Phanar and the legalisation of Ukrainian schismatics: A view from Bulgaria
Why does the Patriarch of Constantinople not have the right to cancel the acts of other patriarchs or to be the supreme judge of all Local Churches?
We present to your attention an article by lawyer and Master of Theology Alexander Todorov, which examines the question of whether the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to cancel the acts of other patriarchs or to be the supreme judge.
"Judge not by outward appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7:24)
A new non-Orthodox teaching appeared – that the Patriarch of Constantinople is the " head " of all Local Orthodox Churches (1) and had the right to overrule decisions of other patriarchs, because he possessed the right "to make irrevocable decisions in the affairs of bishops and other clerics of the Local Churches according to Canons 9 and 17 of the IV Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon" (2) , as well as that he is "the centre of Orthodoxy " (3). These three claims of Pat. Bartholomew are written in his non-canonical "Tomos of Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine" and were theologically, canonically and historically refuted even after the Tomos was issued on January 6, 2019. Nevertheless, in recent weeks, these unorthodox claims have been spread again in Bulgaria in an attempt to justify four illegal actions:
- the non-canonical "reinstation" of the Ukrainian schismatics Filaret Denysenko and Makariy Maletych, as well as the clerics "ordained" by them (including the head of the OCU Epifaniy Dumenko) after they were defrocked and excommunicated from the Church, done by Pat. Bartholomew in October 2018 without having such authority and in violation of the canons prohibiting this (Apostolic Canon 32, Canon 15 of the Council of Antioch, Canon 118 of the Council of Carthage, Canon 5 of I Ecumenical Council and the Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine).
- the non-canonical granting of the Tomos of autocephaly in a foreign jurisdiction on January 6, 2019, in which Pat. Bartholomew did not have any judicial powers after 1686 (the Metropolises of Little Russia/Kiev and Belorussia were handed over by the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius IV and his Synod to the Moscow Patriarchate with a special Patriarchal and Synodal Letter of 1686 (4) and since then no Patriarch of Constantinople (5) has disputed this, nor has he made jurisdictional claims to Ukraine (6)). As issued outside the competence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Tomos is null and void, that is, it does not give rise to any canonical rights. It is in direct violation of Canon 2 of the II Ecumenical Council and Canon 8 of the III Ecumenical Council , which do not allow any bishop to extend his authority over a foreign jurisdiction/diocese, and also in violation of Canon 17 of the IV Ecumenical Council and Canon 25 of the VI Ecumenical Council, which do not allow any claims to ecclesiastical authority over territories in which the claimant has not exercised ecclesiastical authority for more than 30 years (the statute of limitations for claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople expired more than 300 years ago years). The patriarch is also a bishop and has no right to interfere in the affairs of other patriarchates – their Statutes also do not allow this and have never allowed it, because that would be a lack of autocephaly.
- the co-services in the Plovdiv Diocese with the deposed Abbot Pyotr Eremeev (defrocked by the Moscow Patriarch on the basis of a decision of the Diocesan Ecclesiastical Court of the Moscow Diocese (7)), who was "reinstated" by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. The sacred canons specified in point 1 do not allow those deposed or excommunicated by one bishop/patriarch to be reinstated or received into communion by another. Therefore, Abbot Eremeev was not actually reinstated in his rank, his reinstatement by Pat. Bartholomew is void for lack of jurisdiction.
- the co-service of the five Bulgarian bishops with the Ukrainian schismatics in Turkey on May 19, 2024. Instead of helping our bishops to honestly repent of this lawless act, so that the matter ends and there is peace in the Bulgarian Church, some priests begin to justify the concelebration with the schismatics by recognizing the non-orthodox teachings in the Tomos by Pat. Bartholomew of January 6, 2019, which are essentially an ecclesiological heresy (neo-papism – claims to papal authority in the Orthodox Church).
So, why is the Patriarch of Constantinople not the head of the Local Churches, nor the supreme unappealable judge in the cases of clerics from the autocephalous Local Churches, nor the "centre of Orthodoxy", as falsely stated in the Tomos? The reasons, in short, are as follows:
1. The head of the Church is not one of the patriarchs of the Local Churches but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, which is literally said in the word of God (Eph. 1:22 and 5:23) and which is a dogma of faith. Therefore, the words of Pat. Bartholomew in his Tomos that "the autocephalous Church in Ukraine recognises as its head the Most Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical See, as the other patriarchs and primates (do)" contradict the Word of God. Therefore, as soon as they contradict, these words are a lie. They are a lie not only from a dogmatic point of view but also from a factual point of view because nowhere has it ever been decided that the patriarchs and primates of the autocephalous Churches accept the Ecumenical Patriarch as their head.
Papism itself is not a new heresy, but Patriarch Bartholomew is now trying to revive it to his advantage. The Orthodox, with God's help, should not accept this deception and should not be afraid to expose it, because exposing it is a manifestation of love and concern for both the deceiver and the deceived.
2. Autocephaly is the separate and independent leadership of a local Church by a primate who is elected by his Synod, which is exactly what is reflected in the term "autocephaly" (from Greek: αὐτός - alone , and κεφαλή - head ). Therefore, in the Orthodox Church, there is no way for the head of an autocephalous Church to be the primate/head of another autocephalous Church. Moreover, the Patriarchate of Constantinople appeared only in the 4th century – did the Local Churches or the Catholic Church manage without primates before that?
