Filioque at the Phanar: Did the new Bishop of Philomelion make a mistake?
The new bishop of the Phanar recited the Catholic Creed during his ordination. Is this a mistake or a deliberate step?
On 25 July 2023, Bishop Theophan (Koja) of Philomelion of the Constantinople Patriarchate recited the Catholic Creed during the ordination. He himself claims that he simply made a mistake. But is that really the case?
"Cadres decide everything"
Top-level leaders know very well that for important and complex tasks, appropriate personnel capable of fulfilling these tasks need to be selected. This means that the selection of personnel for a particular position is a good indication of what events are planned and what tasks an organisation is setting itself. Who is this new Bishop of Philomelion?
Before the ordination, specifically on 5 July 2023, the Holy Synod of the Albanian Orthodox Church published an official communiqué which states: "Archimandrite Theophan (Koja) is known in Orthodox Albania as a leader of schismatic activities." Some details of his biography were also made public.
He was born in the Albanian capital, Tirana, in 1966, received his spiritual education in a seminary in Durrës (Albania), and then travelled to Romania, where he was ordained as a priest. Further in the communiqué, the following is mentioned: "Upon returning to the country, he led a group of ultra-nationalists who expelled the clergy of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania from the Panagia Church in the city of Elbasan on October 8, 1995, during the Divine Liturgy."
Some clarification is necessary here. The history of the Albanian Church, like other Churches under communist rule in the 20th century, is tragic. In 1946, communists, led by Enver Hoxha, came to power in Albania. In the 1960s, a brutal anti-religious campaign began in the country, with the destruction of churches and the execution of believers Nikita Khrushchev's promise to "show the last priest on television" in Albania was almost realized.
In 1969, Albania was officially declared the world's first atheist country. But in 1991, the communist regime fell, and religious life in Albania began to revive. Despite the fact that the Church was practically destroyed at that time, after the persecutions, there were still 15 priests of advanced age remaining. In the same year, Patriarch Demetrios of Constantinople appointed Metropolitan Anastasios (Yannoulatos) of the Church of Greece as the Patriarchal Exarch in Albania, although the autocephaly of the Albanian Church was recognised by Constantinople in 1937.
Archbishop Anastasios, who is the current Primate of the Albanian Church, is an ethnic Greek and a representative of the Constantinople Patriarchate. By the way, it is precisely for this reason that his well-founded rejection of the idea of recognizing the OCU takes on special significance.
The next three bishops of the Albanian Church were also ethnic Greeks. Such a dominance of Greeks did not please either the Albanian authorities or the very ultra-nationalists who in 1995, led by Theophan (Koja), expelled the Orthodox from the Panagia Church in the city of Elbasan.
Now, however, Theophan (Koja), formerly an Albanian ultra-nationalist forcefully driving Greeks out of the church, has become a hierarch of that very Constantinople Patriarchate he once opposed. He had previously moved to live in the USA, where, after an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a hierarchy position in the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), he joined the American Archdiocese of the Phanar. The swing from a "sworn enemy" to a "loyal friend" for the sake of personal gain suggests opportunism.
Thus, the first point is opportunism.
The next point: after expelling the Orthodox from the Panagia Church in the city of Elbasan, Archimandrite Theophan placed "priest" Nicholas Marku there, who was ordained in the schismatic (at that time) Macedonian Church. Incidentally, as the Synod of the Albanian Church stated, this "Nicholas Marku continues to occupy the historic Orthodox Church of Elbasan to this day." This shows a disregard for the canons of the Church. It doesn't matter where and by whom a person was "ordained". Once he put on priestly vestments, he is already a "priest." Thus, the second feature is a disregard for the canons.
Thirdly, as previously mentioned, in the USA, Archimandrite Theophan attempted to obtain the episcopal rank in the OCA, but he was refused. The reason, as stated in the communiqué, was that the "leadership of the OCA received credible information about his schismatic activities". The second attempt, namely, to obtain the episcopacy within the Constantinople Patriarchate, was successful. This persistent pursuit of the episcopal rank allows us to speak about such a quality as ambition.
So, we have the following: ambition, opportunism and a disregard for the canons. As a result, we have a completely manageable individual, ready for much.
Let's clarify: it's possible that Theophan (Koja) is indeed a firm ascetic, a fervent man of prayer, and a talented organiser. We could not find information about this in open sources, but the facts described above allow us to draw the mentioned conclusions.
It should be mentioned that in the person of Bishop Theophan, who was ordained to take spiritual care of the Albanian Orthodox in the USA, the Phanar receives a zealous defender of the new ecclesiological principle, according to which the entire Orthodox diaspora, wherever it is located, must be subordinate to the Phanar.
After his "exploits" in Elbasan, it's highly unlikely that he would agree for Orthodox Albanians in the USA to belong to the Albanian Church.
The Freudian slip?
During the episcopal ordination ceremony in the Phanar, led by Archbishop Elpidophoros, the head of the Archdiocese of America, and attended by Patriarch Bartholomew, the newly appointed bishop Theophan (Koja) recited the Creed with the addition of the "filioque", i.e. the Catholic dogma of the descent of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.
Later, he confirmed the fact that he recited the Creed with the "filioque", called it a mistake and attributed it to a great "emotional tension" during the ordination. He even published an explanatory statement and clarification of the incident to deflect accusations of non-orthodoxy.
