Proposal for Dealing with the Ukrainian Issue
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and St Vlassios
Translation of the Greek text: «Πρόταση γιά τήν ἀντιμετώπιση τοῦ Οὐκρανικοῦ ζητήματος»
Article in pdf
The
Ukrainian issue has preoccupied the Orthodox Church in recent times,
from 1990 until today, a period of about thirty years. When the
Ukrainians formed a state, they too wanted to acquire an autocephalous
Church and Patriarchate. The Church of Russia did not give its consent,
but only granted increased autonomy. For this reason it also punished
those who proclaimed the Ukrainian Church to be an Autocephalous
Patriarchate by deposing them. From that time onwards in Ukraine there
was a Church that comes under the Church of Russia and another two
groups that were schismatic.
I have
written twenty articles on this subject. The first was written in 2008,
the second in 2014, and the others in the two years 2018 and 2019. In
these articles my main concern was the deeper cause of the issue, from
which various other issues have arisen from time to time.
In the
articles I have written I have tried to accentuate six serious topics.
Firstly, the regime of the Church is synodical, but also hierarchical.
Synodality cannot be emphasised on its own, without the hierarchical
system, because this is a Protestant way of thinking. Secondly, the
Autocephalous Church cannot function independently of all the other
Churches, as ‘autocephalism’; rather, it is self-administering, but not
completely independent. Thirdly, Apostolic Succession is inseparably
linked with the Apostolic life and tradition within the mystery of
Pentecost. Fourthly, the Church resolves the issues that arise with
strictness and economy, and economy is used subject to certain
conditions and essential prerequisites. Fifthly, from time to time
various ecclesiastical illnesses appear, which I would describe as
dysfunctions of the synodical and hierarchal regime of the Church, such
as the theory of “the Third Rome”, which aim to overturn the decisions
of the Ecumenical Councils. Sixthly, the document for granting the Tomos
of autocephaly to a Church had been agreed at the Pan-Orthodox
conferences, but there was a disagreement, for which the Church of
Moscow is responsible, about who would sign this Tomos.
It is
mainly these six points that concerned me in the articles that I wrote
as a Hierarch of a Local Church, but also as a Hierarch of the Church as
a whole.
I note
that some people are concerned with specific issues, which they make
into absolutes. In particular, they persist in analysing actions that
took place in the past, such as, for example, the granting of the Tomos
of Autocephaly by the Ecumenical Patriarch to Ukraine, without seeing
the causes of the disease that I referred to earlier, and without
looking at the present and the future.
The
Standing Holy Synod, at its meeting on 28 August 2019, after hearing the
report of the two Synodal Committees, namely, the Committee for
Dogmatic and Canonical Matters and the Committee for Inter-Orthodox and
Inter-Christian Relations, took the decision that “it recognises the
canonical right of the Ecumenical Patriarch to grant Autocephaly, as
well as the privilege of the Primate of the Church of Greece to deal
further with the issue of recognising the Church of Ukraine.”
I am waiting for this report to be published in full, together with the rationale on which the decision is based.
It seems,
from statements and articles, that the Archbishop will inform the
Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, which will hold its regular meeting
this coming October.
Independently
of how the issue will develop further in the Hierarchy, this matter
remains basically remains open to a solution. That is to say, canonical,
ecclesiological and theological arguments are expressed on all sides,
but at some point a serious solution must be sought, so that the
Orthodox Church can regain its unity that has been shaken.
By means
of the present article, I shall submit a specific proposal for dealing
with the Ukrainian issue. I do so with great respect towards the
Primates of the Orthodox Churches, especially Patriarch Bartholomew. My
desire is to help, and not to surpass them. In any case, I know that all
issues are resolved within the synodical and hierarchical regime of the
Church.
I am very
well aware that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has great experience in
dealing with ecclesiastical problems. For example, it dealt with the
schism that existed in Greece for seventeen years (1833-1850) as a
result of the unilateral declaration of Autocephaly, and it resolved it
with wisdom and discernment. We see the same with regard to other local
Churches.