3. The two canons (9 and 17) of the IV Ecumenical Council give the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to be the supreme judge in church cases of clerics only from his patriarchate, not clerics from other patriarchates. Therefore, the following words in the Tomos are a lie: "...the right of all bishops and other clerics to appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch, who has the canonical responsibility to make irrevocable decisions on cases of bishops and other clerics of Local Churches according to sacred Canons 9 and 17 of the IV Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon". However, these two canons are irrelevant to the claims of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the other Local Churches because:
3.1. No patriarch has the right to overturn decisions against clerics imposed by another patriarch – to do otherwise would mean that a patriarch has more power than another and can frame in a foreign jurisdiction (where he doesn't even have the right to ordain). It is not by chance that the Lord Jesus Christ gave equal authority to the apostles (Mat. 18:18) and explicitly told them that none of them would be more powerful than the others: "you know that the princes of the nations rule over them, and the nobles rule over them, but it will not be so among you" (Mat. 20:25-26). The Saviour solemnly condemned even the very thought of primacy among the apostles.
Canonist Bishop Nikodim Milaš writes: "And just as there was no and could not be a primacy of authority among the apostles, so there is and cannot be such primacy among the successors of the apostles, the bishops, who all have equal authority and dignity, no matter what see any one of them occupies" (8) . This canonical interpretation of Bishop Nikodim Milaš (locally canonised as a saint) fully corresponds to the original Church teaching on the unity of the Church and the equality of bishops, expressed by ancient saints such as St. Irenaeus of Lyons and St. Cyprian of Carthage (9).
According to Tertullian, all individual Local Churches are also equal to each other, since they all equally possess the apostolic truth (10).
The words of St. Gregory the Baptist, Pope of Rome, in his letter to the emperor (Epistle 33) are also well known: "I say without the slightest hesitation that whoever calls himself Ecumenical Bishop or desires this title, is in his pride a predecessor of the antichrist, because he claims in the same way to be above others" (11). He wrote these words because after Constantinople became the capital of the empire, under the influence of the emperor, Patriarch John of Constantinople asked to be recognized as the first bishop in the whole Church and took the title Ecumenical. St. Gregory wrote to him: "Think, the Pope wrote, that your reckless arrogance disturbs the peace of the Church, beloved brother. Cherish humility with all your heart, through which the harmony of all brothers and the unity of the Holy Ecumenical Church can be preserved... What will you say to Christ, the universal head of the Church, on the day of final judgment, you who, calling yourself universal, strive to subjugate all its members to yourself?... Because of this foolish and arrogant title, the Church is divided, and the hearts of all the brothers are troubled by this scandal... You seek to take away from everyone what you want to unlawfully appropriate for yourself. And when you want to elevate yourself above all with this proud title and humiliate them in comparison to yourself, what else will you do – will you say: ‘I will ascend to heaven and exalt my throne above the stars of heaven?’…” (12).
Regarding the title of Ecumenical, St. Gregory wrote in a letter to Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria: "Why do we call ourselves bishops, we who owe our dignity to the humility of our Redeemer, while in reality following the pride of His enemy?... This title was offered to my predecessors, but none of them sought to accept it, so that by respecting the honor of all priests in this world, they might preserve their own honor before the Almighty. To accept this title is to undermine the dignity of all patriarchs; and if it were to happen that the one who is called universal were to fall into some heresy, there would no longer be a bishop who remained true to the faith" (13).
3.2. Such a doctrine—that the Patriarch of Constantinople can annul the decisions of other patriarchs regarding their clerics (which would imply that he has at least judicial authority over them)—is not found in any Orthodox catechism, any interpretation of the Creed (article 9), any textbook on dogmatics, or any textbook on canon (Church) law. This is the most blatant abuse of interpreting the canons (9 and 17 of the IV Ecumenical Council) following the classic papal model. Patriarch Bartholomew considers these two canons in isolation from the Church's teaching on the equal authority of the apostles, from other canons, and even from the historical context of the Council of Chalcedon (Chalcedon was a small town/suburb near the reigning Constantinople, which today is no longer reigning).
The Pope acts in the same way – the Lord's words "you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church" (Mat. 16:18) he uses to justify his heresy, that the apostle Peter was the rock of the Church and the most supreme apostle. Because Peter was killed in Rome, and the Pope resides there today, which means that the Pope as Peter's successor is the highest bishop and head of the Church... However, if one sees in what connection (in what context and dialogue) Christ says the above words to St. Peter, it becomes clear that the Lord builds his Church on the belief that He, the historical person Jesus, is the Christ and the Son of the living God, and on this belief/stone His Church is founded (that is why we are also called Christians, not Peterians).
Like the wicked papal interpretation of Matt. 16:18, Pat. Bartholomew now changes the meaning and application of Canons 9 and 17 of the IV Ecumenical Council, taken out of the context of the Sacred Tradition and the other canons. By abusing the conciliar inheritance and distorting the practice of the Church, he tries to prove his non-existent right to be a supreme judge over the other Patriarchs and Synods in the Orthodox world.
3.3. The famous Byzantine canonist Zonaras interpreted Canon 17 as follows: "But the Patriarch of Constantinople does not place himself as judge over all, without exception, metropolitans, but only over his subordinates. For he cannot bring to his judgment the bishops of Syria, or of Palestine and Phoenicia, or of Egypt against their will; but the bishops of Syria are subject to the court of the Patriarch of Antioch, and those of Palestine to the court of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and those of Egypt must be tried before the Patriarch of Alexandria, from whom they (patriarchs) receive both ordination and to whom they are also subject" (14).
Bishop Nikodim Milaš, the interpreter of the canons, adheres to the same view. Before quoting Zonaras, he clearly indicates why he is citing him: "…. so that no one thinks that the Patriarch of Constantinople has unconditional authority over all metropolitans beyond the limits of his Patriarchate" (15).
