| Holy Synod of Russian Orthodox Church begins its first session in 2013 On 30 January 2013, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia chaired the first in 2013 session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. The session is being held at the Synod’s Hall of the Patriarchal and Synodal residence in St. Daniel’s Monastery. Taking part in the session are permanent members of the Holy Synod: Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine; Metropolitan Vladimir of St. Petersburg and Ladoga; Metropolitan Philaret of Minsk and Slutsk, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus; Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna; Metropolitan Vladimir of Kishinev and All Moldova; Metropolitan Varsonofiy of Saransk and Mordovia, Chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate; and Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’ Department for External Church Relations. Metropolitan Aleksandr of Astana and Kazakhstan and Metropolitan Vikentiy of Tashkent and Uzbekistan were also included as permanent members by the decision of the Holy Synod of 5 October 2011 (Minutes 99) pending approval by the Bishops’ Council. Invited to the winter session (September 2012-February 2013) are Metropolitan Vladimir of Omsk and Tavricheskoye, Metropolitan Veniamin of Penza and Nizhniy Lomov, Archbishop Mark of Hust and Vinogradov, Archbishop Simon of Murmansk and Monchegorsk, and Bishop Savva of Tiraspol and Dubossary. The Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church welcomed the Holy Synod’s members and presented main items on the agenda. “I greet all members of the Holy Synod, both permanent and temporary ones. We are opening the first session in the New Year of 2013. I congratulate you all with the feasts we celebrated and express my hope that the Holy Synod will work as actively as in the last year. “Last year we had to take very important decisions on the election of bishops for the newly establishes dioceses. I will speak about it in detail at the forthcoming Bishops’ Council. |
| E. Gracheva: Now that we have begun speaking about Ukrainian schismatics: the non-recognized Ukrainian church and its self-proclaimed Patriarch Philaret now demand that Constantinople give them a new tomos. Last year, we devoted many of our programs to the developments in Ukraine and that very tomos on which the life of this new structure would have depended. But now it turns out that, generally speaking, nothing depends of this tomos. As Philaret himself has admitted, the tomos received last year actually ‘does not make the Ukrainian church independent but rather subjects it to Constantinople’. First, is there a chance for them to receive a certain new tomos? And generally speaking, do not the developments invalidate this very tomos in itself? If they receive a second, a third one, will the life of this church change? Metropolitan Hilarion: All this speaks of the fact that the Ukrainian schismatics have decisively entangle themselves in an adventure they met with through the help of the-then Ukrainian president Poroshenko, who managed to secure a tomos from Patriarch Bartholomew. But this tomos does create a certain inferior half-autocephalous church, with building it on the basis of schismatics who have no canonical ordination. Accordingly, all that is happening in this community now is a natural consequence of what has happened. Uncanonical schismatic communities everywhere have this tendency for splitting. First there may be one group, later there will be two of them, still later three, etc. For over a quarter of century Philaret struggled for the so-called autocephalous church, and when it came to the granting of tomos, he was simply pushed aside. Allegedly, something was promised to him orally but was not fulfilled later. This structure has come to be headed by another man; Philaret was hurt and declared his former structure as existing, that is, there is now a schism in a schism. But from history we know of many situations when schisms were created and later began dividing. Once there was in Greece an old-calendar schism and now there are already eight or nine groups of schismatics. So, there is nothing surprising in it. |
| Any appeal, though, from the former metropolitan of Kiev Philaret, would have been deemed worthless beforehand as, having been condemned, he did not cease to celebrate the divine services and conduct ordinations, thereby, according to the canons, losing the right for his case to be reviewed. The unilateral decision, without any court or review of his case, by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to “restore to his priestly rank” the former metropolitan Philaret Denisenko is worthless in relation to the holy canons, in particular, the 15 th canon of the Synod of Antioch, the 105 th (118 th ) canons of the Council of Carthage and the canonical epistle of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine. The actions undertaken in Constantinople in October of 2018 can in no way be described as a court of appeal as there was not only no attempt to study the ecclesiastical and canonical decisions taken with regard to Philaret Denisenko and Macarius Maletich, but there was also not even the simplest attempt to acquaint themselves with the biographies of these