.png "English"){kind=small}
Eric Lozano
His beatitude, Anastasios, Arcbishop of Tirana, Durres, and Albania, recently responded to a criticism concerning his Christmas appeal in which he attempted to call for a solution to the "crisis" in Ukraine. The Archbishop's response is not very long, and the heart of his defense letter is the following section, "In all the previous cases of granting Autocephaly– and naturally to the Church of Albania– Autocephaly was granted to the canonical Metropolises of each country and not to small sections of them composed of imperfectly restored schismatics."
It is here where the Archbishop proves he has not in fact responded to the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and therefore one must question his preparation for what he is calling for. The Archbishop fails to address the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate anchored her actions in her revocation of the letter of Patriarch Dyonisius (1686). The Patriarchate had every right to do that, since Moscow never respected the conditions laid out by the Ecumenical Patriarch for Moscow to ordain the metropolitan of Kiev, and since the political situation that led to Moscow's forced takeover of Kiev (which is the background of Patriarch Dyonisius's letter) has been completely reversed. Therefore, there was never shared jurisdiction or a transfer of jurisdiction to the Moscow Patriarchate. There was only acceptance based on temporal economia (as the letter as well as the Tomos of autocephaly to the Church of Poland testifies).
Archbishop Anastasios further borrows Moscow's language and arguments in saying the EP granted autocephaly "to small sections," of "schismatics." In this he again fails to address the real actions and key features of the actions of the EP. The Archbishop does not give an account for the fact that the EP, upon revoking the letter of Patriarch Dyonisius and retaking Kiev, then invited all Orthodox bishops of Ukraine (including Onuphry) to attend the Council in which the current Metropolitan of Kiev was elected. That only those outside the Moscow Patriarchate (with the exception of two) took advantage of the situation is not the problem and responsibility of the EP. It is the responsibility and problem of those who refused to attend the Council (similar to when that same jurisdiction boycotted the Council in Crete three years ago, which Council was supposed to address the topic of autocephaly).
Therefore, having mentioned but two examples (many others can be brought up), the Archbishop has not in fact yet offered a real and impartial response to the situation and its ecclesiological underpinnings, and thus has no right to be addressing the whole of Orthodoxy on the topic (thus far). That is without even mentioning the fact that for a very long time Moscow's demands for a synod and its outcome have always been with conditions that make it impossible for it to rule against her. That of course, is no real synod where truth ought to prevail, not some sort of novel, ultra unanimous gathering unheard of in history, which with Moscow's authority was forced upon the Holy and Great Council in Crete three years ago, which Moscow boycotted anyway.
Therefore, we still await the Archbishop's thoughtful response when he considers and addresses the real ecclesiological questions for the edification of the whole of Orthodoxy because at this moment it is evident he has not adequately responded to the Ecumenical Patriarchate but has simply been using Moscow's arguments and language in what appears to be an attempt at appeasing Moscow for the sake of what can only be considered as inadequate "unity," which has not proved good enough for the Church (otherwise why not address the foundation of the EP's actions, the ecclesiological questions that underpin it, and why imply there has been unity when there hasn't as is manifested by Moscow's decision to break communion with multiple Churches she doesn't agree with, not just the EP?)
