Advertising on the portal

Bartholomew, Patriarch of Constantinople. Reference

Well-known theologian and church analyst Sergei Khudiev tells RG about what Constantinople actually means today and what “universe” is ruled by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

The words “Ecumenical Patriarch” sound fascinating. Translated from sacred, it is “the most important.” Can Constantinople claim this?

Sergey Khudiev: Once upon a time, in the Middle Ages, Constantinople was the center of the civilized world, the most glorious - there was no more glorious city on Earth. The city of cities, our ancestors called it Tsar-grad. It was the absolute center not only for the inhabitants of the Roman Empire - for the inhabitants of the entire world of that time. The word "universe", "ecumene" meant for a resident of the Eastern Roman Empire the world that existed within the borders of this empire. Hence this high title - “Ecumenical Patriarch”. The Bishop of Constantinople was naturally perceived as the main bishop of the empire and had the “primacy of honor.” But this did not mean some fundamentally different status - he was first among equals.

And now?

Theologian Sergei Khudiev: It seems to the Patriarch of Constantinople that he is the head of the Orthodox world in general. But this is an illusion. Photo: From the personal archive of Sergei Khudiev.

Sergey Khudiev: A lot of time has passed since then. We know that the Eastern Roman Empire, which would later be called Byzantium, declined and was eventually conquered by the Turks. The Turks gave a certain amount of self-government to the Greek Orthodox community. And they left the Patriarch of Constantinople as its leader. But in the 20s of the 20th century, the Greeks made an unsuccessful attempt to restore the empire, lost the war with Turkey - and this led to mass deportations of the Greek population. The Patriarch of Constantinople managed to stay in Constantinople with great difficulty and almost without a flock. Today, about 100 Greeks live in Istanbul.

It doesn't end with these 100 Istanbul Greeks. He also has parishes - in the United States, in Greece. But the great, grandiose status that the Patriarch of Constantinople had during the Eastern Empire does not exist today. He is now the bishop of a very small quarter in Istanbul, completely under Turkish rule. However, Patriarch Bartholomew, remembering the position that the Bishop of Constantinople had during the heyday of Constantinople itself, is trying to appeal to him. It seems to him that he is the head of the Orthodox world in general. And everyone must obey him.

By analogy with the Pope?

Sergey Khudiev: Yes, for Catholics, historically, the Church is ruled by the Pope. And he is seen as a kind of monarch, the spiritual head of all Catholics. A different system of government has developed in the Orthodox Church. There are fifteen patriarchates, each of which has authority within its own local church. Patriarchs are equal to each other. Each patriarchy has its own canonical territory. And the rules of the Orthodox Church prohibit a bishop from entering someone else’s canonical territory. The Bishop of Moscow, for example, cannot interfere in the affairs of the Bishop of St. Petersburg. A very important example of the inviolability of this rule was shown by the Russian Church after the 2008 war, when South Ossetian Orthodox parishes asked to join the Moscow Patriarchate. But Moscow refused to accept them, so as not to violate the canonical territory of the Georgian Church. But for some reason Constantinople decided that it could come to the canonical territory of another patriarchate - the Moscow one.

Despite the fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is just “one of” the Orthodox patriarchates, in no way superior to anyone?

Sergey Khudiev: Yes. Its once extremely high status, given by the capital status of Constantinople, is an anachronism. This empire is long gone. And even if we start looking for the closest analogue of the Orthodox empire, then in any case not in Turkey.

But “the bishop of one Istanbul quarter” wants to create an “autocephalous Ukrainian church.”