St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, in the famous "Pedalion", commenting on these canons, clearly states that "the Patriarch of Constantinople does not have the right to act in the dioceses and regions of other patriarchs, and this canon does not give him the right to accept appeals on any issues within the universal Church." Presenting numerous arguments, St. Nicodemus makes unambiguous conclusions: "At present... the Patriarch of Constantinople is the first, sole, and final judge over the metropolitans subordinate to him, but not over those who are subordinate to other patriarchs. For, as we have already said, the ultimate and universal judge of all patriarchs is the Ecumenical Council and nothing else" (16).
St. Nectarios of Aegina also emphasizes that in the Church of Christ, no hierarch can claim the role of the sole and absolute judge over his fellow bishops of other Local Churches. St. Nectarios quotes the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage, who in 256 AD "convened the last council of three provinces (dioceses) – Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania... It was attended by 85 bishops, along with priests, deacons, a great multitude of people, and some confessors and martyrs. At this council, Cyprian asked the bishops to vote freely, saying: 'Everyone is given the right to freely express his opinion on this matter, without condemning anyone or depriving them of the right to communion, even if they think differently. For none of us has been made a bishop of bishops, nor does anyone force his brothers to obey him'... The same is written in Epistle 72 to Stephen (Ad Stephanum), as well as in Epistles 55, 59, 71, 73. This is what St. Cyprian said about the primacy of Peter: 'And Peter, whom the Lord chose first, when Paul rebuked him for circumcision (cf. Gal. 2:11-14), did not attack him rudely and arrogantly, nor did he say that he had primacy and that the younger and following must obey him'" (17).
The papist "primacy" and similar claims of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (including in relation to the ecclesiastical administration of justice) are completely inappropriate in the authentic life of the Orthodox Church, as it is catholic and governed by love.
3.4. In church history and tradition, there are no instances of the Patriarch of Constantinople canceling the acts of deposition or excommunication from the Church issued by other patriarchs, and this has been recognised by the Church. The truth of this matter is best illustrated by the Encyclical Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs dated May 6, 1848, signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople along with his entire Synod, as well as the patriarchs and members of other Eastern Synods. This is a confessional document of particularly high authority. In it, they respond to the same claim by the Roman Pope regarding supreme judicial authority in the Church, rejecting it in the following words: "His Beatitude says that the Corinthians, on the occasion of a disagreement that arose among them, turned to Pope Clement, who, after discussing the matter, sent them a letter, and they read it in the churches. But this event is very weak evidence of papal authority in the House of God, because Rome was then the seat of the government and the capital of the emperors, and for this reason, any matter, even if insignificant, such as the dispute among the Corinthians, had to be considered there, especially if one of the disputing parties sought mediation on the side. This continues to happen to this day. The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in the case of extraordinary and complicated matters, write to the Patriarch of Constantinople, because this city is the capital of the rulers and, in addition, has the advantage granted by the Councils. If through brotherly cooperation those in need of correction are corrected, that is good; if not, the matter is referred to the government in the proper order. But this brotherly cooperation in the Christian faith does not diminish the freedom of the Churches of God." From these words it can be seen that:
- indeed, the Patriarch of Constantinople sometimes intervened in foreign church affairs, but only if other patriarchs themselves asked him to do so (18), and not at all as a supreme judge who can overturn patriarchal decisions already made, which are valid for foreign dioceses;
- overall, instances of appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople were rare – in “unusual and complicated cases”;
- finally, it is emphasized directly that “this brotherly cooperation in the Christian faith does not undermine the freedom of the Churches of God,” since brotherly cooperation consists of expressing an authoritative opinion from Constantinople, that is, in mediation, and not in overturning the acts of other patriarchs and imposing its own judgment. This is clearly seen from historical examples when disputing bishops (i.e., both parties, not just one as in the cases under consideration) of the Eastern Churches sought help from the Patriarch of Constantinople – and he helped not dictatorially, but as an authoritative mediator (as long as he was Orthodox, since the persecutions of the Orthodox by the patriarchs-heretics of Constantinople, imposed with the help of the imperial power, of course cannot be cited as an example).
It also makes an impression that when they refute the papal claims to supreme authority in the Church, the patriarchs and metropolitans, including the one of Constantinople, nowhere mention that they reject the claims of the Pope for the reason that they have their own supreme judge in Constantinople, who can anyway overturn the acts of other autocephalous churches...
The very thought of one patriarch being able to cancel the decisions of another patriarch (because the abrogator resides in a city that was imperial several hundred years ago) reveals a lust for power, i.e. pride, and contradicts Christianity in general, not only the other canons.
3.5. In the interpretation of Canon 9 of the IV Ecumenical Council, the canonist bishop Nikodim Milaš explicitly notes that “the canon of the Council, on the one hand, allowing the aggrieved to appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople at their own desire, not by obligation, does not thereby permit any superiority of authority in this patriarch; on the other hand, intentionally elevating his rights in the East, it already eliminates the interference of any foreign authority in Eastern affairs. And this, as can be seen, was the special aim of the conciliar decree directed against the increased claims of the Roman See” (19).
In the present case, neither Metropolitan Onuphry of Kyiv and All Ukraine nor Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia asked the Patriarch of Constantinople to consider the actions/deeds of the schismatics Filaret Denysenko, Makariy Maletych or Epifaniy Dumenko, nor of the deposed abbot Pyotr Eremeev. Hence their "reinstation" by Pat. Bartholomew is non-canonical, invalid, because it was carried out without him having the authority/competence to do this, moreover – in the presence of prohibitions for this (the canons in point I). About such roundabout ways of entering the holy clergy, the Lord says: “he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber” (John 10:1), for it is prescribed that in the Church “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). But he who unlawfully jumps over the church fence “is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules” (2 Tim. 2:5).
3.6. The IV Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) adopted Canon 28, which grants the Bishop of Constantinople (as the metropolitan) the same privileges as the head of the Church of Rome. If the then-Orthodox Pope/Patriarch of Old Rome possessed the privilege of supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction and, consequently, the right to accept appeals from clerics of other Churches, then this extended to the Patriarch of Constantinople as well.
