Implicit Meanings in Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Tomos

Miguel Á. Padriñán. https://www.pexels.com

Miguel Á. Padriñán. https://www.pexels.com

Jelena Rakocevic – Columnist & Specialist in Eastern Orthodox Affairs -OCP News Service- 7/519

In his recent replies to Archbishop of Albania Anastasios and Patriarch of Antioch John X, Patriarch Bartholomew demonstrated once again that Constantinople envies Vatican’s reputation and influence over the Roman Catholic Church. Phanar refuses to consider the opinions of other Churches (even on the issues that affect the whole Orthodox world!) presuming herself as the one and only decision-maker and her verdict undisputable.

However, justifying her decisions, the Phanar turns to arguments that aren’t really relevant. For example, the Ecumenical Patriarch compared the recent situation in Ukraine to the Meletian schism in his letter to Anastasios. Bartholomew for some reason did not mention that in the 4th century Meletius was deprived of the right to ordain and his bishops in Egypt were reordained in accordance with the Canons.

Often the Ecumenical Patriarchate can’t find convincing arguments to reason her decisions (see the discussion involving Metropolitan Emmanuel (Adamakis) of France at the Order of St. Andrew’s Virtual Town Hall in late January). Sometimes the Phanar even prefers to keep silent as it did after the unilateral cancellation of the 1686 act of the transfer of the Kyivan Metropolis to Moscow’s jurisdiction.

Indicative is Constantinople’s attitude to the Churches it granted Tomes to. Thus, in the paper to Ukraine, it stressed that the local Church is dependent on the “first among equals”. The newly established Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) will receive myrrh from Constantinople, has to consult with her on all disputable issues and OCU is deprived of the right to govern her foreign parishes.

This reminds a bit of the Tomos granted nearly 20 years ago to the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. In 1951, the Russian Orthodox Church granted her autocephaly, but up to 1998, this status wasn’t recognized by Constantinople. On August 27, 1998, the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued the Tomos of autocephaly for the Czech and Slovak Church. If you read the document, it becomes clear that the Phanar was displeased with the decisions made by the Church after its autonomy was recognized by Constantinople in 1923.

Here are some abstracts in which Constantinople emphasizes her role in the Orthodox world:

“Since then and up to now the Local Holy Orthodox Church in the Czech Lands and Slovakia has existed contrary to some of its uncanonical acts, which we silently forgive bearing in mind that everything done contrary to the Canons and Traditions of the One Holy Orthodox Church by default is of no effect, is void and will not be approved until the end of times”.

“Our Mediocrity, […] taking into account and paying heed to the Canons of the Holy Fathers, that everything belonging to Barbarian lands, that is of all Christians beyond the borders of the Holy Patriarchal and Autonomous Churches, is spiritually nourished only by the Great See of the New Rome […]”.

As the document reads, myrrh is provided by Constantinople, hierarchs are amenable to Synod court comprised solely of the Ecumenical Patriarchate jurisdictions’ representatives. Convicted bishops of Czech Lands and Slovakia can also appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch directly to grieve the decision. Besides, the Holy Synod of the Church and its Primate have the right to address the Holy See on any issues.

After the Primate of the Czech and Slovak Church Metropolitan Krystof retired in 2013, a crisis broke out between two groups of the Church. Archbishop Simeon of Olomouc and Brno was elected as Locum Tenens but the Synod’s majority did not want him to become the new Primate. After Simeon’s failed attempts to introduce two Constantinople hierarchs (the above-mentioned Metropolitan Emmanuel and Metropolitan Arsenius (Kardamakis) of Austria) in the Synod with the right to vote, he was removed from his position, and in January 2014 the Extraordinary Synod elected Archbishop Rastislav (Gont) of Presov to replace him.

Simeon used the Tomos’ provisions and appealed to Constantinople. As a result, the Phanar didn’t recognize the Synod’s decision claiming that it was made under Moscow’s pressure and named Simeon the only canonical hierarch of the Czech and Slovak Church. Patriarch Bartholomew even said that he would never recognize Rastislav as the Church Primate. One of the pretexts of Bartholomew’s refusal was an audio recording of Rastislav’s speech at a clergy meeting when he allegedly spoke of the Ecumenical Patriarch in a disrespectful manner.

