DR. DANIELA KALKANDJIEVA, ''Τhe Bulgarian Orthodox Church and Ukrainian Autocephaly'', in The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukraine Autocephaly, Evagelos Sotiropoulos, Editor, May 2019, ORDER OF SAINT ANDREW THE APOSTLE, ARCHONS OF THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE, pp. 60-65.
The fall of the Ottoman and the Russian empires brought about not only the establishment of newly independent states but also the rise of new, or independent, Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe. Between 1850 and 2000, eight of these Churches gained autocephaly that enabled them to appoint their First Hierarchs (i.e.,the local church primate) without seeking the approval of any external church authority. Although often compared with states overeignty, this ecclesiastical status contains an essential distinguishing feature–the duty of autocephalous Churches to keep the unity of the Church of God as the Body of Christ.Therefore, when an autocephalous Church faces problems or challenges that exceed the limits of its jurisdiction, it refers to the most holy Apostolic Throne of Constantinople for authoritative opinions and assistance.A reference to this custom can be found in the tomoi of autocephaly issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Between the mid-nineteenth and the mid-twentieth century, it granted this ecclesiastical status to sixOrthodox Churches, namely to those in Greece (1850), Serbia(1879), Romania (1885), Poland (1924), Albania (1937), and Bulgaria (1945). The fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate was also theirMother Church guaranteed their smooth integration in the familyof canonical autocephalous Orthodox churches. Quite different isthe case of the Orthodox Churches in Georgia and in the formerCzechoslovakia which were declared autocephalous by thePatriarchate of Moscow in 1943 and 1951, respectively. These acts,however, were not accomplished by their Mother Church but bythe so- called “Kyriarchal Church,” i.e., the ecclesiastical body under which jurisdiction Orthodox communities in both countrieswere at that moment.1.
Besides, they were undertaken in pursuanceof secular, and even (geo)political goals, rather than in tune withOrthodox tradition. Therefore, both autocephalies wereacknowledged as canonical mostly by the Orthodox Churches inthe Soviet zone of influence. In practice, they joined the family ofcanonical autocephalies upon their formal recognition by theEcumenical Throne of Constantinople. This happened in 1990 forthe Georgian autocephaly and in 1998 for that of the OrthodoxChurch of the Czech and Slovak Lands.On January 5, 2019, the Ecumenical Patriarchate grantedautocephaly to a new ecclesiastical body–the Orthodox Church inUkraine (OCU). Following the previously established pattern, itssmooth recognition by the other canonical autocephalousOrthodox Churches should not be a problem. This time, however,local Orthodox Churches to date have refused to formallyacknowledge the OCU and some have accused the EcumenicalPatriarchate of encroaching on the canonical territory of theRussian Orthodox Church. Other local Churches have abstainedfrom expressing their position on Ukrainian autocephaly, one ofwhich is the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.
Until the end of 2018, the Bulgarian Holy Synod recognizedthe Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate as theonly canonical representative of Eastern Orthodoxy in Ukraine andtreated as schismatic the two autocephalous churches establishedthere after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This position is welldocumented in the letter sent by Patriarch Neophyte of Bulgaria toPresident Poroshenko on December 15, 2015. In this document, theBulgarian Primate stressed the fraternal intercommunion of hisChurch with the autonomous branch of the Moscow Patriarchatein Ukraine and expressed worries about the attempts made attaking away the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra and Holy DormitionPochayiv Lavra from the canonical Church in favor of such a “totally unacknowledged by all local Orthodox churches” as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate. In this regard,
Patriarch Neophyte pointed out that such a development “might make it impossible for the Orthodox episcopate, clergy and faithful persons from foreign countries to visit” the aforesaid holy sites because the canonical Orthodox Churches do not maintainEucharistic and prayerful communion with schismatics.2
The creation of a new Orthodox Church in Ukraine(December 15, 2018) and the tomos of its autocephaly signed by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (January 5, 2019), however,confronted the Bulgarian Holy Synod with a dilemma. Under these circum stances, it is expected to follow the custom and to enter intocommunion with the newly born autocephalous Orthodox Churchin the same manner as the foreign Orthodox Churches did when the schism over the Bulgarian Exarchate had been abolished andgranted autocephalous status. Still, if some doubts have appeared, the 1945 tomos of Bulgarian autocephaly explains how to proceedin such cases. According to it, when the Bulgarian Church facesproblems that exceed its jurisdiction, its First Hierarch should referto the most holy Patriarchal and Ecumenical Throne ofConstantinople and
through it “to seek and accept its authoritative opinion and vision as well as that of the other Sister Churches.”3
After World War II, however, under the pressure of thecommunist regime established in Bulgaria, the local OrthodoxChurch often deviated from the rules set down and previouslyagreed upon in the tomos. In September 1948, the Politburo of theCentral Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party decided toelevate the local Orthodox Church into a patriarchate.4
According to the atheist rulers, this ecclesiastical rank would assist the fight of the Orthodox Churches from the “camp of democracy”
against Western Christianity. In parallel, the Bulgarian Holy Synod was forced to interrupt its relations with the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople. In this regard, the head of the Bulgarian Directorate of Religious Affairs insisted that the ecumenical title of the Patriarch of Constantinople had lost its meaning and that this Primate was merely in charge of a regular local Orthodox Church.The first step towards the distancing of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church from its Mother Church was made on April 6,1950, on Holy Thursday, when the Bulgarian episcopate prepared Holy Myron for the needs of its Orthodox Church instead of asking it from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This act violated theen gagement undertaken by the Bulgarian Church before the Mother Church of Constantinople during the autocephaly negotiations in February 1945. At that time, the Ecumenical Patriarch agreed not to include a Holy Myron clause in the tomos of autocephaly after receiving the written promise of Bulgarian delegates that their Church will continue to receive Holy Myron from the Throne of Constantinople until its elevation into a patriarchal rank.The next step was made on January 3, 1951, when the Holy Synod adopted a new Church Statute, defining the BulgarianOrthodox Church as a patriarchate. Two years later, a localecclesiastical council was convoked for the election of a Patriarch of Bulgaria, thus officially demonstrating the patriarchal dignity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Instead of conferring with the Mother Church of Constantinople, this act was done in consultation with the Russian Orthodox Church and was correspondingly recognized by all Orthodox Churches in theSoviet sphere of influence.5
The spiritual leaders of Orthodox Churches outside the IronCurtain, however, refused to accept this rank of the BulgarianChurch. Especially strong was the reaction of PatriarchAthenagoras of Constantinople who wrote:“… it was not expected that the Orthodox Bulgarian Church, recently declared independent and autocephalous,introducing again in the Church innovation and deviating from the existing canonical and ecclesiastical order toarbitrary ascribe to itself patriarchal dignity and honor while keeping in complete ignorance our Holy Ecumenical Throne and the other Holy Patriarchal Thrones and Autocephalous Churches, and contrary to the promises and assurances given by it to the blessing Mother Church through its delegates and during the settling of thea bolishment of the schism [of 1872]. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church had, in accordance with the ecclesiastical order established in ancient times, to attest in advance its maturity in church life and ability by unswerving constancy and devotion to the canonical order, established for it and in general, as well as by presenting considerable flourishingin Christ and particular church activity in normal conditions ,and only then to ask through us for its elevation topatriarchal dignity from the host of the honorable presiding hierarchs of the Holy Orthodox Churches”.6
As a result, the relations of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the Bulgarian Church were frozen. They were restored during Khrushchev’s détente, which allowed Patriarch Alexii I of Moscow to negotiate the recognition of the patriarchal dignity of theBulgarian Church by Patriarch Athenagoras in 1961. After the fall of communism, the Mother Church of Constantinople gave again ahand of help to its Bulgarian Daughter Church, this time to heal the schism of 1992 and to preserve its unity. From this perspective,the position which the present Bulgarian hierarchs will take on the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine will demonstrate their freedom from the burden of communism and their ability to follow the Orthodox ecclesiastical tradition and canons as well as to keep the engagements taken with the tomos of its own autocephaly of 1945.
1.See “Kiriarkhal’naya tserkov’” [Kyriarchal church], in Pravoslavnayaentsiklopediya
[Orthodox encyclopedia], under the editorship of Patriarch Kirillof Moscow, http://www.pravenc.ru/text/1840229.html.
2. “The Bulgarian Orthodox Church-Bulgarian Patriarchate intercedes
withPresident Poroshenko in defense of the shrines of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church”,
[website] Bulgarian Orthodox Church– Bulgarian Patriarchate, 15December
2015, available in Bulgarian at:http://bg- patriarshia.bg/news.php?id=191124
3.Tomos for the Abolishment of the Schism over the Bulgarian Orthodox
Churchand for the Bestowal of Its Ecclesiastical Status of Autocephaly, 22
February1945.
4.This
account of the Cold War history of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is based on
Daniela Kalkandjieva’s monograph Balgarskata tsarkva i darzhavata,1944-1953 [The
Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the State] (Sofia: Albatros,1997). Some of the
commented developments are also discussed in English inKalkandjieva,“The
Bulgarian Orthodox Church”, in Lucean N. Leustean (ed.), Eastern Christianity
and the Cold War, 1945-91 (London: Routledge, 2010), pp.76-95.
5. A short account of the Cold War history of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
is presented in Daniela Kalkandjieva,“ The Bulgarian Orthodox Church”in Lucean
N. Leustean (ed.),Eastern Christianity and the Cold War, 1945-91 (London:Routledge,
2010), pp. 76-95.
6. Cited in Kalkandjieva, Balgarskata
tsarkva i darzhavata, pp. 329-330