However, if the Bishop of Rome did not have the privilege of supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction, then the Patriarch of Constantinople did not have it either, since the text of Canon 28 is entirely clear – Constantinople is endowed with equal rights with Rome, no more and no less. The Pope/Patriarch of Rome did not have supreme judicial authority over other Local Churches (therefore, the Patriarch of Constantinople does not have it either).
The fact is that when the Pope had the same claims to manage other clerics based on Canons 3,4 and 5 of the Council of Serdica and wanted to accept the appeal of the deposed African presbyter Apiarius, the Council of Carthage (419) was convened, which, by its Canons 36 and 134, rejected the papal claims.
The canons of the Council of Carthage were specifically and by name confirmed by Canon 2 of the Holy VII Ecumenical Council, as well as in general by Canon 1 of the IV Ecumenical Council and the Canon 1 of the VII Ecumenical Council. Therefore, the ancient Church recognized that on Canons 3,4 and 5 of the Council of Serdica established special privileges granted to the then-Orthodox Bishop of ancient Rome – that they concerned only and exclusively bishops subordinate to him; but these canons did not grant him supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction over other Churches.
Here's what Zonaras says about this: "Therefore, this canon does not belong to the Nicene Council and does not endow him (the pope) with the right of appeal to all bishops, but only to those subordinate to him" (Σ.Γ.241), and Balsamon notes: "It has special significance for the papal ecclesiastical claims, but it must be observed as it was decided" (Σ.Γ.239) (20). Thus, the claims to privileges of supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the then-Orthodox Bishop of Rome (the pope) were rejected by the Church, since the Council of Carthage's canons were adopted at the VI Ecumenical Council – including that clerics of another ecclesiastical jurisdiction should be excommunicated from the Church if they appealed to the Bishop of Rome on their own matters.
Therefore, just as the Pope/Patriarch of Rome did not have the right of supreme judge over the clerics of other local churches, the Patriarch of Constantinople does not have this right either.
3.7. The sacred Canons 9 and 17, adopted at the Holy IV Ecumenical Council, command: "If a bishop or cleric has a complaint against the metropolitan of the province, he must appeal either to the exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the reigning Constantinople and be judged before him."
Both Canons 9 and 17 place the disjunctive particle "or" between the exarch of the diocese and the Archbishop of Constantinople, endowing them with equal canonical rights and providing clerics with the equal opportunity to appeal to either one or the other (since they apply only to exarchates/metropolises within the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, similar to how the jurisdictional powers of the Bishop/Patriarch of Rome according to Canons 3, 4 and 5 of the Council of Serdica apply only to the clerics of the Roman Patriarchate). Thus, the canons do not grant the Archbishop of Constantinople higher judicial authority and a different degree of jurisdiction.
On this matter, Balsamon notes: "The decisions of patriarchs are not subject to appeal" (50, 123, 22 VG 1, 38). The Epanagoge 11, 6 (J.G.R., vol. II, 260) states: "The decision of the patriarch is not subject to appeal and is not reviewed by others, since he is the head of the ecclesiastical courts."
St Photios says in the Nomocanon 9, 1 (SA 169): "The decisions of patriarchs are not subject to appeal" IA, 6 (J.G.R., vol. II, 260). According to this, any judicial decision of any patriarch, made after the consideration of a canonical issue, is considered final. An appeal against it can theoretically be made only to an Ecumenical Council (21).
3.8. Even if he had the right to consider their cases, the Patriarch of Constantinople should have also invited the opposing party to present their opinion and be heard, rather than deciding disputes of former clerics against the UOC (with Metropolitan Onuphry as its head), and consequently against the ROC, solely based on their one-sided complaints without reviewing the evidence of their violations presented in their cases in the Moscow Patriarchate. However, he also does not have the right to consider appeals of clerics from other Local Churches, which is one of the principles of ecclesiastical law derived from Canon 5 of the I Ecumenical Council – "those excommunicated by some are not to be received by others", as well as from Apostolic Canon 32 – "a presbyter or deacon excommunicated by their bishop should not be received in communion by another bishop, but only by the one who excommunicated them, except in the case of the excommunicating bishop’s death".
The same rule, but in a more detailed form, can be found in the Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine: "The Nicene Council wisely and justly recognised that whatever cases arise, they should all be resolved in their own places; for the Fathers recognised that the grace of the Holy Spirit is not diminished in any region, through which Christ's priests wisely see justice and firmly uphold it, especially when everyone is allowed, in case of dissatisfaction with local judges, to appeal to a council of their region or even to an ecumenical council. And can anyone believe that our God can execute a just judgment on one, whoever he may be, and deny it to a multitude of priests assembled in a council? And, indeed, can there be any validity in this foreign tribunal, to which necessary witnesses cannot come, whether due to physical weakness, old age, or any other obstacles? And regarding the fact that you might send someone, supposedly, from your holy see, we do not find that any council of the Fathers has decided anything on this matter."
3.9. If the Patriarch of Constantinople had the prerogative to reinstate in rank and accept in communion those deposed or excommunicated from other patriarchates, this would be explicitly indicated in a canon that exempts the Patriarch of Constantinople from the prohibition "that those excommunicated by some are not to be received by others," which is stated in the Apostolic Canon 32, Canon 15 of the Council of Antioch, Canon 118 of the Council of Carthage, the Canon 5 of the I Ecumenical Council, and the Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine. But this would contradict Christ's own teaching about the Church and the relationships between the apostles as equals, and it would also be blasphemous against the holy Fathers, as if they had wrongly adopted the aforementioned canons/prohibitions.