I have
absolute respect for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and what I shall now
respectfully submit belongs within the context of the sayings: “Give the
opportunity to a wise man, and he will be wiser” (Prov. 9:9) and “For a
wise man who hears these things will be wiser, and the man of
understanding will gain direction” (Prov. 1:5).
It goes
without saying that I shall greatly rejoice if a better way of solving
this problem is found, because no one is infallible, since infallibility
belongs to the Church that operates within the mystery of Pentecost,
with Hierarchs who confer synodically and hierarchically.
Before I
set out the proposal, I shall refer to the state prevailing in the
Church during the fourth century, and to how St Basil the Great, that
great Father of the Church, described it and dealt with it.
1. Disturbance of the Unity of the Church
The period
between the First Ecumenical Council (325) and the Second (381) was a
troubled one. Many bishops and theologians appeared who attempted to
theologise about the divinity of the Word and the divinity of the Holy
Spirit, with the result that the local Churches were disturbed.
St Basil
the Great lived through this time, and as a good and vigilant leader he
tried to deal with the situation. There is a wonderful piece of writing
in which he dramatises the situation prevailing in the Churches. At that
time about thirty Synods were convened.
I shall
cite this amazing text. The translation is that made by Blomfield
Jackson at the end of the nineteenth century, with a few slight
revisions. I think that the description reveals similar circumstances
prevailing today. The passage will be divided into more paragraphs than
in the original to make it easier to read.
St Basil the Great: Account of the Present State of the Churches
( St Basil the Great, On the Holy
Spirit, ch. 30, para. 76-79 in Letters and Select Works, in A Select
Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, ed. Philip Schaff
& Henry Wace, Vol. 8, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, reprinted Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, Michigan 1996, pp. 48-50 )
“To what
then shall I liken our present condition? It may be compared, I think,
to some naval battle which has arisen out of time old quarrels, and is
fought by men who cherish a deadly hate against one another, of long
experience in naval warfare, and eager for the fight. Look, I beg you,
at the picture thus raised before your eyes. See the rival fleets
rushing in dread array to the attack. With a burst of uncontrollable
fury they engage and fight it out. Fancy, if you like, the ships driven
to and fro by a raging tempest, while thick darkness falls from the
clouds and blackens all the scenes so that ensigns are indistinguishable
in the confusion, and all distinction between friend and foe is lost.
To fill up
the details of the imaginary picture, suppose the sea swollen with
billows and whirled up from the deep, while a vehement torrent of rain
pours down from the clouds and the terrible waves rise high.
[Suppose]
from every quarter of heaven the winds beat upon one point, where both
the fleets are dashed one against the other. Of the combatants some are
turning traitors; some are deserting in the very thick of the fight;
some have at one and the same moment to urge on their boats, all beaten
by the gale, and to advance against their assailants. Jealousy of
authority and the lust of individual mastery splits the sailors into
parties which deal mutual death to one another.
Think,
besides all this, of the confused and unmeaning roar sounding over all
the sea, from howling winds, from crashing vessels, from boiling surf,
from the yells of the combatants as they express their varying emotions
in every kind of noise, so that not a word from admiral or pilot can be
heard. The disorder and confusion is tremendous, for the extremity of
misfortune, when life is despaired of, gives men licence for every kind
of wickedness.
Suppose,
too, that the men are all smitten with the incurable plague of mad love
of glory, so that they do not cease from their struggle each to get the
better of the other, while their ship is actually sinking down into the
deep.
Turn now, I
beg you, from this figurative description to the unhappy reality. Did
it not at one time appear that the Arian schism, after its separation
into a sect opposed to the Church of God, stood itself alone in hostile
array? But when the attitude of our foes against us was changed from one
of long standing and bitter strife to one of open warfare, then, as is
well known, the war was split up in more ways than I can tell into many
subdivisions, so that all men were stirred to a state of inveterate
hatred alike by common hostility and individual suspicion.