Sergey Khudiev: Yes. And here it should be noted, first of all, that the entire movement for “autocephaly for the Ukrainian Church” was initiated and inflated by the secular authorities. The canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church has not asked for anything like this and is not asking for it. Among the people who are fighting for autocephaly, there are very few at least formal members of the Church. Among the fighters for autocephaly for Ukrainian Orthodoxy are people who define themselves as Uniates, Protestants, atheists and anyone else. This is a purely political project. Its main goal is to suppress the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, legally associated with the Moscow Patriarchate. This is the hostility of Ukrainian nationalists. Nationalism is fundamentally hostile to Christianity and the Church. He postulates “Ukraine is above everything,” and for a Christian, of course, “is above everything” - Christ. The nationalist greeting “Glory to Ukraine” is a conscious parody of the traditional Ukrainian pious greeting “Glory to Jesus Christ.” The nationalists would be content with their own pocket nationalist church. They have the so-called "Kiev Patriarchate", otherwise known as the "Filaret Schism", but it is not recognized in the Orthodox world. With the help of the Patriarch of Constantinople, they hope to gain recognition. And Patriarch Bartholomew, who does not have a very large flock, roughly speaking, wants more people under him. And that is why, I think, he came to an agreement with the Ukrainian nationalists. Their interests intersected.

During the Georgian-Ossetian war, the Russian Orthodox Church behaved as the Church should behave if it is a real Church. Constantinople and Ukrainian schismatics with political admixture behave in a way that they do not behave in the Church.

Sergey Khudiev: As for Ukrainian politicians, they are ordinary Machiavellians, what else can you expect from them. But the behavior of Patriarch Bartholomew is still disappointing. He should know everything much better than the electrified Ukrainian nationalists.

Constantinople suddenly started talking about the insufficiency of historical foundations for the independence from Constantinople that was once chosen by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Sergey Khudiev: She was chosen 300 years ago. And for 300 years all the historical foundations were there, but today they have become doubtful?

How resourceful is the Patriarchate of Constantinople? Is Ukraine a “tidbit” for her?

Sergey Khudiev: Everything is quite transparent: Constantinople has few parishes, it wants to increase their number, and Ukraine is a very, very tasty morsel. And first of all, what is striking is the blatant unethical behavior of Patriarch Bartholomew in relation to his brother, Metropolitan Onuphry. He recognized him as a fellow bishop - and now treats him and his flock as empty space, sending his exarchs without any agreement with him. For a person who claims to be the good shepherd of the entire Orthodox world, this is simply unthinkable.

Will Constantinople decide to give a tomos to Ukrainian schismatics?

Sergey Khudiev: Some time ago, quite a short time ago, I would have said that Patriarch Bartholomew would not take such an irresponsible step. But now it is clear that he can do this. Another thing is that there is no structure that can receive this tomos. Someone should convene a council of various Ukrainian schisms and create it. Therefore, it is not yet clear how events will develop.

If Constantinople tries to legitimize the Ukrainian schismatics...

Sergey Khudiev: This will lead to a sharp increase in pressure on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The schismatics already demonstrated extreme hostility towards her.

And two great laurels can try to take it away from the canonical Church?

Sergey Khudiev: Who was not in our great laurels - both the Bolsheviks and the fascists. But let us not forget that “the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.”

The decision of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to appoint two Americans of Ukrainian origin as his “exarchs” in Kyiv could lead to a split in the entire Orthodox world

The appointment by the Patriarch of Constantinople of his representatives-bishops in Ukraine - without the consent of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and His Beatitude Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine - is nothing more than an unprecedentedly gross invasion of the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. Such actions cannot go unanswered.

This is exactly how Vladimir Legoyda, Chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations of the Church with Society and the Media, commented on the decision made in Istanbul on the social network Facebook. Usually extremely diplomatic, Legoida expressed only a small fraction of the emotions of Russian Orthodox people who are closely following the issue of “Ukrainian autocephalization,” the process of which was launched by the Constantinople (in reality, Istanbul) Patriarch Bartholomew. But if yesterday we were talking about a “war of discussions,” today Phanar (the Istanbul quarter where the residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople is located) has gone on a real offensive.

According to many experts of the Tsargrad TV channel, including Bishop of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Archbishop of Sebaste Theodosius (Hanna), such actions are links in the chain of anti-Russian policy of the United States of America, which largely controls the activities of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. To clarify the scale of the church tragedy that happened (and we are talking about the beginning of a tragedy, which has become much more difficult to prevent from today), Constantinople turned to the leading expert in the Ukrainian church issue, professor at the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University, doctor of church history Vladislav Petrushko.


Professor of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University, Doctor of Church History Vladislav Petrushko. Photo: TV channel “Tsargrad”

Constantinople: Vladislav Igorevich, how should we evaluate what happened? What actually happened, what kind of characters were sent by Patriarch Bartholomew to Kyiv? Who are these “legates” or “nuncios” of the “Pope” of Constantinople?

Professor Vladislav Petrushko: It seems to me that we are not placing the accents quite correctly. What happened, on the one hand, was expected, since it is a logical continuation of the policy started by Phanar. On the other hand, it is unexpected that so quickly, literally a week after the meeting of the two Patriarchs in Istanbul, a decision was made to appoint Phanariot “legates” to Ukraine. And although they are trying to present it in such a way that these two bishops are “just” representatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and not the heads of some new structure, a new jurisdiction, from history we know very well the ability of the Greeks to juggle terms and words. Today it is “exarch” as “legate”, as representative. And tomorrow - the de facto primate of the semi-autonomous “Church”.

The appointed exarchs, or more precisely, the exarch and the deputy exarch, are two Ukrainian bishops of the jurisdiction of Constantinople. One is from the USA, the second is from Canada. Moreover, one, if I’m not mistaken, in the past was a Uniate (Greek Catholic) who converted to Orthodoxy in one of the Constantinople jurisdictions. It is clear that both come from Galicia, which means they are patent nationalists, but this is not even what we should pay attention to. And on what happened at the last Synaxis (bishopric meeting of the Patriarchate of Constantinople), and on the statement of Patriarch Bartholomew on the results.


Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

In essence, a revolution has occurred. And not only canonical, but ecclesiological (ecclesiology is the doctrine of the Church, including its borders - ed.). For the first time, the creation of an eastern analogue of the papacy was declared so openly at an official event of the Church of Constantinople. It is stated that only the Patriarch of Constantinople is an arbiter and can intervene in the affairs of other Churches, resolve controversial issues, grant autocephaly, and so on. In fact, quietly, what was happening throughout the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st came to a logical conclusion. And Ukraine is a kind of first “trial balloon” on which this “Eastern Papacy” will be tested. That is, a new structure of the Orthodox world has been proclaimed, and now everything will depend on how the Local Orthodox Churches react to this.

C.: So what happened can be compared to 1054, the “great schism” that divided the Eastern and Western Churches, Orthodox and Roman Catholics?

Professor Petrushko: Yes, that's the first thing that comes to mind. But even in the 11th century it began with much more innocent things than now, when we see that the Phanar has gone berserk, lost all adequacy and is actually delivering an ultimatum to the entire Orthodox world. Either you recognize the “Pope” of Constantinople, or we come to you and do whatever we want in your canonical territories, including recognizing any schism, any non-canonical structure. Of course, this is complete chaos, this is a real church “raiding”. And this must be put to a decisive end by all Local Orthodox Churches.

    List of apostles, bishops and patriarchs of Antioch with years of reign: Contents 1 Early period 2 From 331 to 358 Arian archbishops ... Wikipedia

    The list includes Orthodox ("Greek") bishops and patriarchs of Alexandria (see Patriarch of Alexandria, List of Coptic Patriarchs). Years of reign are given in brackets. Contents 1 Bishops of Alexandria (42,325) ... Wikipedia

    Main article: Patriarch of the city of Jerusalem and all Palestine Contents 1 Jewish bishops of Jerusalem 2 Bishops of Aelia Capitolina ... Wikipedia

    List of popes buried in St. Peter's Basilica. Marble slab at the entrance to the sacristy in St. Peter's Basilica ... Wikipedia

    List of popes buried in St. Peter's Basilica. Marble slab at the entrance to the sacristy in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican List of popes, divided by period, with annotations and indication of periods of reign. Note: Only in 384... ... Wikipedia

    Bishops of Jerusalem No. Name. years 1 Apostle James, brother of the Lord until 62 2 Simeon, son of Cleopas 106 107 3 Just 111 ??? 4 Zacchaeus??? ... Wikipedia