However, they cannot be wrong, because at all pious councils in the history of the Orthodox Church, the Holy Spirit Himself legislated together with the holy Apostles and the holy Fathers who adopted the relevant canons (see Acts 1:2 and 15:28). Therefore, it is not these tried and true ecumenical Church rules that are wrong, but today's insolent statements and innovations of Patriarch Bartholomew, which contradict the spirit of Orthodoxy, the Tradition, the above-mentioned canons and the clear words of Christ "but among you let it not be so" (Matt. 20:26), that is, you will not have authority over each other.
3.10. The aforementioned canons, in connection with the fact that persons deposed and excommunicated by a local Orthodox Church can only be received back into communion by the same Church that deposed and excommunicated them, completely reject the claims of Constantinople to supreme and unquestionable judicial arbitration. For if the right of such an infallible tribunal truly existed, the aforementioned rules would lose their canonical weight, and the absurd conclusion would be made that all Orthodox catechisms, textbooks on dogmatics, and ecclesiastical law are erroneous because they nowhere mention the supreme right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to annul the acts of other patriarchs. However, from all the examples and canons mentioned above, it is clear that the Patriarch of Constantinople does not have the canonical right to overturn decisions made by other Local Churches – he can only act as an arbitrator or, more precisely, a mediator in the matter, if requested by the respective head.
3.11. In the current Statutes of the local Orthodox churches, it is also written that both the bishops and the head himself are subject to judgment only by their Church, and there is no mention of inter-jurisdictional court appeals to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which is the highest instance for church disputes. For example, Art. 176, Para. 2 of the Statute of the BOC says that "persons and bodies outside the system of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate cannot perform the functions of an ecclesiastical court", and Art. 182, Para 4 states: "the decisions of the Holy Synod as a court are final".
3.12. The justification that the Patriarch of Constantinople possesses the right of supreme judicial authority in the Church, supposedly based on the imperial law collection "Epanagoge", is not true. Byzantine imperial laws were accepted as a source of canon law (in the presence of anointed emperors) only if they did not contradict the sacred canons.
In this regard, Bishop Nikodim Milaš in his textbook on ecclesiastical law states: "What should take precedence in church-administrative matters – canon or state law? St. Balsamon discusses this issue in detail and concludes: 'The canons have more force than state laws, for they (the canons), as promulgated and affirmed by the holy Fathers and emperors, hold the same significance as the Holy Scriptures; whereas the laws were issued only by the emperors and thus cannot rise above the Holy Scriptures and canons.' Balsamon expressed the same thought elsewhere. … After this, the preeminence of the canons over state laws became a general rule for the Orthodox Church..." (22).
In this case, we cited seven canons that Patriarch Bartholomew violated, and two additional canons that do not allow jurisdictional claims over any ecclesiastical territory after a 30-year statute of limitations. Thus, the "Epanagoge" does not take precedence over these canons, since it has a more secular than ecclesiastical origin, and the Byzantine Empire no longer exists, and its laws are no longer in force.
In this regard, let us recall how St. Theodore the Studite boldly opposed the iconoclastic emperor and said to him: "O king, do not disturb the peace of the Church! The Apostle said that God has set some in the Church as apostles, others as prophets (Eph. 4:11), others as shepherds and teachers for the edification of the Church; but he did not mention kings. Leave the Church to shepherds and teachers! Otherwise, believe me, even if an angel from heaven begins to demand from us the opposite of our faith, we will not even listen to him" (23).
4. Some contemporary theologians note (24) that the claims of the Patriarch of Constantinople to supreme judicial authority strikingly resemble the papal doctrine of Roman Catholicism: "Peter and his successors have the right to freely pronounce judgment over any Church, and no one should in any way oppose or rebel against this position of theirs; because the supreme See cannot be judged by anyone" (25). However, we as Orthodox Christians must categorically reject the clear intention of the Patriarch of Constantinople to become the new Eastern Pope and to destroy the Church from within.
5. The attempt of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to unilaterally decide the fate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (with Metropolitan Onuphry of Kyiv and All Ukraine as its Primate) without the consent of the UOC is an anti-canonical encroachment on another Church’s jurisdiction, which is legally invalid. Canon 8 of the III Ecumenical Council reads: "...none of the God-loving bishops should extend their authority over another diocese which was not previously and initially under their hand, or that of their predecessors. If anyone does so and forcibly subjects any diocese to themselves, they should return it; the rules of the Fathers should not be violated; the arrogance of worldly power should not creep in under the guise of holy acts; and we should not lose, gradually and imperceptibly, the liberty which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, granted us with His own blood. Thus, the holy and ecumenical council has resolved that every diocese should preserve in purity and without restraint its original rights as established by ancient custom. Each metropolitan, for his confirmation, may freely take a copy of this decree. If anyone proposes a decree contrary to this, it is the opinion of the entire holy and ecumenical council that it be deemed invalid."
This is direct evidence that the decisions of Patriarch Bartholomew to "reinstate" individuals deposed by other Patriarchates, as well as to receive into communion schismatics excommunicated by other Patriarchates, are canonically null and void – that is, acts of lawlessness and invalidity. Those who accept these non-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople become accomplices in the heresy of Phanaro-Papism and the destruction of the canonical structure of the Church. They bring to the Church not peace and honesty, but discord and dishonor (similar to the case of the new calendar, whose introduction was initiated in 1923 by the Masonic Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople).
6. Patriarch Bartholomew's claims to authority, as articulated in the Tomos and the "reinstatement" of the clerics deposed and excommunicated by other autocephalous Churches, are also condemned by Canon 2 of the II Ecumenical Council: "The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs."
