The Church-scientific center “Orthodox encyclopedia” published the first comments on the historical-canonical studies of the Constantinople Patriarchate on the Ukrainian issue, reports the Synodal Department for Church relations with society and the media. As noted in the review set, the scientific quality of the research and representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was “disappointingly low”.
The first comments posted on the website of Church-scientific center concern of the report of Bishop Macarius Chistopolskogo (Genitalia), vicar of the Tallinn Archdiocese, the cleric of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church of the Constantinople Patriarchate. The study Chistopolskogo Bishop Macarius became the main source of historical information used by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the decision to intervene in the ecclesiastical Affairs of Ukraine.
“Considering future consequences… you would expect that the work of Bishop Makarios is a model of competence and demonstrates a deep knowledge of the actual historical material. Familiarity with these publications raises questions about how shaky the basis of the Constantinople Patriarchate is trying to build his international Church politics”, — stated in the Foreword to the review.
On the basis of irrefutable historical facts in set comments contradicted the views of Bishop Macarius Chistopolskogo on the history of the Russian Church since the XI century.
Among other things, details the events leading up to the actual establishment of the autocephaly of the Russian Church to 1448. In particular, it addresses the accusations of “uncanonical” the election of the Ryazan Bishop Jonah, Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia: “In Constantinople did not even wait for the candidate from the Kyiv Metropolitanate, and put on the Kiev Department with no connection to the Greek Metropolitan of Isidore, an active supporter of the Union and an active participant in the negotiations with Rome And the Grand Prince of Moscow Vasily II openly expressed its dissatisfaction with the fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has not coordinated his act with the Archdiocese, the faithful of the Church’s canonical rules Moscow took Isidore “with honor” and did not dispute his appointment.”
Despite this Isidore was taken at the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral, the Union with the Catholics and returned to Moscow, “as cardinal and papal legate, with prednisone of a Latin cross; the first Liturgy in the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, he commemorated the Pope Eugene as the head of a unified Church and made a solemn reading of the bulls of the Pope with decisions of Ferrara-Florence Cathedral”, ― stated in the review. In the end, Metropolitan Isidor was taken into custody and imprisoned in the Chudov monastery: according to the canonical rules his fate was to decide the Patriarch of Constantinople, which, however, he was an obvious supporter of the Union.
“As a result, in 1448, seven years after the flight of Isidor, in Moscow the decision was accepted on placing of the Kyiv Metropolitan Cathedral of Russian bishops without the participation of the Patriarch of Constantinople. December 15, 1448, the Cathedral of Russian bishops, convened by Prince Basil II, put the Ryazan Bishop Jonah, Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia”, ― stated in the review.
“To assert, as does the Bishop Macarius, ordination of Saint Jonah was a lawless, non-canonical and generally took place “in imitation of the four Eastern Patriarchs,” that is a big mistake. Recall that in Moscow the celebration of the 500th anniversary of that event in 1948 was attended by representatives of virtually all the Autocephalous Churches, including the Patriarchate of Constantinople”, ― summarized in the review set.
The bias of the views of Bishop Macarius in the Russian Church expose the epithets that he uses to describe the Church situation before the reforms of Patriarch Nikon: “the Erroneous ecclesiastical customs which entered into the Church life, was mixed with paganism, witchcraft, magic and various superstitions,” says the Bishop Chistopolsky.
“Contrary to the insinuations of the author is nothing “magical” or “pagan” nor duberstein — authentic Byzantine pestalotia — or in other traditions of the ancient Russian piety (many of which just reflect the Byzantine customs of the Greeks to the XVIIth century has been forgotten) was not there,” argues the representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople set.
The politicized approach of the author of the text is particularly evident in assessments of the events of Russian history of the XX century: “the Phrase of the speaker: “In 1941 the German troops entered the Ukraine, resulting in the Church relations between Ukraine and Russia interrupted”, attracts much attention: unlike the Bolsheviks, the Germans, the Bishop Macarius Ukraine is not “occupied”, but only “include” in it”, ― emphasized in the review set.
Among the obvious manifestations of ignorance of the author regarding the true history of the Russian Orthodox Church in the twentieth century attributed the absurdity of the Bishop Macarius that after the death of Patriarch Pimen, Metropolitan Filaret, who had more chances in the election, allegedly “was excluded from the elections because of its Ukrainian origin.”
“Meanwhile, it is well known that Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia Filaret removed from the elections was not and participated in them, but the members of the local Council has left him for another candidate. Very strange looks trying to explain it to nationalistic motives, considering the fact that of the three candidates who voted for the local Council, two (he Filaret and Metropolitan Vladimir of Rostov and Novocherkassk) were ethnic Ukrainians” ― note in the set.
The same bias can be seen in the Bishop Macarius “statistics” for the year 2017, according to which the number of Orthodox believers in Ukraine identify themselves with the congregation of the so-called “Kiev Patriarchate”, reaches 44%, and the number of believers who consider themselves parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate — only 18%. “Anyone who is really interested in the Church situation in Ukraine, it is obvious how irrelevant these figures”, — stated in the review set.
“The review “historical data” on which was based the speech by Patriarch Bartholomew September 1, 2018, and further steps can be completed. In fact it is not an expert, and a propaganda document. Exploring it deeply worrying that such a critical value accepted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the basis of such depressingly low scientific quality,” they concluded in the Church-scientific center “Orthodox encyclopedia”.
The text of the review to the report of his grace Bishop Macarius Chistopolskogo on the “Synaxis of the hierarchy of the Ecumenical throne” “the Church is the problem in Ukraine” can be found at the following link: