By Hieromonk Nikitas Pantokratorinos
The “Chronicle” and the narrative of a “scandalous document”
Recently, the Union of Orthodox Journalists (UOJ) published a document that was “leaked” and records what took place during the final days before the Unification Council. The publication of the so-called “scandalous document of the Phanar” was presented as a supposedly earth-shattering revelation capable of overturning the canonical and ecclesiological foundation for the granting of the Tomos of autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine. Yet it reveals exactly the opposite of what its authors seek to prove.
For if one carefully reads the “Chronicle of the Week of the Clergy-Laity Council of Kyiv”, one will see that this is not a record of an ecclesiastical “conspiracy”, but a testimony to the painstaking efforts of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to safeguard ecclesiastical order, heal a long-standing schism, and protect its canonical rights against pressures coming from every side. Indeed, the document itself portrays the Ecumenical Patriarchate resisting, negotiating, threatening to withdraw, and insisting on its ecclesiological principles.
Autocephaly, historical developments, and ecclesiastical order
Like all autocephalies, that of the Church of Ukraine is inseparably linked to the formation of new state and national realities. For example, the Church of Greece arose within the framework of the Greek state. The Serbian, Romanian, Polish, Czechoslovak, and Bulgarian Churches were likewise connected with corresponding national and state developments. The Russian Church as well.
The practice of the Church, in other words, has always recognized that historical and political developments can create new ecclesiastical realities which the Church is called to regulate canonically. The question, however, is not whether political authority expressed an interest, but whether the Church preserved the freedom of its judgment and whether the final Act was issued by the competent ecclesiastical body. In the case of Ukraine, as in all modern autocephalies, the final word belonged to the Mother Church of Constantinople, as it should have.
The history of the Church is full of cases in which political rulers attempted to influence ecclesiastical developments. The most characteristic example is that of the Church of Russia. Historians know how much pressure was exerted on Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II and how he yielded in granting autocephaly and Patriarchal rank to Moscow. There, effectively held hostage because he was not permitted to leave unless he proclaimed the Metropolis of Moscow a Patriarchate, he was compelled to proclaim the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589.
The real question: the stance of the Mother Church
The real question, then, is not whether there were pressures, tensions, disagreements, and political interventions during the days preceding the Unification Council. No serious person has ever disputed that. The question is what stance the Mother Church took amid this difficult situation. And here precisely the Chronicle gives an answer entirely different from the one the UOJ wishes to promote. The Chronicle itself states that the purpose of the representatives of the Ecumenical Throne was not merely the election of a Primate, but the foundation of the new Church “on strong ecclesiological and canonical foundations”, so that its standing and canonical status would be safeguarded.
The UOJ presents as evidence of “control” the insistence of the Ecumenical Throne that the Ecumenical Patriarch be the guarantor of conformity between the Tomos and the Statute. In reality, however, this is an obvious canonical consequence. From the very first pages of the Chronicle, it becomes clear that the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not treat the matter as a political project, but as an ecclesiological problem. Their principal concern was to ensure that the new ecclesiastical reality would be built on canonical foundations, that the rights of the Mother Church would be preserved, and that uncanonical demands by any faction would not be legitimized. Where exactly is the paradox in all this?
When the Mother Church grants autocephaly, it is self-evident that it retains the right to ensure that the privilege granted is not distorted, and it is natural that it should care for its proper application. This does not prove the dependence of the new Church on the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the UOJ claims. On the contrary, it demonstrates that the Ecumenical Throne takes its mission seriously and does not lightly relinquish its canonical responsibilities.
Resistance to the demands of Metropolitan Filaret
Particularly revealing is the section of the Chronicle concerning the negotiations with Metropolitan Filaret. Here the myth that the Ecumenical Patriarchate was an instrument of particular Ukrainian circles collapses completely. On the contrary, the text portrays the representatives of Constantinople systematically resisting demands they considered uncanonical. The proposal to grant Metropolitan Filaret extraordinary powers incompatible with Orthodox ecclesiology is rejected despite lengthy negotiations, pressures, and coercive dilemmas, on the grounds that it would expose the Orthodox Church and create an unprecedented ecclesiological precedent.