So, in the case of the Ukrainian schismatics and Abbot Pyotr Eremeev, it follows from all these canons that the Patriarch of Constantinople does not have the right to "reinstate" clergy, thereby nullifying the acts of other patriarchs, because he has no more authority than they do. This is evident from Holy Scripture, from numerous canons prohibiting interference in the affairs of another diocese, and from canons prohibiting jurisdictional claims after a 30-year statute of limitations. Any other understanding implies lawlessness and heresy—neo-papism. "Let the bishop of Constantinople have primacy of honour after the bishop of Rome, because this city is New Rome," states Canon 3 of the III Ecumenical Council.
We have already seen that the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the patriarch/pope, because in the era of the Ecumenical Councils there were no bishops without a diocese, so the word "bishop" is used to mean both metropolitan and patriarch) does not have the right to be a supreme ecclesiastical judge, and therefore the Patriarch of Constantinople does not have supreme judicial powers. Canons 9 and 17 of the IV Ecumenical Council, cited in Patriarch Bartholomew's Tomos, must be interpreted in accordance with the entire Tradition (and history) of the Church and the interpretations of the majority of canonists, not isolated and fragmented.
Apparently, the Phanar, starting to administer justice at the end of 2018 based on the complaints of the Ukrainian schismatics, whom Patriarch Bartholomew himself recognized as schismatics at that time, relied on the ignorance of Christians regarding church canons and the indifference of bishops to push through his neo-papist claims to power. This is evident from calling the OCU its "daughter", while in the Tomos of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the autocephalies of the Serbian Church (1879), the Romanian Church (1885), the Polish Church (1924), the Albanian Church (1937 ), the Bulgarian Church (1945) they are all called "sisters". Today, however, the Patriarchate of Constantinople insistently wishes to be perceived as the "Mother Church" and the other Churches as its "daughters", implying the idea of subordination of the autocephalous Churches to it. The "idea of subordination", however, does not correspond to the ecclesiological equality of all Local Churches in the God-human Body of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
7. Patriarch Bartholomew's claim in the Tomos of 6 January 2019 that Constantinople is the "Centre of Orthodoxy" is both false and especially audacious. First, because the true Centre is always Christ; second, because throughout the centuries, Constantinople has had numerous heretical Patriarchs – Macedonius, Nestorius, Acacius, Sergius, Pyrrhus and others. These were various Arian, Pneumatomachian, Monothelite, Iconoclast, and Uniate heresiarchs, from whose thrones many blasphemous heresies emerged – making Constantinople a centre of heresies (as it is now).
Among them, we should also note Patriarch Athenagoras, a major modernist and ecumenist (26), who, on 7 December 1965, together with Pope Paul VI, without canonical authority, announced the mutual lifting of the 1054 excommunications, despite the Pope not renouncing his numerous heresies or becoming Orthodox.
Because of the treacherous actions of Patriarch Athenagoras and his apostasy from Orthodoxy, all the holy fathers of Mount Athos unanimously ceased to commemorate him. He was the first in our time to form the idea of Constantinople as the "centre of Orthodoxy", which, in light of his heretical words and deeds, sounds truly grotesque.
Today, Patriarch Bartholomew continues this disgraceful line, promoting ubiquitous ecumenism (equating Orthodoxy with non-Orthodoxy). Evidence of this includes the organised Council of Crete (2016) and many official confessional documents signed by him or his representatives in previous years, including:
7.1 The Balamand Declaration (27) between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, 23 June 1993:
- "... On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context, it is clear that any rebaptism must be avoided.” (Section 13).
- "It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity..." (Section 14; see also Section 12).
- "To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, ... special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. Their education should be objectively positive with respect of the other Church. First of all, everyone should be informed of the apostolic succession of the other Church and the authenticity of its sacramental life ... the use of history in a polemical manner will be avoided...' (Section 30).
In Balamand, the representatives of the Orthodox Churches present signed a non-Orthodox document in which all papal heresies were quietly accepted en bloc, thus the two parties involved managed to "diplomatically" avoid mentioning such specific Roman Catholic heresies as the Filioque, the supremacy of the Pope over the Church, papal infallibility ex cathedra, the doctrine of purgatory, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, etc. This ecumenical triumph was achieved by the official declaration of the Orthodox that the Roman Catholic communion is a "Sister Church with gracious sacraments," which in turn implies that the above-mentioned papal heresies can no longer be considered heresies either, but legitimate theological disagreements. In addition to the open betrayal of Orthodoxy (especially in Sections 12, 13 and 14). theological disagreements. Moreover, in addition to the outright betrayal of Orthodoxy (especially in Sections 12, 13, and 14), Section 30 provides extremely disturbing practical advice. It is as if we are being officially told: forget the Holy Fathers' ecclesiology and the Holy Tradition of the Church, forget the last thousand years of Church history, reject the martyrdom of the saints who suffered for Orthodoxy, and, most importantly, do not defend the Truth in any way.
7.2. Ravenna Document of 13 October 2007 (28) signed between Orthodox and Roman Catholics:
"...Reaffirming and confessing 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. 4:5), we give glory to the Triune God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who has brought us together…” (Section 46) (29).
Is the faith of Orthodox and heretics the same? Of course, not.
7.3. Jerusalem Declaration of 25 May 2014 (30) jointly adopted by Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis:
- "God has taught us to honour one another as members of one Christian family";
- "The Holy Spirit leads us to ... unity in legitimate diversity";
- "we look forward to the day when we will participate together in the Eucharistic celebration" (31);
- "in 1965, there was the annulment of the mutual excommunications of 1054 from church memory and environment" (32);
- "such a common endeavour, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will lead us to the fullness of truth" (33) (as if the Orthodox Church does not retain the fullness of truth, but only has yet to arrive at it);
- "Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Demetrius are both blessed" (34).