In particular, he wrote: "Is my oversight in reading a part of the English version of the Bishop's Confession, caused by my emotional tension and great personal anxiety at that sacred moment, evidence of my 'deficient' Orthodoxy?"
At the end of his statement, he wrote: "In order to calm even the most sensitive conscience that could have been affected by the aforementioned biased remark, I declare to everyone and everywhere that I believe absolutely and unwaveringly in everything proper (notice ‘proper’, not 'Orthodox'), which I personally signed in the attached text of my hierarchical confession." In other words, he signed an Orthodox Confession of Faith but recited a Catholic one.
It's worth noting that Bishop Theophan confirms that he sight-read the Creed, not from memory. This is a common practice in episcopal ordinations, precisely designed to eliminate the possibility of errors in the Сonfession of Faith.
Can one imagine that he made a mistake in this process? Theoretically, it's possible, although the likelihood is very small. But here arises an interesting question: why did he make a mistake precisely in this part and not in any other? How is it possible to read one Сonfession from a sheet and audibly articulate another?
This is only possible in one case - if the Catholic Confession of faith was exactly what was on his mind, in his thoughts, at that moment.
Similar slips are described by Sigmund Freud in his work "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life", where he asserts that these slips are manifestations of unconscious desires and beliefs that are suppressed by consciousness in everyday life, but involuntarily surface during moments of psychological tension. In other words, the conclusion suggests itself that this slip by Bishop Theophan is an involuntary expression of his true beliefs.
However, in order to involuntarily manifest true beliefs, one must possess them, and this contradicts the aforementioned quality – opportunism. If a person forcibly expels believers from a church because they are supposedly pro-Greek, and then seeks episcopal rank from the same Greeks, can one imagine that he has firm beliefs in the field of dogmatic theology? So, a different explanation of the "mistake" is more likely – it was made deliberately.
If it wasn't a mistake
If this wasn't a mistake but a pre-planned action, it's necessary to understand within which context and for what purpose it was done. The highest hierarchs of the Phanar and the Vatican are increasingly saying that there is a need to unite and that the existing differences should not become an obstacle on this path. Lately, similar voices have been heard from the Churches of Cyprus and Alexandria, which belong to the so-called group of Greek Churches.
More recently, from June 1 to 7, 2023, the 15th session of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches took place in Alexandria, Egypt. As a result, a document on primacy and catholicity in the Church was signed. A little earlier, in early May 2023, Patriarch Bartholomew made a trip to Italy. The title of the program for this visit speaks for itself: "Two Brothers, One Faith." With "filioque" or without, is it one faith or different?
As we know, the dogmatic differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy today are quite significant, but the historical disagreements, rooted in the first millennium of Church history when the Church itself was still unified, boil down to two points: the primacy of the Pope and the descent of the Holy Spirit (from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son).
As we can see, active negotiations and consultations are taking place on the primacy issue. Some time ago, the Phanar said that the only unresolved question on the path to unification is the issue of primacy.
Indirect indications suggest that this question is intended to be resolved in such a way that the Roman bishop will hold primacy in the Catholic world, and the Constantinople bishop – in the Orthodox world. In their relationship, the Roman Pope will enjoy a primacy of honour.
As for the dogma of the descent of the Holy Spirit, there are two options: either to simply silence it or to convince believers that it is possible to believe both. These two options are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. The tactic of silencing is aimed at those who believe that the subtleties of theology are for theologians and are not essential for ordinary believers.
The second option is targeted at those who might object that one cannot believe in both ways simultaneously. This tactic of persuasion is intended for the category of believers who can be convinced that, in reality, it is possible. More precisely, it is possible to remain within the unified Church and at the same time be tolerant toward both those who are convinced that the Holy Spirit descends solely from the Father and those who believe that He descends from both the Father and the Son. This position has historical precedents. The doctrine of "filioque" was first proclaimed in 589 AD at the Third Council of Toledo. For almost 500 years thereafter, the Church remained unified despite some believing in "filioque" and others not. For instance, in 808 AD, Pope Leo III received a complaint from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, in which he lamented French Benedictine monks who recited the Creed with "filioque" during the Mass on the Mount of Olives.
The Pope believed in "filioque", but to appease the Patriarch of Jerusalem, he ordered the Creed to be inscribed on silver plates in St. Peter's Basilica without the "filioque". A year later, at the Aachen Council, "filioque" was affirmed in the West as an official doctrine.
Thus, Bishop Theophan's reading of the Creed with the "filioque" at his ordination fits perfectly into this logic. This "mistake" is intended to demonstrate that one can profess the Catholic doctrine and yet no one will interrupt the ordination or accuse the candidate for the episcopate of heresy. In other words, it is possible to be an Orthodox bishop and adhere to the Catholic doctrine.
To confirm this assumption, we should wait for some reciprocal gesture from the Catholics towards the Orthodox, such as the inscription of the Orthodox Creed by Pope Leo III.
Finally, we should refute the argument put forth by Bishop Theophan in his defence, stating that he signed a document with the Orthodox Confession of Faith, and therefore he is Orthodox. Let's answer the question: what has sacred significance – signing a piece of paper in the office or making a public confession during a church service? Of course, the sacred action takes place in the temple, it is there that the Holy Spirit descends on the ordained person. That means that everything performed during this action has more significance than signing documents.
So, everything goes according to the announced plan of unification with Catholics, and each believer must decide for themselves whether to participate in it or not.