    This term has other meanings, see Intercession Cathedral (meanings). This term has other meanings, see St. Basil's Church. Orthodox Cathedral Cathedral of the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on the Moat (Cathedral of Basil... ... Wikipedia

    Wikipedia has articles about other people named Joachim. Joachim III Ἰωακεὶμ Γ΄ Μεγαλοπρεπής Patriarch Joachim III ... Wikipedia

    Fourth Council of Constantinople Date 879 880 Orthodoxy is recognized Previous Council Second Council of Nicaea Next Council Fifth Council of Constantinople Convened by Basil I Presided over Number of those gathered 383 bishops... ... Wikipedia

Not judge, Yes Not convicted you will,

for how court judge, so you will convicted;

and what kindWith the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Gospel of Matthew (chapter 7, vv. 1-2)

As the deadline approaches Great Pan-Orthodox Council on the island of Crete, Orthodox people, spiritual and secular, have more and more questions regarding the appropriateness of the upcoming event, the choice of date and persistence Patriarch of Constantinople in realizing this idea. This topic occupies a major place not only in church circles, but is also actively discussed in the central Russian media.

And this is not surprising, because in recent years the role Russian Orthodox Church in its entirety (clergy and flock) and activity in the life of our country has increased noticeably: church property is being returned by the state, the number of churches being restored and newly built is growing.

Disputes over positions in the press had not yet subsided Bulgarian and Antiochian Churches regarding participation in the Pan-Orthodox Council, which caused a nervous reaction in Phanare(the name of the Istanbul quarter in which the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchal Residence are located), another piece of news spread around the world: the Turkish authorities decided to return the Hagia Sophia Museum to the status of a mosque. This provocative decision was made, as they say, in spite of the Christian and, above all, the Orthodox world. It seemed that the reaction should have followed immediately, but this did not happen. The USA, the “main culprit” of Istanbul’s decision, is silent, the “Christian” West is silent, and the Local Orthodox Churches along with the Phanar are silent. But in recent publications on this topic, indignant questions and direct criticism began to be addressed not to the Turkish authorities, but Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, why is he silent and does not address Local Orthodox Churches with an appeal to support him in preserving the existing status quo of Hagia Sophia.

The question is logical, but at the same time we will try to understand why the Archbishop of Constantinople, who has “primacy of honor” over the other primates of the Orthodox Patriarchates and Churches, so persistently promotes the idea of ​​convening a Pan-Orthodox Council (“the match will take place in any weather”) and does not take advantage of his status, to lead the entire Orthodox ecumene in the struggle to protect the pan-Orthodox Christian shrine and preserve its current status quo?

Let's try to understand how the status of the Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome changed throughout history. In the 4th century AD. he receives the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, or “first among equals” (primus inter pares), which until that time had only been held by the Pope.

The transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine the Great from Old Rome to New Rome on the banks of the Bosphorus (on the site of an ancient Byzantine village), as well as the equalization of the titles of the Roman and Constantinople bishops, caused chronic rejection of the Pontiff, who sent his legates in his place to the Ecumenical Councils convened by decree of the Byzantine emperors Councils at which fateful decisions for all of Christianity were made, aimed at combating the heresy that arose in the empire. The reluctance of the Roman Popes to share seniority in the “list of honor” (diptych) with the Patriarchs of Constantinople served as one of the reasons for the “Great Schism,” or the split in 1054 of Christianity as the body of Christ into the Western (Latin) and Eastern (Orthodox) Churches. Since then, in Rome, during the services of the Roman Catholic (Latin) Church, the Catholic clergy has ceased to commemorate the names of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs, and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates have excluded the commemoration of the names of the Popes in their litanies. Thus, in the Byzantine era, the Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome alone occupied first place in the diptych with the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch”. This status only meant his chairmanship according to the historical seniority of honor among all the Orthodox First Hierarchs of the ancient Patriarchates: Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, but did not give any power advantages to the “first among equals” over them. The ancient Christian principle was still in effect: one diocese - one bishop." The Ecumenical Patriarch could not order the Local Primates of the Orthodox Patriarchates, since they were all considered equal.

