Δημοσιεύουμε παρακάτω επιστολή ενός λαϊκού πιστού της Ορθόδοξης
Εκκλησίας στην Αμερική (OCA), του Gregory J., προς τον επικεφαλής της εκκλησιαστικής αυτής δικαιοδοσίας,
τον Μητροπολίτη Τύχωνα (Tikhon
Mollard).
Ο ίδιος ο Gregory J., ο οποίος παρακολουθεί με ιδιαίτερο
ενδιαφέρον τις εξελίξεις στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία με αφορμή το Ουκρανικό
εκκλησιαστικό ζήτημα, μας κοινοποίησε αυτή την επιστολή, επιθυμώντας αυτή να
δημοσιευθεί προς ενημέρωση όσο το δυνατόν περισσοτέρων μελών της OCA, αλλά και
γενικά των Ορθοδόξων πιστών.
Για αυτονόητους λόγους δεν επιθυμεί τη δημοσιοποίηση των
στοιχείων της ταυτότητάς του, τα οποία φυσικά είναι πλήρως γνωστά στον
παραλήπτη της επιστολής.
His
Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon
P.O.
Box 675
Syosset,
NY 11791
August 25, 2019
Your Beatitude,
Please forgive me. I am just a 17-year-old layman, but I have a
huge concern. That concern is the ecclesiastical situation in Ukraine. This
issue has caused me much stress, and I know Your stance on the matter, but to
me it makes no sense. How can we deny tens of millions of Orthodox Christians
from communion simply because they refuse to be part of the Moscow
Patriarchate? How can we deny the restoration of their hierarchs and clergy to
their canonical ranks through economy? How can we deny the obvious privileges
of the Ecumenical Throne that were received from the Holy Fathers and
Ecumenical Councils?
The common claim is that the formerly schismatic Ukrainian
Churches possessed no apostolic succession. But this is untrue. The Ukrainian
Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) had three creations. The first, in
1921, was of course devoid of apostolic succession and canonicity since no
bishops took part. The second, however, came with the blessings of the Polish
Orthodox Church in 1942. The first Primate of the autocephalous Polish Orthodox
Church was His Beatitude Metropolitan Dionizy (Waledynski), who was ordained to
the holy episcopate by His Beatitude Patriarch Gregorios IV of Antioch in 1913 (1). In 1932, Metropolitan Dionizy
ordained Polikarp (Sikorsky) as Bishop of Lutsk (2). Lutsk is in Western Ukraine, and when the Soviets occupied
this area in 1939, Bishop Polikarp refused to submit to the Patriarch of Moscow
and instead continued under the omophorion of the Polish Orthodox Church. With
the blessings of Metropolitan Dionizy in 1942, Metropolitan Polikarp ordained
new hierarchs for the UAOC (which despite the name, was under the Polish
Church). One of these hierarchs was Bishop Mstyslav (Skrypnyk).
The Russian Orthodox Church claims that despite the clear
apostolic succession of these bishops, they were “self-consecrated.” But, even
if this was true (which its not), then how was the Ecumenical Patriarch able to
receive the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA under his omophorion in 1994
without re-ordaining them? His Eminence Metropolitan Antony of the UOC-USA was
ordained by Metropolitan Mstyslav in 1985 (3).
Metropolitan Antony, along with Your Beatitude, is a member of the Assembly of
Canonical Orthodox Bishops.
I’m sure You are aware of Metropolitan Makariy (Maletich) of Lviv,
who headed the UAOC from 2015-2018. He was a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate
in Ukraine until 1989, when he joined the newly revived UAOC. He was ordained
to holy episcopate in this Church in 1996, which is why there are doubts cast
upon his rank, despite the fact that the Ecumenical Throne recognizes him as a
bishop. Makariy was consecrated by Patriarch Dimitri, Metropolitan
Methodius, and Bishop Igor (4). These
hierarchs trace their apostolic succession through Metropolitan Mstyslav,
former Metropolitan of Kyiv Filaret (Denisenko), and Metropolitan John
(Bodnarchuk) – the latter two being former bishops of the Russian Orthodox
Church. While Metropolitan Makariy’s ordination took place in schism, it can
still be accepted by economy (and it was). In 2011, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow
offered the UAOC autonomy (similar to the ROCOR) if they agree to come under his
omophorion – no re-ordination required. The letter, sent to Metropolitan
Methodius (5), is still in possession
of Metropolitan Makariy.