The conflict was resolved in early 2016 after bilateral negotiations in Istanbul. The Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized Rastislav as the legitimate Primate, accepted his apologies for his harsh words about the Phanar and appointed Archbishop Simeon the ruling hierarch of Olomouc and Brno. Bartholomew could have temporized only in light of the upcoming Holy Great Council in Crete, which was to become ‘Pan-Orthodox’.

However, it doesn’t matter whether Constantinople back-pedaled or not. The thing is that due to the Tomos, the Phanar has the opportunity to interfere in a local Church’s internal affairs and impose her control. This can happen in any Church which has recently received the Tomos from Constantinople.

Let us imagine: two conflicting Orthodox parties emerge in Ukraine. One of them supports the Phanar and the other doesn’t. The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s supporters appeal directly to the Throne since it is outlined in the Tomos. The other side’s opinion can be completely ignored by Constantinople as she is the body that decides who is “canonical” and who isn’t. Thus, the “opposition” party can easily be kicked out of the game, and it doesn’t matter if it’s right by law or Canons. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has the unique and indisputable right to resolve all the conflicts and issues of the OCU, without consultations with the other Local Churches.

Thus, such Tomos provide the Ecumenical Patriarchate great opportunities to influence the affairs of those Local Churches, which she has granted autocephaly to so that they don’t look ‘independent’. In modern history, at least two Churches have received Tomos with implicit tools of external control. There are strict restrictions in the Tomos of other Local Churches. Constantinople’s goal is to make such restrictions common, and they will become stricter with every issued paper of autocephaly. In this case, why can’t it decide to review the Tomos of other Churches under the pretext of the Mother Church’s care? Or to split a Church into several autocephalous Churches (which the Phanar already hints at to the Patriarchate of Serbia)?

It can be motivated by any political shifts (the case of Ukraine) or internal misunderstandings among the hierarchy (just as it happened in the Czech and Slovak Church). Some already fear that it can affect the Church of Greece. In early April, Metropolitan Hierotheos published his letter to the Church’s Synod asking to recognize the Ukrainian autocephaly and claimed that otherwise there would be repercussions on behalf of Constantinople.

As the result of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s activity, the Orthodox world could witness a large-scale repartition of canonical territories and the eventual break-up of Orthodoxy into ‘divided’ national Churches.

Source:
OCP News Service

1 thought on “Implicit Meanings in Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Tomos

  1. Before the granting of the Tomos of Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, no one criticized the Tomos of autocephaly granted to the other Eastern Orthodox Churches at the hands of the Archbishop of Constantinople even though the same language was generally used. No one called these “papal ambitions” as many are attempting to call them now. In fact, when reading the Tomos, they all shouted “Axious!” What changed from then to now? The answer is the fact that Moscow has lost what they wrongfully claimed as their territory, a fact that Constantinople consistently held and stated over the course of the 300 years of the ROC’s claims to Kiev. One can easily take notice of the Tomos of autocephaly for the (Eastern Orthodox) Church of Poland as an easy start.

    What the writer has irresponsibly called “implicit tools of external control” are actually the Constantinople Patriarchate’s canonical responsibilities of being an appellate seat for the Church world, a responsibility which reaches back to the days of the ecumenbical Councils.

    The 9th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council reads as follows: “…If however a clergyman has a case against his own or another bishop, he is to be tried by the synod of the province. If a bishop or a clergyman has a dispute with the metropolitan of the same province, he is to repair to the exarch of the diocese, or to the throne of the imperial capital, Constantinople, and be tried before him.”

    The 17th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council likewise says: “…If anyone is wronged by his own metropolitan he is to be tried, as has been said before, by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople.”

    So is the writer – and those of like mind – saying that Constantinople was uncanonically granted such an appellate right and responsibility by the Ecumenical Council, or are they outright rejecting these canons?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *