
Ecumenical Patriarchate firmly speaking the truth in love.
Going through the moving period of Holy and Great Lent, we pray
wholeheartedly, that the Triune Godgrant unshakable health and
holy-spiritual strength to Your Most Divine All-Holiness, repeating the
beloved, to You and us, apostolic, doxological certitude: “Now to Him
who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think,
according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church
by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen” (Eph.
3:20-21).
In ending, kissing You in a holy kiss, we remain in all honor and
brotherly love in Christ “for whom are all things and by whom are all
things” (Heb. 2:10).
In Tirana, 21st March, 2019To Your Divine All-Holiness,
Least in the Lord Brother,
† Anastasios of Tirana,