During the era of the Ottoman Empire, the padishahs increased the status of the Patriarch of Constantinople, giving him special powers with the special title of “head of the Orthodox faith” (rum millet bashi). Now the Ecumenical Patriarch answered with his own head to the padishah for the loyalty of all the above-mentioned Patriarchates on the territory of the Ottoman Empire. The Greek uprising of 1821 against the Ottoman authorities led to the hanging of Patriarch Gregory V of Constantinople.

In 1589, the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II, who was in Moscow, having received a refusal to his proposal to become the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', was forced to agree to the election to the Patriarchate and enthronement in the Assumption Cathedral of Metropolitan Job of Moscow, thereby approving with a special letter (though, together with other Eastern Orthodox Hierarchs) Moscow Patriarchate. Material and political assistance from the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the Russian Tsardom, and then the Russian Empire and its Greco-Russian Church largely helped the Ecumenical Patriarch maintain his status before the Sultan and the Ottoman government (Sublime Porte). The collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the defeat in the First World War led to the loss of commanding status and power prerogatives over the rest of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox East. Moreover, the Patriarchate of Constantinople immediately came under the influence of Western states, first Great Britain and then the USA. This circumstance largely determined the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople to switch from the Orthodox (Julian) calendar to the Catholic (Gregorian) calendar. True, the secular Turkish authorities refused to recognize for the head of the Church of Constantinople the old Ottoman title of Ecumenical Patriarch with its commanding prerogatives, granted rum millet bashi by the Ottoman sultans in relation to other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates.

At the end of World War II, I.V. Stalin decided to use the church theme in his foreign policy. The increased authority of the USSR on the world stage, the relative weight of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Orthodox world and the weakening influence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in it gave the Soviet leadership reason to believe that from fifth place in the diptych (after the Jerusalem Church) the Moscow Patriarchate should have moved to first. To this end, the Soviet government actively supported the Pre-Conciliar meeting in Moscow of the heads of all Autocephalous Orthodox Churches or their representatives planned by Patriarch Alexy I (Simansky) for September 1947 to prepare for the “convocation in 1948 (500th anniversary of the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church) of the Ecumenical Council, which had not met for several centuries Council to resolve the issue of conferring the title of Ecumenical on the Moscow Patriarchate."

The United States of America, which took the Patriarchate of Constantinople under its protection, began to develop countermeasures to neutralize the plans of the Soviet leader. Using the ancient principle of “divide and conquer” and frightening the Greek primates of a number of Orthodox Churches with the atheistic power of Moscow, they tried in every possible way to disrupt the convening of the Ecumenical Council and the idea of ​​​​transferring the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Moscow. As a result of these efforts, the Patriarchs of the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem, which were traditionally led by ethnic Greeks, did not attend the Pan-Orthodox Conference convened in Moscow in July 1948.

Thus, utopian from a historical and church-canonical point of view, the “Stalin project” inflicted a deep wound on the unity of the Orthodox world after the “Bulgarian schism” of 1872, as a result of which an insurmountable wall of mistrust arose between the Greeks and Slavs. It could not be overcome even after the elimination of the 73-year-old schism of the Bulgarian Church and its return to the fold of Ecumenical Orthodoxy in 1945.

All these circumstances have constantly influenced and continue to influence the behavior of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, whose status the Turkish authorities, since the time of President Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, have deliberately belittled, trying to reduce his Patriarchal powers to the implementation of purely ecclesiastical functions. Even in modern times, during visits to Turkey by the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, official Ankara deliberately inflated the status of Russian representatives and belittled the position of the Phanar. It should be noted that representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches often jokingly call the First Hierarch of Constantinople “Patriarch of Istanbul” behind his back and try to challenge the legitimacy of his unique and exclusive honorary title “All Holiness.”

This attitude on the part of fellow believers causes a corresponding reaction from the Ecumenical Patriarch, pushing him to consolidate his leadership in the Orthodox world and even to ecumenism in violation of the instructions and teachings of the Fathers of the Orthodox Church.