The principle of "unity in legitimate diversity," adopted at the Sixth Assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Vancouver, Canada, in 1983, posits that theological differences are lawful and should not impede the union of various denominations. This heretical principle was expanded at the IX Assembly of the WCC in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 2006 with the statement: "The apostolic faith of the Church is one, but the different formulations of the Church's faith are legitimate and acceptable." Given the multi-church forum where this decision was made, it essentially legitimises all heresies.
In addition to the signed and approved heretical documents, Patriarch Bartholomew is criticised for his numerous prayers with the Pope, demonstrating his ecumenical confession and disregard for the sacred canons that forbid joint prayers of Orthodox Christians with heretics (Apostolic Canons 10, 11 and 45).
8. Many, afraid to confess the truth on the issue of the neo-papist heresy set forth in the Tomos on autocephaly of 16 January 2019 and on the question of the distortion of the canons in it, say as if it is impossible to judge whether Ukrainian schismatics are indeed schismatics and whether the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to reinstate those deposed by other patriarchs, because the Ecumenical Council must first make a judgement. This is not true. Heresy is a departure from the Orthodox teaching of Christ. Schism is a voluntary separation from the canonical hierarchy. These are objective facts, and anyone who knows the Orthodox teaching of Christ and the sacred canons can easily understand what is heresy and what is schism. For example, the concelebration of five Bulgarian bishops with Ukrainian schismatics on 19 May 2024 in Istanbul is an objective fact. The fact that the latter are schismatics follows from the aforementioned sacred canons and is not a matter of subjective judgment or preference. Only a Metropolitan Council—a decision by the Bulgarian Holy Synod—is required to condemn the Bulgarian bishops, because penalties in the form of deposition and excommunication cannot be imposed by the faithful or the clergy, but only by the Holy Synod.
The canons indicate the sin—what is forbidden, and this is binding for all Christians, and the Holy Synod is the competent and responsible body for imposing punishment.
The situation is similar to a group of people witnessing one person killing another—a murder is an objective fact, the group of people are witnesses, but they cannot imprison the murderer themselves, because punishment is within the jurisdiction of the court. However, the fact of murder does not depend on the court's discretion, it has already occurred. Even if the judge is bribed and acquits the guilty, the murderer remains a murderer.
By the same logic, Arius, who preached heresy, was a heretic before the decision of the I Ecumenical Council, not only after the Council's decision. Similarly, even if hypothetically the Bulgarian Holy Synod recognises the Ukrainian schismatics of the OCU as part of the Church of Christ, this decision will be non-canonical and will not change the fact that they are schismatics, since according to the canons, they can be reinstated and accepted into communion only by the same Local Church that deposed/excommunicated them (for which there are no obstacles if they sincerely repent).
Similarly, if the Holy Synod decides, for example, to allow same-sex marriages or change the way of determining Easter, this decision will be non-canonical and non-binding—according to Article 69, Paragraph 2 of the Statute of the BOC-BP, the decisions of the Holy Synod are binding only if they do not contradict the dogma or canon of the Church.
Therefore, while an Ecumenical Council may be required to condemn Patriarch Bartholomew and depose him, the fact that he violates sacred canons by arbitrarily reinstating the clergy deposed by other Patriarchs is an undeniable fact that directly follows from the canons.
It is precisely so that we judge fairly and separate truth from falsehood that the Lord commanded: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
For the same reason, St. Apostle Paul orders: "Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11).
Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople also allows us to separate from heretical patriarchs if they openly preach "heresies condemned by the Holy Councils or Fathers" because they become "false bishops", as the canon calls them, at the moment they begin to openly preach heresy, not only after their personal condemnation by a council. St Maximus the Confessor also broke communion with heretical clerics (bishops and priests) without waiting for their conciliar condemnation. And the Church approved of him for this.
Therefore, although laypeople and lower clergy cannot depose Patriarch Bartholomew, they can, however, condemn his false teachings as expressed in the aforementioned written official documents and his violation of the holy canons (including joint prayers with the Pope and with the Ukrainian schismatics), and avoid him.
9. Finally, there is a moral aspect to the issue, which essentially precedes the purely canonical one. In light of the special appeals to the Bulgarian Church by Metropolitan Onuphry of Kyiv and All Ukraine and other canonical Ukrainian metropolitans, we must morally support the suffering Ukrainian Orthodox Church, where for several years now, schismatics, with the support of secular authorities, have been beating priests, maiming the faithful and seizing churches.
Is it not a betrayal that our Local Church not only remains silent about the schism in Ukraine but also has some of its bishops concelebrating with the schismatics instead of with Metropolitan Onuphry? Is this not complicity in the sin of schism? "By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35).
If we not only indifferently turn away from our suffering brothers and sisters of the canonical Church in Ukraine, thus failing to show them love and compassion, but even assist Patriarch Bartholomew's attempts to legitimise the schism of the OCU and thereby destroy the Church, are we true disciples and friends of Christ?
However, if the communion with the schismatics on 19 May 2024 was not intentional, there are no obstacles to the sin being erased with appropriate repentance – and there will be joy both in heaven and in the Bulgarian Church.
We live in an era of intensified diabolical attacks on the Church of Christ. In these attacks, he will become increasingly ferocious as his time gradually runs out. For Orthodox Christians, this is a favourable time for purification from sin, confession, spiritual protection from the "depths of Satan" (Rev. 2:24) and, if necessary, martyrdom. Freedom, the measure of our faith and love for the Holy Trinity determine each of our choices. And in love, "there is no fear" (1 John 4:18).
Therefore, to the valiant and faithful, the Lord promises: "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels" (Rev. 3:5). Amen.
References and notes:
1. See the official website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate https://ec-patr.org/patriarchikos-kai-synodikos-tomos-chorigiseos-aytokefaloy-ekklisiastikoy-kathestotos/: "...we declare that the Autocephalous Church in Ukraine knows as its head the most holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne, just as the rest of the Patriarchs and Primates also do..."