But what
storm at sea was ever so fierce and wild as this tempest of the
Churches? In it every landmark of the Fathers has been moved; every
foundation, every bulwark of dogma has been shaken: everything resting
on an unsound basis is dashed about and shaken down. We attack one
another. We are overthrown by one another. If our enemy is not the first
to strike us, we are wounded by the comrade at our side. If a foeman is
stricken and falls, his fellow soldier tramples him down. There is at
least this bond of union between us that we hate our common foes, but no
sooner have the enemy gone by than we find enemies in one another.
And who
could make a complete list of all the wrecks? Some have gone to the
bottom on the attack of the enemy, some through the unsuspected
treachery of their allies, some from the inexperience of their own
officers. We see, as it were, whole churches, crews and all, dashed and
shattered upon the sunken reefs of disingenuous heresy, while others of
the enemies of the saving Passion have seized the helm and made
shipwreck of the faith. And then the disturbances wrought by the princes
of this world have caused the downfall of the people with a violence
unmatched by that of hurricane or whirlwind.
The
luminaries of the world, which God set to give light to the souls of the
people, have been driven from their homes, and a darkness verily gloomy
and disheartening has settled on the Churches. The terror of universal
ruin is already imminent, and yet their mutual rivalry is so unbounded
as to blunt all sense of danger. Individual hatred is of more importance
than the general and common warfare, for men by whom the immediate
gratification of ambition is esteemed more highly than the rewards that
await us in a time to come, prefer the glory of getting the better of
their opponents to securing the common welfare of mankind. So all men
alike, each as best he can, lift the hand of murder against one another.
Harsh rises the cry of the combatants encountering one another in
dispute; already all the Church is almost full of the inarticulate
screams, the unintelligible noises, rising from the ceaseless agitations
that divert the right rule of the doctrine of true religion, now in the
direction of excess, now in that of defect.
On the one
hand are they who confound the Persons and are carried away into
Judaism; on the other hand are they that, through the opposition of the
natures, pass into heathenism. Between these opposite parties inspired
Scripture is powerless to mediate; the traditions of the apostles cannot
suggest terms of arbitration.
Plain
speaking is fatal to friendship, and disagreement in opinion is all the
ground that is wanted for a quarrel. No oaths of confederacy are so
efficacious in keeping men true to sedition as their likeness in error.
Every one
is a theologian though he have his soul branded with more spots than can
be counted. The result is that innovators find a plentiful supply of
men ripe for faction, while the self-ordained and place-hunters reject
the government of the Holy Spirit and divide the chief dignities of the
Churches. The institutions of the Gospel have now everywhere been thrown
into confusion by want of discipline; there is an indescribable pushing
for the chief places while every self-advertiser tries to force himself
into high office. The result of this lust for power is that our people
are in a state of anarchy; the exhortations of those in authority are
rendered wholly purposeless and void, because there is not a man but,
out of his ignorant impudence, thinks that it is just as much his duty
to give orders to other people, as it is to obey any one else.
So, since
no human voice is strong enough to be heard in such a disturbance, I
reckon silence more profitable than speech, for if there is any truth in
the words of the Preacher, ‘The words of wise men are heard in quiet,’
in the present condition of things any discussion of them must be
anything but becoming.
I am
moreover restrained by the Prophet’s saying, ‘Therefore the prudent
shall keep silence in that time, for it is an evil time,’ a time when
some trip up their neighbours’ heels, some stamp on a man when he is
down, and others clap their hands with joy, but there is not one to feel
for the fallen and hold out a helping hand, although according to the
ancient law he is not uncondemned, who passes by even his enemy’s beast
of burden fallen under his load. This is not the state of things now.
