Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Church

With deepest pain, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church accepted the message of the Patriarchate of Constantinople published on October 11, 2018 about the adopted decisions of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: about confirming the intention to “grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church”; the opening of the “Stavrophigy” of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Kiev; about the “restoration in the hierarchal or priestly office” of the leaders of the Ukrainian schism and their followers and the “return of their believers to church communion”; on the “cancellation of the action” of the conciliar diploma of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1686, concerning the transfer of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate. These lawless decisions were made by the Synod of the Church of Constantinople unilaterally, ignoring the calls of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the entirety of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the fraternal Local Orthodox Churches, their Primates and bishops for pan-Orthodox discussion of the issue. Entering into communion with those who have shunned into schism, and even more so who have been excommunicated from the Church, is tantamount to dodging to schism and is severely condemned by the canons of the Holy Church: “If ... any of the bishops, presbyters, deacons or someone in the clergy will communicate with those who are excommunicated, then and himself outside the communion of the church as producing confusion in the church rank ”(Rule 2 of the Council of Antioch; Apostolic Rules 10, 11). The decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to “restore” the canonical status and the adoption of the former Metropolitan Philaret Denisenko, excommunicated, into communion ignores a number of consecutive decisions of the Bishops' Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church, the legitimacy of which is beyond doubt. By the decision of the Bishops 'Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Kharkov dated May 27, 1992, Metropolitan Philaret (Denisenko), for not fulfilling the oaths made by him before the cross and the Gospel at the previous Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, was dismissed from the Kiev cathedra and was banned from the clergy. The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, by its definition of June 11, 1992, confirmed the decision of the Kharkov Council and disgraced Filaret Denisenko from his rank, depriving all degrees of priesthood on the following charges: “Cruel and arrogant attitude to the subordinate clergy, dictate and blackmail (Tit. 1. 7- 8; Apostolic Rule 27); bringing temptation into the environment of believers with their behavior and personal life (Matthew 18: 7; I Ecumenical Council rule 3, VI Ecumenical Council rule 5); oath crime (Apostolic Rule 25); public slander and blasphemy against the Bishops' Council (II Ecumenical Council Rule 6); performing religious rites, including ordinations, in the state of prohibition (Apostolic Rule 28); the division of the Church (Two-Council Council, rule 15). ” All ordinations performed by Filaret in the forbidden state since May 27, 1992, and the bans imposed by him were declared invalid. Despite repeated calls for repentance, after the deprivation of his hierarchal rank, Filaret Denisenko continued his schismatic activity, including within the limits of other Local Churches. By the definition of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997, he was anathematized. These decisions were recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches, including the Church of Constantinople. In particular, His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople on August 26, 1992, in response to the letter of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II , wrote about the overthrow of the Metropolitan of Kiev Filaret, “Our Holy Great Christ, recognizing the fullness of the exclusive Russian Orthodox Church’s competence on this issue, takes synodally decided on the above. " The letter of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II dated April 7, 1997 about the anathematization of Philaret Denisenko stated: “Having received notification of the said decision, we informed him about the hierarchy of our Ecumenical Throne and asked her not to have any church communication with these persons in the future.” Now, after more than two decades, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, for political reasons, has changed its position. In its decision to justify the leaders of the schism and "legitimize" their hierarchy, the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople refers to the non-existent "canonical privileges of the Patriarch of Constantinople to accept the appeals of bishops and clerics from all autocephalous Churches." These claims, in the form in which they are now being carried out by the Patriarch of Constantinople, have never had support for the fullness of the Orthodox Church: they have no grounds in sacred canons and directly contradict, in particular, the 15th rule of the Council of Antioch: of all the bishops of that region, and they all agree to pronounce a single sentence to him - such is not sued by other bishops, but agree with the decision of the bishops of the region to be firm ”- they are also