Speaking of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, they
too were in schism. On June 22, 1934, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox
Church, under locum tenens Metropolitan Sergius, defrocked their hierarchy. In
2007 when the schism ended, they were accepted without re-ordination and
without repentance! In November 2018, His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion
(Alfeyev) visited the Russian Orthodox community in Seoul, South Korea. One of
the faithful asked him, “Vladika, you told us that this will happen because the
Ecumenical Patriarchate accepted the schismatics in Ukraine. Didn’t the Moscow
Patriarchate accept the schismatic church ROCOR without any particular process?”
Metropolitan Hilarion responded with, “This was done because the Patriarchate
of Moscow, as the mother Church of the Russians, embraced the schismatics with
love and forgave them everything they had done.” The layman then asked, “But
doesn’t the Ecumenical Patriarchate do the same thing now in the case of the
schismatic Ukrainians?” (6)
In 1872, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
anathematized and defrocked Bulgarian Exarch Antim and his hierarchy (7). In 1945, at the signature of
Ecumenical Patriarch Benjamin, the Bulgarian Orthodox were restored to
canonicity and communion (without re-ordination). They were also given
autocephaly, in order to ensure unity in the Orthodox Church. If we question
the canonicity of the Ukrainian hierarchy under His Beatitude Metropolitan
Epiphanios of Kyiv, shouldn’t we also question the canonicity of the Bulgarian
hierarchy under His Holiness Patriarch Neophyte of Sofia?
There is the claim that the Kyivan Metropolis was transferred to
the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686, and that Constantinople “uncanonically
invaded” their territory. This is also untrue. The Patriarchal Letter of
Dionysius IV of Constantinople only gives the Patriarch of Moscow permission,
by economy, to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv (because of the historical
circumstances). The Ecumenical Patriarchate never recognized the uncanonical
annexation of the Kyivan Metropolis by the Moscow Patriarchate. As His Eminence
Archbishop Job of Telmessos explained, “That was in no way the transfer of the
Metropolis of Kyiv under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchs. For such a
transmission would be anti-canonical, since in the letter of establishment of
the Moscow Patriarchate the limits of canonical influences of the Moscow Patriarchs
were recognized at the borders of the Moscow State in 1589. And these limits
did not in any way include the Kyivan Metropolis, which included, under the
omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, and
Poland.” (8) The 1686 Letter states,
“Nevertheless, whenever this Metropolitan of Kyiv celebrates the sacred, holy
and bloodless sacrifice in this diocese, he should commemorate among the first
the venerable name of the Ecumenical Patriarch as his source and authority…” (9) If the Kyiv Metropolitan were no
longer under the Ecumenical Patriarch, why would he still have to commemorate
him as his primate?
The Tomos of Autocephaly given to the Polish Orthodox Church in
1924 states, “…for it is recorded that the first separation from our See of the
Kyivan Metropolia and the Orthodox Metropolia of Lithuania and Poland,
dependent upon it, as well as their incorporation within the Holy Moscovite
Church was accomplished contrary to canon law, as also all that which was
agreed upon regarding the full church autonomy of the Kyivan Metropolitan, who
at the time had the title Exarch of the Ecumenical See…” In 1970, His
All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras told His Beatitude Patriarch
Pimen of Moscow, “…reminding her [the Moscow Patriarchate] that her boundaries
are defined, as is also the scope of her jurisdiction, and cannot be extended
beyond what was allotted to her by the Golden Seal Certificate of Ecumenical
Patriarch Jeremiah II in the year 1591…” (10)
The Kyivan Metropolis was not included in the defined territory of the Moscow
Patriarchate. It is true that His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
recognized Metropolitan Onuphry as the Metropolitan of Kyiv, but this was later
explained as being out of economy and condescension and before Metropolitan
Epiphanios was rightfully elected. Ukraine was not, is not, and never will be
the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate.
I appeal to Your Beatitude to please recognize the Orthodox Church
of Ukraine. They are not schismatics. Those in communion with the First Throne
of Orthodoxy cannot be considered schismatics. They are Orthodox Christians,
just like us. The schism was healed by the wise actions of Patriarch
Bartholomew. Why aren’t we joyous? Why are we still condemning our Ukrainian
brothers and sisters as “schismatics”? Why aren’t we being loving and merciful?
Please pray for me, a sinner.
Sincerely,
Gregory J.
Notes