Why not? The love of many has waxed cold; brotherly concord is
destroyed, the very name of unity is ignored, brotherly admonitions are
heard no more, nowhere is there Christian pity, nowhere falls the tear
of sympathy. Now there is no one to receive ‘the weak in faith,’ but
mutual hatred has blazed so high among fellow citizens that they are
more delighted at a neighbour’s fall than at their own success. Just as
in a plague, men of the most regular lives suffer from the same sickness
as the rest, because they catch the disease by communication with the
infected, so nowadays by the evil rivalry which possesses our souls we
are carried away to an emulation in wickedness, and are all of us each
as bad as the others.
Hence
merciless and sour sit the judges of the erring; unfeeling and hostile
are the critics of the well disposed. And to such a depth is this evil
rooted among us that we have become more brutish than the brutes; they
do at least herd with their fellows, but our most savage warfare is with
our own people.
For all
these reasons I ought to have kept silence, but I was drawn in the other
direction by love, which ‘seeketh not her own’, and desires to overcome
every difficulty put in her way by time and circumstance. I was taught
too by the children at Babylon, that, when there is no one to support
the cause of true religion, we ought alone and all unaided to do our
duty. They from out of the midst of the flame lifted up their voices in
hymns and praise to God, regardless of the host that set the truth at
naught, but sufficient, three only that they were, with one another.
Wherefore
we too are undismayed at the cloud of our enemies, and, resting our hope
on the aid of the Spirit, have, with all boldness, proclaimed the
truth. Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the
blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack
upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter
at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by
the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence
of memory to our own day. A further powerful incentive to my undertaking
was the warm fervour of your ‘love unfeigned’, and the seriousness and
taciturnity of your disposition; a guarantee that you would not publish
what I was about to say to all the world, not because it would not be
worth making known, but to avoid casting pearls before swine.
My task is
now done. If you find what I have said satisfactory, let this make an
end to our discussion of these matters. If you think any point requires
further elucidation, pray do not hesitate to pursue the investigation
with all diligence, and to add to your information by putting any
uncontroversial question. Either through me or through others the Lord
will grant full explanation on matters which have yet to be made clear,
according to the knowledge supplied to the worthy by the Holy Spirit.”
Summary and Comment
This
remarkable text, cited above in translation, describes the state
prevailing in the Church in the fourth century. It is vividly presented
by St Basil the Great and shows the way in which this great Hierarch of
Caesarea in Cappadocia and Universal Teacher dealt with the situation. A
few points will be highlighted.
1. This
text describes accurately and in detail what happens in a sea battle.
The whole image is explosive, with the clash between the ships, the
strength of the fighters, the stormy sea, the darkness of the night, the
powerful winds, the mutual destruction of the combatants, the noise
caused by the ships, the human cries, the prevailing confusion, the
sinking of the ships, but also the conflict among people for first
place, even in this terrible situation.
2. All
these characteristic features of the sea battle resemble the state
prevailing in the Churches on account of the Arian heresy, but also the
heresy of the Pneumatomachians. There is turmoil in the Churches, which
resembles a rough sea, as the boundaries and foundations set by the
Fathers of the Church are shifted. There is a conflict between the
bishops and Christians. The Christians are sunk by their enemies, but
also by the inexperience of their leaders. Churches, which resemble
ships, are sunk, because they collided with the sunken reefs of
heretics. But those who took on the leadership of the Churches were also
shipwrecked in the faith. There is a hostile atmosphere from the
rulers, spiritual darkness everywhere, and rivalry among Christians.
People are killing one another. The dogmas of the Church are distorted.
Those who are full of blemishes make their name as theologians, and,
although they are self-ordained, they have taken on the administration
of the Church. Lust for power dominates.
3. Since
St Basil the Great saw this entire situation prevailing in the Church,
he confesses that he would prefer not to speak, because no one would
listen to him. He would prefer to keep silent. The times are evil. There
is no compassion: some aim to bring about their rivals’ downfall;
others jump for joy over the fallen; people applaud one another’s falls.