refuted by the practice of the decisions of the Holy Yelenskyi and Local Councils and authoritative interpretations of Byzantine canonists and modern times. So, John Zonara writes: “The Constantinople [Patriarch] is recognized as a judge not at all over all metropolitans, but only at his subordinates. For neither the metropolitans of Syria, nor the Palestinian, Phoenician, or Egyptian are not brought against his will to his court, but the Syrian are subject to the judgment of the Patriarch of Antioch, the Palestinian are from Jerusalem, and the Egyptian are judged by the Alexandria by whom they are ordained and subordinated. ” The 116th (118th) rule of the Carthaginian Council says about the impossibility of accepting a convicted person in another Local Church: "Who, being excommunicated from church communion ... sneaks into overseas countries, in order to be accepted into communion, he will undergo eruption from the clergy." The same is said in the canonical message of the Council to Pope Kelestin: "Those who are separated from communication in their diocese, may not be perceived to be in communication with your holy thing ... Whatever the case, they must be finished in their places." Rev. Nicodemus Svyatrets in his “Pidalion”, which is an authoritative source of canonical law of the Church of Constantinople, interprets the 9th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council, rejecting the false opinion on the right of Constantinople to consider appeals from other Churches: “The Constantinople priest does not have the right to act dioceses and areas of other Patriarchs, and this rule did not give him the right to take appeals in any case in the Ecumenical Church ... "Listing a number of arguments in favor of this interpretation, ss layas to practice decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the Reverend Nicodemus concludes: "At the moment ... Constantinople Primate is the first, the only and the last judge over the subordinate Metropolitans - but not on those who are subject to the rest of the Patriarchs. For, as we said, the last and universal judge of all the Patriarchs is the Ecumenical Council and no one else. ” From the foregoing it follows that the Synod of the Church of Constantinople does not have canonical rights for the annulment of judicial decisions rendered by the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. Assigning to oneself the authority to cancel judicial and other decisions of other Local Orthodox Churches is only one of the manifestations of the new false doctrine, now proclaimed by the Church of Constantinople and attributing to the Patriarch of Constantinople the right of the “first without equal” (primus sine paribus) with universal jurisdiction. “Such a vision of its rights and powers by the Constantinople Patriarchate enters an irresistible contradiction with the centuries-old canonical tradition upon which the existence of the Russian Orthodox Church and other Local Churches is based,” the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2008 in the definition of “On Church Unity” warned. In the same definition, the Council called on the Church of Constantinople “to continue, pending the general Orthodox consideration of the listed innovations, to exercise caution and refrain from steps that could explode Orthodox unity. This particularly applies to attempts to revise the canonical limits of the Local Orthodox Churches. ” The Act of 1686, confirming the stay of the Kiev Metropolis within the Moscow Patriarchate and signed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Constantinople, Dionysius IV, and the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople, is not subject to revision. The decision to “revoke” is canonically insignificant. Otherwise, it would be possible to annul any document defining the canonical territory and the status of the Local Church, regardless of its antiquity, authority and general church recognition. In the Synodal Charter of 1686 and other documents accompanying it, nothing is said about the temporary nature of the transfer of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate, or that this act can be canceled. The attempt of the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in political and self-seeking forms to reconsider this resolution more than three hundred years after it was issued contradicts the spirit of the sacred canons of the Orthodox Church, which do not allow the revision of established church borders and not disputed for a long time. Thus, Rule 129 (133) of the Carthaginian Council states: “If someone ... turned what place to catholic unity and had it in his jurisdiction for three years, and no one demanded from him, then after him it would not be recoverable, if, moreover, in these three years there was a bishop who was to collect, and was silent. ” And 17th rule IV of the Ecumenical Council establishes a thirty-year statute of limitations for the possible conciliar consideration of disputes regarding the ownership of even individual parishes: "The parishes in each diocese ... must invariably remain under the authority of the bishops who head them - and, undoubtedly, they have their management and management. ” And how is it possible to cancel the decision that has been in effect for three centuries? This would mean an attempt to read "as if not the former" the entire subsequent history of the development of church life. The Patriarchate of Constantinople does not