2. Ibid: "...while further preserving the right of all Hierarchs and other clergy to address petitions of appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch, who bears the canonical responsibility of irrevocably passing judgment over matters related to bishops and other clergy in local Churches, in accordance with the sacred Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon."
3. Tomos in Bulgarian: https://dveri.bg/component/com_content/Itemid,100724/catid,19/id,68153/view,article/
4. https://budiveren.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1715&catid=96&Itemid=320
5. In this article, the terms "Constantinopolitan Patriarch" and "Patriarch of Constantinople" are used interchangeably.
6. "Ukrainian autocephaly – an anti-canonical and schismatic intrusion of Constantinople." Prof. Archpriest Theodore Zisis. Ed. "Orthodox Classic", 2019, p. 69.
7. "Ukrainian autocephaly - an anti-canonical and schismatic intrusion of Constantinople." Prof. Archpriest Theodore Zisis. Ed. "Orthodox Classic", 2019, p. 69.
8. Cf. Bishop Nikodim Milaš. Orthodox Church Law. Sofia, 1904, p. 225.
9. https://www.budiveren.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2305&catid=36&Itemid=73
10. Ibid.
11. https://www.pravoslavieto.com/life/03.12_sv_Grigorij_Dvoeslov.htm#%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8
12. Muravyov. The Truth of the Universal Church..., pp. 153-156 - https://www.budiveren.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2305&catid=36&Itemid=73
13. https://www.pravoslavieto.com/life/03.12_sv_Grigorij_Dvoeslov.htm#%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8
14. Правилата на св. Православна Църква с тълкуванията им. Том I. Изд. „Православна класика“, 2019, с. 837.
15. Ibid., p. 843.
16. See http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5283708.html
17. Metropolitan Nectarius of Pentapolis. Historical research on the causes of the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, its duration and the possibility of their union. Vol. I, ch. 1 (quoted from: Μελέτη ιστορική περί των αιτίων του σχίσματος: περί της διαιωνίσεως αυτού και περί του δυνατού ή αδυνάτου της ενώσεως των δύο εκκλησιών της Ανατολικής και Δυτικής υπό του μητροπολίτου Πενταπόλεως Νεκταρίου. Εν Αθήναις, 1911).
18. Cf. Encyclical letter of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to all Orthodox Christians (1848), section 14.
19. Правилата на Св. Православна Църква с тълкованията им. Пос. изд., с. 794.
20. Spiritual War in Ukraine – opinions of authoritative Greek hierarchs on the Ukrainian schism. Ed. Sliven Metropolis, 2020, p. 128.
21. Π. Π. Παναγιωτακου Συστημα του Εκκλησιαστικου Δικαιου, Το ποινικον Δικαιον τησ Εκκλησιας, Ἀθῆναι, 1962, с. 836. Based on: Spiritual Warfare in Ukraine - Opinions of authoritative Greek hierarchs on the Ukrainian schism. Latest edition 2020, p. 130.
22. Bishop Nikodim Milaš. Orthodox Church Law. Sofia, 1904, p. 57.
23. Archimandrite Seraphim (Alexiev). Our hope. Synodal Publishing House of the BOC-BP, 2011, p. 155.
24. See Archpriest (Associate Professor of the Sretenskaya Theological Seminary) Vadim Leonov. Ukrainian Tomos – a trap for world Orthodoxy: https://spzh.live/ru/zashhita-very/60619-ukrainskij-tomos--kapkan-dlya-mirovogo-pravoslavija.
25. Epistolae et decreta pontificia, XXXII // PL. 143, 765.
26. https://budiveren.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=358&Itemid=111
27. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Balamand_Statement. The declaration was adopted by the Mixed International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church at the session held in Balamand (Northern Lebanon) from June 17 to 24, 1993, on the topic "Uniatism as a Method of Unity in the Past and Present Desire for Full Communion". The session was attended by 24 representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and 13 Orthodox (including 7 hierarchs) representing the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Russia, Romania, Cyprus, Poland, Albania, and Finland.
28. The document itself is titled "Ecclesiastical and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority" (see https://www.ecupatria.org/documents/joint-international-commission-for-the-theological-dialogue-between-the-orthodox-church-and-the-roman-catholic-church/).
29. Ibid.
30. Full text available at https://www.patriarchate.org/common-declarations-between-popes-and-ecumenical-patriarchs/. Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (25 May 2014).
31. Is it possible to speak of "the day when we will together participate in the festive Eucharist" when there is no progress in overcoming numerous doctrinal disagreements?
32. St. Paisius Velichkovsky (+1794) speaks of the annulment of anathemas as follows: "The hierarchs did not receive from the Holy Spirit the authority to change apostolic traditions and church rules, and therefore neither hierarchs nor Eastern patriarchs can annul the anathema against opponents of the Orthodox Church, as (anathema) properly imposed by the Holy Council; and if anyone attempted to do so, it would be contrary to God and the holy Church." You ask further: if this anathema cannot be annulled by any hierarch other than Eastern Patriarchs, can Eastern Patriarchs annul it? I answer: not only any hierarch without Eastern Patriarchs, but even the Eastern Patriarchs themselves cannot annul this oath, as we have already said, because such an anathema is eternally irrevocable..." (quoted from: Archimandrite Lazar Abashidze, "What a modern Orthodox Christian needs to know". S., Taber Publishing House, p. 36).
33. The question of the "whole truth" that Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew continue to seek together is interesting. The holy Fathers of the VII Ecumenical Council said very clearly: "Whoever, having found the truth, continues to seek something more, seeks falsehood" (from the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council).
34. Can we call "blessed" a deceased heresiarch (i.e., a leader of heresy)?