Love has taken flight. There is no sympathy. Hatred has been kindled, and people rejoice over the misfortunes of others. The same happens as in epidemics: everyone has caught the disease. There are harsh judges and unfeeling critics.
Love has taken flight. There is no sympathy. Hatred has been kindled, and people rejoice over the misfortunes of others. The same happens as in epidemics: everyone has caught the disease. There are harsh judges and unfeeling critics.
4.
Although St Basil the Great would have preferred to keep silent in these
circumstances, love conquered him, and he wrote this text to his friend
Amphilochius of Iconium, who had asked him about the matter.
He was
also urged on to write by the Three Youths in Babylon, who were cast
into the furnace because they considered that one should do one’s duty,
even in the absence of any other ally in godliness. The Three Youths
extolled God in the flames of the furnace, and it was sufficient that
they supported one another.
St Basil
the Great says that, like the Three Youths in the fiery furnace, he too
is not afraid of the multitude of opponents, but has boldly proclaimed
the truth. He has placed his hope in God’s help, and has presented the
teaching that he inherited from the Fathers.
At the end
he says to the recipient of this letter, St Amphilochius of Iconium,
that, if what he has written is sufficient, that is good. But if it
seems inadequate, he does not mind if he works diligently to investigate
the matter fully. He prays that the Lord may help him, either through
himself or through others to complete any inadequacies by the knowledge
granted by the Holy Spirit to those who are worthy of these gifts.
These
words of St Basil the Great express my own views absolutely. Today, too,
a similar situation predominates in the Church. It resembles a sea
battle and a war, or even an epidemic. We see this in the situation that
exists in all the Churches, particularly in Ukraine. In these
circumstances, sometimes one keeps silent, because one feels that one
will not be heard, and sometimes out of love one dares to speak from
inside the burning fiery furnace.
Finally,
even when we write something, we ought to be aware that it is
inadequate. In setting out this inadequate knowledge, we leave it to God
to bring it to completion through someone else, who will be illuminated
by the Holy Spirit.
We do our
duty and we entrust it to the Church to judge it, to reject it or to
make use of it. It is in this spirit that I dare to write what follows,
and it is in this spirit that it should be read. Here too the words of
the poet Nikos Karouzos apply: “Don’t read me if you are right”, if you
are convinced of the correctness and infallibility of your point of
view.
2. The Current State of the Church Prompted by the Ukrainian Issue
I shall
refer to the existing facts concerning the current Ukrainian issue, and
the manner in which the matter could be resolved.
a) The Existing Facts
With the passage of time we have arrived at the following complicated points.
Firstly.
Through Pan-Orthodox conferences an agreement was reached on the text
about granting autocephaly to a Church. A disagreement arose about who
should sign the Tomos of autocephaly, so no decision was taken.
After
that, the Ecumenical Patriarch granted autocephaly to the Orthodox
Church of Ukraine, as he had done to other local Churches, according to
so-called customary law. This Autocephalous Church was made up of the
schismatic group of Philaret, who had been deposed, and the schismatic
group of Macarius. Doubt is cast on the priesthood and apostolic
succession of this latter group.
In my
view, the Ecumenical Patriarchate granted autocephaly once it had
evaluated the situation existing in Ukraine, and particularly once it
had fully understood the tactics of the Patriarchate of Moscow to the
detriment of the Ecumenical Throne. I believe that the Ecumenical
Patriarchate will not revoke it.
Secondly.
The Patriarchate of Moscow did not accept this decision of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant autocephaly in Ukraine. It is opposed
to the intervention of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine. In view
of the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant autocephaly, it
actually ceased commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in
the Diptychs, and also advised Russians and Ukrainians not to have
ecclesiastical communion with Churches that commemorate the Ecumenical
Patriarchate.
In my
opinion, it seems so far that the Church of Moscow for various reasons
will not give way and will not accept the accomplished facts in Ukraine.