The stance of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
The most important element, however, which the UOJ unwittingly makes public, is the stance of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew himself. This is a point of the highest importance. For years there has been an accusation that Bartholomew took money from the Ukrainians, the Americans, etc., in order to grant autocephaly and that he yielded to political expediency. Putin himself had even spoken of bribery.
Nevertheless, the very document invoked by the critics of the Ecumenical Throne depicts its representatives confronting both ecclesiastical and political actors in order to prevent any ecclesiological deviations. At the height of the crisis, when the then President of Ukraine, Poroshenko, attempted to save the process, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not shown yielding even in the slightest on the rights of the Throne. On the contrary, according to the Chronicle itself, he declares that he will not sell the dignity of the Patriarchate to anyone and that his representatives will withdraw if the canonical prerogatives of the Mother Church are infringed.
“I am the Ecumenical Patriarch, and by virtue of the history of the Patriarchate and before God and my Predecessors I have no right to make a mockery of the prerogatives of the Throne and its position in the Orthodox Church. I bear responsibility, Mr President; I honor you, I respect you, but I will not sell the dignity of the Patriarchate to any Filaret. And if you are not in a position to compel him, I am sorry, but my people must withdraw. At the Phanar we have learned to fear no one and nothing when the age-old rights of the Patriarchate are at stake. Act accordingly.”
What greatness… A true Ecumenical Patriarch, worthy of his saintly predecessors. He places nothing above the Church and fears absolutely nothing and no one when it comes to the prerogatives he is called to safeguard. He proved this, moreover, through his determination on the question of Ukraine’s autocephaly. Despite all the pressure from the Russian Church, he remained steadfast and unmoved. He always understands himself as a guardian of the unity of the Church, which he cannot sacrifice either for the success of a Council or for the political expediency of a particular moment. This, then, is the point that overturns the entire narrative of the UOJ.
The dissolution of the schismatic structures and the unity of the Church
Equally revealing is the insistence of the Ecumenical Throne that the schismatic structures which were to participate in the new ecclesiastical reality first be dissolved. The Chronicle describes in detail the pressure exerted by the representatives of the Throne so that the pre-existing organizations would be abolished and no possibility would remain open for a return to parallel ecclesiastical structures. The UOJ regards this fact as incriminating. In reality, however, it is an act of elementary ecclesiological consistency. For what is the unity of the Church? Is it the coexistence of multiple competing centers of authority? Or is it the genuine overcoming of divisions through the incorporation of all into one common ecclesiastical body?
Political pressures and the canonical decision
It is also noteworthy that the Chronicle repeatedly testifies to the difficulties arising from the political environment. Surveillance, checks, pressures, and even interventions by state actors are mentioned. The authors of the UOJ article have placed the full weight of the events on this point, without taking into account everything we have discussed above, which dismantles their narrative. Nevertheless, the existence of political pressure does not prove that the ecclesiastical decision was uncanonical.
Moreover, as we have seen, the granting of autocephaly is always intertwined with the political context of each country to which it is granted. Indeed, if a supporter of the Ecumenical Throne were looking for evidence that the Ecumenical Patriarchate treated the Ukrainian question primarily as an ecclesiological and canonical matter, it would be difficult to find a stronger text than the one the UOJ itself brought to public attention.
The “Chronicle” as testimony to the defense of canonical order
Ultimately, the greatest irony of the affair is that the text published in order to strike at the Ecumenical Patriarchate ends up highlighting precisely what its opponents wish to conceal: that the Ecumenical Throne did not act as a passive ratifier of decisions made by others, but as the Mother Church, which assumed the burden of an exceptionally difficult therapeutic intervention in the body of Orthodoxy. The treatment was painful. The reactions were intense. The contradictions and difficulties were many. But the Chronicle itself, when read without prejudice, does not portray a Church surrendering its rights. It portrays a Church defending them.
The basic conclusion, then, remains unchanged: the Ecumenical Patriarchate is not a power that indiscriminately cedes authority, but the Mother Church, which strives to preserve canonical continuity, heal schisms, and do everything possible for the unity of the Churches.