seem to notice that the Kiev Metropolitan of 1686, which is now announced to return to its membership, had limits that differed significantly from the modern borders of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and covered only a smaller part of the latter. The Kiev metropolis of our day as such includes the city of Kiev and several districts adjacent to it. The largest part of the dioceses of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, especially in the east and south of the country, was founded and developed as part of the autocephalous Russian Church, being the fruit of its centuries-old missionary and pastoral activities. The current act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is an attempt to steal something that never belonged to it. The act of 1686 put a limit to the two-hundred year period of forced division in the centuries-old history of the Russian Church, which, despite changing political circumstances, invariably recognized itself as a single entity. After the reunification of the Russian Church in 1686 for more than three centuries, no one doubted that the Orthodox of Ukraine were the flock of the Russian Church, and not the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And today, despite the pressure of external anti-Church forces, this multi-million flock values ​​the unity of the Church of All Russia and remains faithful to it. The attempt of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to decide the fate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church without its consent is an anticanonical encroachment on other people's church destinations. Ecclesiastical rule reads: “Yes, it is observed in other areas and everywhere in dioceses, so that none of the most blessed most bishops do not extend their power to someone else’s diocese ... yes, the rules of fathers do not violate, and the arrogance of worldly power does not sneak in under the form of sacred rite, and not lose gradually and imperceptibly the freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, granted to us with His Blood ”(III Ecumenical Council, rule 8). The decision of the Constantinople Patriarchate to establish, by agreement with the secular authorities, its “Stavropegia” in Kiev without the knowledge and consent of the canonical priesthood authority of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church falls under the condemnation of this rule. Hypocritically justifying the desire to restore the unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, the Constantinople Patriarchate with its reckless and politically motivated decisions introduces even greater division and aggravates the suffering of the canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Accepting into communion the dissenters and the person anathematized in another Local Church with all the “bishops” and “clerics” ordained by them, an encroachment on other people's canonical destinies, an attempt to renounce their own historical decisions and commitments — all this leads the Constantinople Patriarchate beyond the canonical field and, to our great sorrow, makes it impossible for us to continue Eucharistic communion with its hierarchs, clergy and laity. From now on, and until the Patriarchate of Constantinople refuses to make anti-canonical decisions for all clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is impossible to serve the clergy of the Church of Constantinople, and for the laity to participate in the sacraments performed in its churches. The transition of bishops or clergy from the canonical Church to schismatics or entering into Eucharistic communion with the latter is a canonical crime and entails appropriate interdictions. With regret we remember the prediction of our Lord Jesus Christ about the times of deception and the particular suffering of Christians: And because of the increase in iniquity, love will cool in many people (Matt. 24:12). In the conditions of such a profound undermining of the foundations of inter-Orthodox relations and complete disregard for the thousand-year norms of church-canon law, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church considers it its duty to defend the fundamental principles of Orthodoxy, to defend the Holy Tradition of the Church, replaced by new and alien teachings about the universal power of the Primate. We call the Primates and Sacred Synods of the Local Orthodox Churches to properly evaluate the aforementioned anticanonical acts of the Constantinople Patriarchate and jointly search for ways out of the hardest crisis that is tearing apart the body of the United Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We express our full support to the Most Blessed Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine Onufry and the entire fullness of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in a particularly difficult time for her. We pray for the strengthening of her faithful children in the courageous standing for the truth and unity of the canonical Church in Ukraine. We ask archpastors, clergy, monastics and laity of the whole Russian Orthodox Church to strengthen the prayers for their brothers of the same faith in Ukraine. The prayer cover of the Most Holy Queen of Heaven, the venerable fathers of Kiev-Pechersk, Rev. Job of Pochaev, the new martyrs, confessors and all the saints of the Russian Church be above all of us. Patriarchy.ru Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Church