I consider that, even if some Orthodox Churches recognise the
autocephaly of Ukraine, the problem will remain, insofar as the Church
of Moscow will not accept it.
Thirdly.
The other Autocephalous Orthodox Churches find themselves, for various
reasons, in a state of waiting, or else they support Moscow. They are
hesitant to recognise Epiphanius as the Primate of the Orthodox Church
of Ukraine. I do not know what they will decide in the near future. In
any case, at the enthronement of Epiphanius no representatives were
present from the other Autocephalous Churches except for the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, and congratulations were not sent to him on becoming
Primate of the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine.
Fourthly.
The ecclesiastical situation in Ukraine continues to be irregular.
There is Archbishop Epiphanius as the Primate of the Orthodox
Autocephalous Church of Ukraine; Metropolitan Onuphrius, who comes under
the Church of Russia; and the so-called ‘Honorary Patriarch Philaret’,
who withdrew from his original agreement and did not accept the Tomos
granting autocephaly, because he does not agree with the abolition of
the ‘Patriarchate’ that he had proclaimed. There will probably be other
developments as well. The events are like shifting sands.
Fifthly.
There are other local Churches belonging to other Patriarchates which
have from time to time expressed their desire to acquire autocephaly,
since they belong to particular state entities, on the basis of Canon 34
of the Apostles, Canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and Canon
38 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Patriarch, in accordance with St Photius
the Great’s statement that ecclesiastical boundaries change together
with civil boundaries. There may perhaps be other Churches as well that
have not said anything so far, but will ask for autocephaly. Names of
particular Churches have been published, which I do not wish to mention
here, to avoid creating an additional problem.
To be
sure, so-called autocephaly in the first millennium functioned
differently from how it functions in the second millennium based on the
principle of Feudalism, the Reformation, and the principle of
nationalism that appeared in the twelfth century and was developed
through the Enlightenment and the French Revolution of the eighteenth
century, as Professor Gregory Papathomas has analysed.
This means
that a decision must be taken on how autocephaly is granted, within the
framework of the synodical and hierarchical regime of the Orthodox
Church, so as to prevent the creation of continual tensions and schisms
in the Orthodox Church prompted by this issue.
As, by
economy and for the time being, a decision was taken for the diaspora –
what is called the “heresy of overlapping jurisdictions” – with the
Episcopal Assemblies, so a decision should be taken on the subject of
granting autocephaly to a Church.
It is well
known that an attempt was made to solve this serious problem.
Unfortunately, however, it stopped at the point concerning who would
sign the Tomos granting autocephaly. In other words, the privileges of
the First-Throne Church of Constantinople, New Rome, were undermined.
This is
the aim at present: that the discussion about granting autocephaly
should be re-opened – a Pan-Orthodox decision already exists on the
content of the text – not only with regard to the Church of Ukraine, but
also with regard to other ecclesiastical provinces of other
Patriarchates, to prevent new tensions and new schisms arising. It is
obvious that this should be resolved by a Pan-Orthodox Council or a
Meeting of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches.
All these
factors complicate the problem, and, to avoid this schismatic situation
becoming permanent, because, as the Greeks say, “long-lasting problems
are hard to cure”, a solution must be found.
b) Some Informal Actions
As this is
how things stand, the question that arises is how this serious
ecclesiastical issue, which causes problems in the relations between all
the Orthodox Churches, will be solved.
Until now I
have not heard any serious proposals for solving the issue. The only
serious proposal that has been heard is that a Pan-Orthodox Council
should be convened to deal with this issue and to take final decisions.
Some other proposals that have been made cannot even be discussed,
because they are impossible to implement.