One should also keep in mind the deplorable situation in which the Patriarchate of Constantinople continues to find itself. This is, first of all, the small number of the Orthodox flock in Turkey, dependence on financial and political assistance from the United States of America, from where mainly American Greeks come to work in Phanar on a rotational basis.

These considerations should be taken into account when assessing the steps currently being taken by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople for an objective and unbiased assessment of the course he has taken to hold a Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete “at any cost.”

What does the decision of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople contain?

What is written:

In paragraph 1, the Synod confirms the movement towards the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church. But he doesn't give dates.

paragraph 2 says that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is restoring stauropegia in Kyiv, as one of the many historically existing stauropegia in Ukraine

clause 3 lifts the anathema from Filaret Denisenko and Makariy Maletich, restoring them to the priestly or episcopal camp. The communion of their faithful with the church was restored.

clause 4 Cancels the synodal letter granting the right to the Moscow Patriarch to consecrate the Metropolitan of Kyiv and confirms its right to consecrate the hierarchs of the Kyiv church

p.5 Appeals to peace among believers.

At first glance, everything is clear and transparent. But Constantinople is a Byzantine tradition of cunning diplomacy. Therefore, it makes sense to read between the lines. It will be unpleasant to many and gives several options for the development of events.

Let's read the meaning: what is written in the decision of the Synod?

Let's start with point three, about lifting the anathema. It is invalid, which means that Filaret Denisenko and Makariy Maletich are Christians who were not excommunicated from the church and their episcopal or priestly rank was returned to them. But, and here we remember the cunning of Byzantine diplomacy: the justification states that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has the right to consider the appeals of all hierarchs or priests of all autocephalous churches. BUT the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not recognize these people as the patriarch (in the case of Philaret) or the primate (in the case of Macarius) of the church. Both are named by their first and last names, without titles, and were restored to the priestly rank, but not to the administrative rank.

The last sentence is extremely interesting. Their words are faithful (again - not the flock, but the faithful) restored in communion with the church means that the believers are recognized as Orthodox believers of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Parishes, as an organization of believers, are part of the canonical church, the first in the diptych of Orthodox churches. That is, read by letter - they are K-A-N-O-N-I-C-N-Y.

Now let's go higher, to the second point. It talks about the restoration of Stavropegium over Kiev and all of Ukraine. Stavropegy is the direct subordination of church organizations (monasteries, schools, brotherhoods, even individual parishes, etc.) in a certain territory to the Synod and the primate of the church. In simple words, this may be a representation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or it may happen differently - stauropegy will be established over individual (or all) Councils, monasteries, groups of parishes, seminaries of the UOC-KP and UAOC. But here too is the cunning of Byzantium - there is not a word about the recognition of the church organization, the church hierarchy. That is, the parishes are canonical, they belong to the mother church, but the dioceses with their diocesan administrations... Firstly, there is not a word about them in any of the paragraphs of the document. Secondly, Stavropegia is precisely the independence (and direct subordination to the Synod) of church organizations from the local diocesan structure. Oh, but in our country both the UAOC and the UOC-KP have their own primates, their own synod, etc. Which primates - read above - they were restored to the priesthood and episcopal status - a spiritual, but not a church-administrative rank. For now, Stavropegia (or Stavropegia throughout Ukraine) is being created, which will be led by representatives of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople.

And finally, point 4. The Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople canceled its message of 1686, which gave the Patriarch of Moscow the right to consecrate the Metropolitan of Kyiv. That is, now the consecration of the primate of the Kyiv Metropolis (read modern Ukraine, Poland and Belarus) belongs exclusively to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Point 5 is standard diplomatic language with a call to live in peace according to the Commandments of Christ.

What do we have now

Today, from the point of view of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the church has been replenished with parishes of the UOC-KP and UAOC. That is, if earlier the See of Constantinople in its statistics spoke about approximately 3,200 parishes, then, starting today, we can talk about the possibility of quickly including at least another 7,000 parishes into the church. The Ecumenical Patriarchate becomes not only the first in authority, but also one of the largest church organizations.