persons. Thus, Patriarch Bartholomew wrote of the appeals he had received from the “one-time lord bishop of Kiev Philaret, as well as the one-time lord bishop of Lviv Macarius”, even though at the moment he entered into schism Nikolai (Macarius’ secular name) was a married archpriest. In striving to broaden the field of its supposed rights and create new precedents, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on 17 th February 2023 “cancelled” accordingly the decision of the ecclesiastical court of the diocese of Vilnius to defrock five priests for canonical violations and, following the recommendation of Patriarch Bartholomew, “restored” them to their previous priestly rank. At the same time, in spite of assurances to “study in detail their cases”, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was not in possession of the materials relating to their cases and took as their foundation solely the personal statements made by the aforementioned priests, thereby reflecting one-sidedly their opinions and interests. On 27 th June 2023 in this manner, without studying the evidence of the case and based upon a personal statement, a priest of the Moscow diocese was “restored” to his priestly rank, even though the process of defrocking him initiated by the diocesan ecclesiastical court had not yet been completed, i.e., the confirmation by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia of the sentence had not yet been announced at the time when the case was being reviewed in Constantinople. |
| Speaking about the present-day situation, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk noted that political processes in Ukraine pertaining to the formation of an independent state, have become a great test of the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church. “The state authorities of this country provoked and supported a schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy, which remains to be a running sore on the body of our Church. Representatives of the old, still Soviet, elite who found themselves overnight at the head of a new state and sought to retain their power, stood in an acute need of support to rely on in that situation. They found such support in the person of nationalistic forces who declared the building of a sovereign Ukraine as impossible without the creation of an independent Ukrainian Church fully torn away from the Moscow Patriarchate. The demand of autocephaly, that is, full ecclesiastical independence, which was first formulated in the nationalistic milieu and soon after picked up by the authorities of the country, was embodied in the slogan: ‘Independent Church to Independent State’,” Metropolitan Hilarion added. The implementation of this plan appeared not easy in a situation when the majority of the episcopate, clergy and laity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church did not support the idea of autocephaly, Metropolitan Hilarion pointed out and told about the history of the schism led by former Metropolitan of Kiev, Philaret Denisenko – the schism which from the very beginning enjoyed full support of the state authorities and protection of the nationalistic forces, including rather radical ones. However, the vast majority of the Ukrainian believers remained faithful to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. “The deposition of Philaret Denisenko by the Russian Orthodox Church was recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches including in a written form by the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” Metropolitan Hilarion continued. He reminded the participants in the conference that as far back as 2016, during the Synaxis of Primates of the Orthodox Churches in Chambésy, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople welcomed Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine, “as the only canonical head of the Orthodox faithful in Ukraine, certainly with all his subordinate hierarchs” and promised not to take any unilateral actions linked with legalizing the schism in Ukraine or granting autocephaly to it. |
| And there is no unity on this issue among the schismatics either. Makary’s group has repeatedly stated that it will not join a structure to be headed by Philaret Denisenko. True, Philaret now says that he will not put oneself forward for election, while continuing to call himself patriarch and hoping to have in the new structure the title of ‘Honorary Patriarch of Kiev and All Rus-Ukraine’, to head its ‘synod’ and to enjoy special privileges. He even declared himself as holy archimandrite of the Kiev Laura of the Caves and Pochaev Laura. However, it is not included in Constantinople’s plans. Their wish is that the ‘autocephalous church’ under creation should be headed by a new man while Philaret should be written off ‘to the dustbin of history’. Indeed, they have recognized him not in the rank of patriarch but merely in some hierarchal dignity as ‘formerly of Kiev’. An agreement between President Poroshenko and Patriarch Bartholomew that Philaret will be written off as junk has been reached. But will the ‘episcopate’ in Philaret’s jurisdiction agree with such a development? Not a sure thing either. – Nevertheless, if the ‘uniting council’ does take place, who will be able to head the new structure? – Various names are