The
problem is, however, that, in order to decide to call a Pan-Orthodox
Council, there has to be serious preparation and a proposal on which the
majority of Orthodox Churches agree, and which, of course, the
Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Moscow accept. A Pan-Orthodox
Council or a Meeting of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches cannot be
convened unless the Ecumenical Patriarch convenes it, and unless the
issue is ripe for a solution. Certainly, if there is no convergence of
opinions beforehand on a specific proposal that the local Churches will
accept, particularly the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of
Moscow, there is no reason for a Pan-Orthodox Council to take place.
This means
that some influential figures in the Church should draft a proposal
that it would be possible for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of
Moscow and the Church of Ukraine to accept. There must, of course, also
be discussion with the political leadership in Ukraine. Because, if I
judge the situation in relation to the granting of autocephaly to the
Church of Greece and the granting of the ‘New Lands’ to the Church of
Greece, there was a decision and acceptance by three parties: the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Greece and the Greek state.
Unless
this sort of serious preparatory work takes place, with persistent
action, sobriety, discretion and prayer, it impossible for the
Pan-Orthodox Council to meet, because in that case it would meet in
order to ratify the disagreement, and it would, of course, fail to take a
specific decision. Thus the existing split between the Orthodox
Churches would become even more evident.
c) A Proposal to be Developed
So, which proposal could be seriously developed?
I shall attempt to specify a proposal, which may perhaps have shortcomings, and will need to be improved.
First.
There should be a meeting, albeit informal in the beginning, of the
representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of
Moscow, to decide that the dialogue should continue about completing the
discussion on how autocephaly is granted to a Church, and to draw up a
preliminary plan for solving the problem of Ukraine, in accordance with
the points that will be set out below.
Secondly.
The decision of the Patriarchate of Moscow to suspend ecclesiastical
communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch and not to commemorate him in
the Diptychs, particularly as a form of pressure to prevent autocephaly
being granted in Ukraine, and subsequently to urge its faithful not to
take part in Liturgies and services in which the Ecumenical Patriarch is
commemorated does not constitute a responsible ecclesiastical action.
The
sacrament of the Divine Eucharist, which is a sacrament of unity, and
the sacrament of Confession, cannot be used to exert pressure on other
Churches, particularly on matters of secondary importance.
It is
customary, in episcopal concelebrations of bishops from all the Orthodox
Churches, for bishops to refrain from participating in the Divine
Liturgy, because representatives from other Churches with which they are
not in communion are taking part. It is, therefore, unacceptable that
they should at the same time participate in official banquets and
dinners, praying and feasting together.
For this
reason, in order for an attempt to solve this issue to commence, the
Church of Moscow should revoke its decision, and, as a sign of good
will, the Patriarch of Moscow should begin to commemorate the Ecumenical
Patriarch in the Diptychs.
In any case, the possibility of dialogue between the two Churches must be ensured, because otherwise, while they are in isolation, this issue will never be solved.
In any case, the possibility of dialogue between the two Churches must be ensured, because otherwise, while they are in isolation, this issue will never be solved.
Thirdly.
Discussion between the representatives of the Orthodox Churches should
be based on agreeing and ratifying the two texts that had been prepared
for submission to the Council held in Crete in June 2016, but in the end
there was no agreement that they should be discussed and signed at that
Council.
These two
texts concern Autocephaly and the Diptychs, both of which are canonical
subjects. If the Church of Moscow had not had a different opinion with
regard to how the Tomos granting autocephaly should be signed, and if
these texts had been submitted to the Council of Crete for decision, we
would not have these problems with Ukraine today.
Consequently,
the discussion between representatives of the Orthodox Churches, which
was interrupted, about how the Tomos granting autocephaly should be
signed, should begin, so that the debate on this subject can be
completed. In this perspective, it will be decided how autocephaly will
be granted to a Church from now on, as has been laid down in the
existing text, without overlooking the canonical and traditional
privileges of the Ecumenical Throne.
Fourthly.
When a Preparatory Commission, made up of representatives of all the
Churches, has prepared these two texts on Autocephaly and the Diptychs, a
Council of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches and those accompanying
them should then be convened, which would ratify them.