The church hierarchy of the UAOC and UOC-KP is not called illegal, but is not recognized either. That is, now the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and only it, by its decision, determines the structure of the church organization in Ukraine. If our local comrades agree to unite the dioceses, they can be recognized. If they don’t agree, it’s okay - they can be created. By the way, our hierarchs are not members of the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The highest hierarchs (from the point of view of administrative rights) in Ukraine today are the exarchs sent by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. They, of course, will not highlight this fact, but if our comrades are intractable, they will be able to apply administrative measures without any problems.

Which? Let's think about it. Both Macarius and Philaret today are (or have become) de facto priests of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This means that they are obliged to show obedience to the decisions of the hierarchs of the church, the Synod and the Patriarch. Disobedience in the Orthodox world is “treated” by exile to a monastery (there is a shortage of novices on Athos), defrocking or anathema. The latter, if this happens, will already be final and irrevocable. The only person who can try to cancel this decision is the Russian Orthodox Church “to spite Constantinople.” But in this case, such a decision will be exchanged for very large concessions on the part of the Kyiv hierarchs.

All further consecrations, appointments as primates of dioceses or metropolises are the responsibility of Constantinople exclusively. He can appoint himself, he can convene a council on the spot. After all, by canceling the decision of 1686, the Synod returned the conditions of existence of the Kyiv Metropolis of the 17th century - subordination to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Thus, the Russian Orthodox Church has already de facto lost its status in Ukraine. Its parishes are located on the canonical territory of another church. The Patriarch of Moscow no longer has the right to consecrate the head of the Ukrainian Church. Dot. But the transition of Ukrainian parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church to the fold of another canonical church is easier than ever - to ask for stauropegy for a separate parish. Now the place of the Moscow Patriarch or his “supervisors” is subordinated (until the final resolution of the Ukrainian question) to the Synod of the Church of Constantinople - the first in the diptych of Orthodox churches.

Plot development fork

First, let's look at the algorithm for creating a local church. Its first part follows the scenario described by the Ukrainian authorities - both ecclesiastical and secular.

Formally, everything has been done for this:

  • the status of the country's territory as the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was confirmed. Formally, we have returned to the status of the Kyiv Metropolis of the 17th century.
  • Moscow is deprived of the right to consecrate the Metropolitan of Kyiv
  • the status of the church administrative structure has not been confirmed - that is, the possibility is left for creating one from scratch (by the decision of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople) or by decision of the local Council (which is still approved by the Synod)
  • Exarchs have been appointed, who, in the absence of a recognized church hierarchy, formally (from the point of view of Canon Law) are hierarchs with the highest status on the territory of Ukraine
  • Stavropegia is being restored (created), which, if the processes progress favorably, is only an administrative center, which can act as a body with the right to assemble a Council of the Ukrainian Church. In an unfavorable development of events, it can become the core of creating a church organization “from scratch,” leaving behind the ambitions of the Ukrainian church hierarchs.
  • Moscow, from a formal point of view, is deprived of the opportunity to influence the processes of creating a local church and, from the point of view of Canon Law, has no right (sorry for the tautology) to interfere - this is not its territory.
  • After the Council, the Ukrainian local church, without additional decisions, is part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After all, the cathedral was convened by decision of the exarchs and the Patriarch, on canonical territory, the organizer was the established Stavropegia in Kyiv (or Stavropegia in Ukraine - if there is a decision to create several). Since the church is being created as part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (see In case of unfavorable developments - persistence in the ambitions of the local hierarchs), the creation of the church occurs through “gathering in parishes”.
  • Monasteries (after consultation with abbots), cathedrals, church schools, seminaries, and individual parishes are declared stauropegia. Afterwards, an administrative structure is created from scratch - dioceses with an updated set of hierarchs.

It may be objected to me that the leaders of the UAOC and the UOC-KP will not agree to this. They will go for one simple reason: it will be very difficult for them to explain to their flock why, just yesterday, seeking to come under the wing of Constantinople, they suddenly changed their minds. And the conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarchate (given the existing conflict with the Russian Orthodox Church) threatens to bury hopes for recognition by any other Orthodox Church. Although no - Moscow will be ready to “change your mind” subject to “repentance of the schismatics” and demonstrative “obedience.”