being considered and discussed. Metropolitan Simeon of Vinnitsa has already been asked to head it as he is the only hierarch who attended the Bishops’ Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church but who refused to put his signature under the Council’s statement. For Constantinople, it would be important of course that the structure be headed by a canonical hierarch, not someone of the schismatics. In Constantinople’s view, it will give the new structure a greater legitimacy. That is why it is a very slim possibility that the structure will be headed by someone from Philaret’s ‘episcopate’. Rather, it may be headed by one of the two ‘exarchs’ of Constantinople – Archbishop Daniel (Zelinsky) or Archbishop Job (Getcha), who recently has been increasingly active in the Ukrainian field. |
| In my humble opinion, this action appears to be uncanonical since, according to sacred canons, any ban, and in this case the deposition and excommunication of these persons, should be lifted by the body that imposed them, provided certainly an effective preliminary repentance of the convicts. In this connection, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow alone, as it had exercised the deposition and excommunication, had the nomocanonical powers to restore the sinners and bring them back to the fold of the Orthodox Church. In my humble opinion, there is also another, more serious mistake made by the Ecumenical Patriarch – the disdainful ignoring of Kyr Onufriy, Metropolitan of the only commonly recognized Orthodox Church of Ukraine, and instead of him, the recognition of self-ordained Epifaniy, who has no canonical ordination, as Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine and granting him the synodal Tomos of autocephaly during a con-celebration with him. Your Beatitude and holy brothers, in conclusion I should regretfully underscore that the granting the status of autocephalous Church to the schismatic community of Philaret and Epifaniy has not only failed to heal the existing schism in the Orthodox Church of Ukraine but, on the contrary, dangerously deepened and aggravated it since today, after a synodal Tomos of autocephaly has been granted, we have encountered in Ukraine a tragic phenomenon when there is a canonical Orthodox Church headed by Metropolitan Onufriy and there is a schismatic one headed by deposed Philaret and Epifaniy. Unfortunately, there is an evident danger that the military confrontation, which has lasted for three years now, may degenerate into a religious confrontation. And there is an even greater danger that the unhealed Ukrainian church schism, as many have stressed, may penetrate the Body of the whole Universal Orthodoxy with tragic consequences for it. On the basis of the above, I have come to the conviction that we, the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus, cannot recognize schismatic Epifaniy, who has no canonical ordination, as the canonical Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine. The more so that from the point of view of the canons, we are not allowed to have the Eucharistic communion with schismatics, especially, self-ordained ones. |
| The Mirotvorets Center is led by Roman Zaitsev , a former employee of the Lugansk branch of the Security Service of Ukraine, and the site is curated by the Security Service of Ukraine itself, and promoted by Anton Gerashchenko, an MP and aide to the Interior Minister, according to the International Business Times . “Patriarch” Philaret of the schismatic “Kiev Patriarchate” congratulated and “blessed” the team behind the site on Counter-Intelligence Day, December 27, 2017, bestowing a medal “For the sacrifice and love for Ukraine” upon them. Met. Onuphry was added to the site yesterday as an “Agent of the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Ukraine,” and an “Opponent of the creation of an independent Local Church in Ukraine,” with information about the Ukrainian Holy Synod’s call for Constantinople to cease interfering in its canonical territory. Mirotvorets also added Archbishop Philaret of Novaya Kahovka, Bishop Philaret of Lviv, Metropolitan Ephraim of Krivoy Rog, Metropolitan Theodore of Kamenets-Podolsky, Metropolitan Mark of Khust, and Metropolitan Hilarion of Donetsk yesterday. Moreover, the Mirotvorets Facebook page made an announcement yesterday referring to these bishops as “mongrels” and “demons in cassocks.” The announcement also includes a not-so subtle warning: “We advise all of them to leave Ukraine before it’s too late. These schismatics and anti-Ukrainians can’t say then that they weren’t warned.” His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of Serbia was also added to the database in late May after he asserted that all those who help the Ukrainian schismatics are enemies of all Slavic peoples and all Orthodox Christians. Even Roger Waters, the legendary bassist for Pink Floyd, is considered a threat to Ukrainian national security. He was added by Mirotvorets last month for “propaganda against Ukraine, attempts to infringe on Ukraine’s territorial integrity and participation in attempts to legalize Russia’s annexation of Crimea.” They’ve even dubbed Eurovision singer Yulia Samoylova and actor Steven Seagal as threats to Ukrainian national security. |