This
Pan-Orthodox Council ought to state that today there are fourteen
Churches; to ratify the patriarchal dignity and honour of some more
recent Patriarchates, so that an outstanding situation can also be
resolved; to ratify the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant
autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine, so that there will be fifteen
Churches; and to deal with specific issues that have arisen.
Fifthly.
It should be agreed in advance how the ecclesiastical regime in Ukraine
in all its dimensions will be resolved and take effect. It ought perhaps
to be solved with ecclesiastical economy “for a time”.
One solution is for a way to be found for all the ecclesiastical jurisdictions that exist in Ukraine to come under this Autocephalous Church.
One solution is for a way to be found for all the ecclesiastical jurisdictions that exist in Ukraine to come under this Autocephalous Church.
By
economy, and perhaps for a time, approximately what happens in the
Church of Greece could apply, where the bishops of the Autocephalous
Church of Greece and the bishops of the Ecumenical Throne in Greece,
those of the ‘New Lands’, meet and make joint decisions.
If, for
various reasons, this cannot apply in Ukraine, then the system of
Episcopal Assemblies that prevails in the Diaspora, the canonical
functioning of which was approved by vote at the Council of Crete in
2016, could operate. The Rules of Operation exist already, and could be
adapted as appropriate for the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine.
Within
this framework, either with the form of administration of the Church of
Greece, or operating in the manner of the Episcopal Assemblies, a Synod
could function, which would be made up of all the ecclesiastical
jurisdictions, and which would have an Archbishop. And if this cannot
happen, then the existing regime in Greece could operate, with the
Autocephalous Church and the New Lands; the semi-autonomous Church of
Crete; and the Metropolises in the Dodecanese.
The
Metropolitans of the various ecclesiastical jurisdictions would
commemorate the Church to which they report, either the Patriarch of
Constantinople or the Patriarch of Moscow, and would also include their
Synods: “First of all, remember, O Lord, our Archbishop and Patriarch
[Bartholomew or Kyrill] and our Holy Synod, who rightly expound the word
of Your truth.”
The
Standing Holy Synod, which would consist of twelve bishops, with the
President of the Holy Synod as thirteenth, would include equal numbers
of members from the existing ecclesiastical jurisdictions. All the
Hierarchs of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine would take
part in the Hierarchy.
The first
time the bishops meet they would could either to elect a Primate of the
Orthodox Church in Ukraine, or decide who it was to be.
Sixthly.
I think that influential ecclesiastical and political figures in
Ukraine should work in this direction. I mention political figures as
well, because even in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the
decisions were always imposed by law by the Emperors. If a Council takes
decisions on its own, they cannot be put into practice unless the
political authorities intervene to ratify them with laws. It was for
this reason that the Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Emperors,
and their decisions were read out in the palace on the final day, where
the decision was made that they should apply by law. A characteristic
example is the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, which was called the
Council ‘in Trullo’, precisely because it took place in the great hall
of the palace which had a dome (troulos).
What I
have referred to is, in my opinion, a realistic assessment in principle
of the situation, and it is a proposal according to economy “for a
time”, or rather, an outline in principle that can be further improved
or else rejected.
To be
sure, any better proposal ought also to be put forward and studied,
particularly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which has great experience
over time in dealing with serious ecclesiastical problems, in order to
lead to the resolution of the issue, not only in Ukraine, but above all
in the relations between the Orthodox Churches, which are at their worst
at present, and are rather reminiscent of the description of the
situation in St Basil the Great’s time, which was mentioned earlier in
this article.
I too
could keep silent in order to please everyone, but out of love for the
Church, and for no other reason, I have concerned myself with this
subject and recorded my thoughts in writing, according to the principle
“Give the opportunity to a wise man, and he will be wiser” (Prov. 9:9).
I think
that, on this subject too Christ’s Beatitude applies: “Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matt. 5:9).
http://parembasis.gr
September 2019
September 2019