In fact, this algorithm means that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is rebuilding its structure, taking over the management of individual parishes. The Russian Orthodox Church cannot resist this, since everything happens within the framework of canon law on the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Moreover, the transition of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church or even entire dioceses to a local church, which “may receive a Tomos in the future” is one thing, but the transition to subordination to the canonical church, the first in the diptych, the oldest Orthodox Church, is a completely different matter.

Option 1. Everything goes according to plan

This option provides for the calm holding of the Council, the establishment of a church, which initially, by definition, will be canonical. After all, parishes are ALREADY canonical and they simply create an administrative structure. The election of the primate is approved by the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the primate himself is consecrated by the metropolitan (or the patriarch - depending on the decision of the Council). This newly created church, or rather its primate, will be granted a tomos of Autocephaly in the foreseeable future (perhaps even before the presidential elections).

Option 2. Bartholomew takes the jackpot

There will be a church in any case, but the tomos is not a fact. More precisely, it will be in the foreseeable future. But “foreseeable” can mean several days, months or even centuries, which by church standards is “only a moment.”

In this format, Patriarch Bartholomew receives control of one of the largest church organizations. With proper development and a parade of parishes transferring from the UOC MP (ROC), it can become the largest in the world. Judge for yourself - from 10 to 16 thousand parishes in Ukraine and another 3,200 in the rest of the world. Then you can talk with Lukashenko about the Belarusian Church. Moreover, to follow the same “Byzantine” path - formally, the territory of modern Belarus is part of the historical Kyiv Metropolis within the borders of the 17th century (with the exception of some Northwestern regions of the country). Lukashenko can calmly allow the presence of the universal patriarchy and even a repetition of the trick with Stavropegia. And then, I think, there is no need to explain - work with individual priests with the tacit support of secular authorities. This is another 1.5 thousand parishes. As a result, the Russian Orthodox Church shrinks to 14-16 thousand parishes, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate expands to 20-21 thousand. Bingo!

This option, by the way, looks the most frightening for Moscow. Since quickly obtaining autocephaly does not strengthen Bartholomew, it does not allow him to quickly tear off parishes, for example, in Belarus and, possibly, in Moldova. And the creation of a powerful Ukrainian church is a long process. That is, the Russian Orthodox Church will have time to regroup and try to maintain the maximum share of its current influence.

Another question arises: would Bartholomew consider such a situation more profitable. More precisely, whether Erdogan will consider such a situation more profitable. The Ecumenical Patriarchate depends on the position of the secular authorities of Turkey, which seeks to strengthen its position in the region. For the Turkish authorities, the opportunity to play the religious card in Ukraine (having full influence over the Muslim Crimean Tatars) may be too strong a temptation. After all, the most powerful (not respected, but strong) Orthodox Church in the world has very great political weight in Eastern Europe and the Balkans - the zone of interests of the Turkish Republic.

The downside for Erdogan is that keeping Ukraine within the framework of the Ecumenical Patriarchate will require changing the laws of the Turkish Republic. At least, the abolition of the norm that a citizen of the country, a representative of the Greek minority, can be elected patriarch. This means that in the future, in the event of excessive pressure on the church, a new patriarch may be elected from citizens of any other country, who will simply leave Turkey, away from the annoying authorities.

Is the “Constantinople Option” dangerous for us? I don't think it's too much. The Turks are unlikely to be able to create a system of unity between the church and secular authorities - Erdogan is still an Islamist. That is, there will be cooperation, but not a “second Foreign Ministry.” Ukraine, due to its scale, will still gain significant independence and, perhaps, our hierarchs will play an important role in the first oldest Orthodox Church in the world. Not a bad prospect. But terrible for those who dream of “their own little patriarchy.”

Thus, we have two options, each of which is beneficial to Ukraine. And each of which is extremely dangerous for the Russian Orthodox Church or, to be precise, for the Russian state, since it attacks the ideological myths of domestic and foreign policy, and in the long term reduces the influence on vast regions (not only Ukraine).