| Archive Пн Metropolitan Nikiphoros of Kykkos and Tillyria: Patriarch Bartholomew’s granting status of autocephalous Church to schismatic community of Philaret and Epifaniy has not healed Ukrainian schism but deepened and aggravated it 21 February 2019 year 12:32 Below is the full text of the memo on the situation in church life in Ukraine drafted by Metropolitan Nikiphoros of Kykkos and Tillyria for the Synod of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus: Your Beatitude, Holy Brothers: Concerning the problem, which has arisen on account of [the need] for autocephaly or not for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, with humbleness and unpretentiousness, I would like to point out the following: From the very beginning when the question of autocephaly for the Ukrainian Church arose, I was an open proponent of this autocephaly. In various talks on this topic with various persons, church and non-church ones, I supported the point of view that today a practice has been established in fact that each Orthodox and politically independent country should have an autocephalous Church of its own. I believed that the desired autocephaly of the Orthodox Ukrainian Church would not be granted in haste and off-hand but slowly and very carefully, in accordance with the Orthodox tradition, sacred canons, and generally with the nomocanonical law of our Most Holy Orthodox Church. Regrettably, in the whole process of declaring and recognizing the autocephaly of the Orthodox Ukrainian Church, what has prevailed instead of democratic, Orthodox, synodal procedures are not democratic and not conciliar ways of thinking and attitudes, but, I have to note with regret, rather arbitrary and forcible ones. Whereas the All-Holy Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople had recognized and confirmed the deposition and excommunication imposed twenty years ago by the Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow on Metropolitan Philaret and his proponents who broke away from the Russian Orthodox Church and, more broadly, from the Body of One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, three years ago, in 2016, as His Beatitude Patriarch Kirill of Moscow underscored in his public interview, during the Synaxis of Primates of Orthodox Churches, the Patriarch of Constantinople promised to His Beatitude the Patriarch of Moscow himself that he would not do it, that is, would not unilaterally grant the status of autocephalous Church to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, especially, to the schismatics, but he did it on no grounds whatsoever declaring the very same Church autocephalous. In addition, which is most sad, twenty years later he himself, contrary to his written agreement with the bans imposed on the sinners, has restored these convicts thus actually refuting himself and restoring those who are deposed and excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church. |
| St Tikhon Orthodox Humanitarian University in Moscow Presents the Film “Sobor 2006” on the Historic 4th All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Church Abroad Moscow, December 3, 2012 Left to right: Protopriest Vladimir Vorobiev, Protopriest Peter Perekrestov,Priest Georgy Orekhanov. St Tikhon Orthodox Humanitarian University in Moscow hosted the showing of a documentary, “Sobor 2006,” on the historic 4th All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia held in San Francisco in May, 2006. Present was Protopriest Peter Perekrestov, Senior Priest of the Cathedral of the Mother of God “Joy of All Who Sorrow” in San Francisco and Senior Secretary of that Council; Protopriest Vladimir Vorobiev, Rector of St Tikhon’s; Priest Georgy Orekhanov, Prorector of International Efforts; teachers and students of the University and other guests. The showing of this film continues the celebration of the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 2007. Fr Peter preceded the screening with a brief history of the All-Diaspora Councils. Over the history of the Russian Church Abroad, there were only four such assemblies, which included the participation of bishops, clergymen and laity, representatives of all dioceses and various social organizations. The first one was held in 1921 in Sremsky Karlovci, Yugoslavia, at which Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) presided. That council was convened to organize the Russian Church Abroad. The second All-Diaspora Council convened in 1938, also in Sremsky Karlovci, and was headed by the second First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanovsky). Topics under discussion included the strengthening of the ecclesiastical organization of the Russian Church Abroad and the spiritual ministry of the Russian emigration. The Third All-Diaspora Council was held in Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, NY, in 1974, and headed by the third Primate of ROCOR, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). Fr Peter told the fascinating story of how Metropolitan Philaret was elected First Hierarch. At the Council of Bishops of 1964, at which the successive Primate was to be elected, two candidates, Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky) and St John (Maximovich) received an equal number of votes in the first round. When they tied during the second and third rounds, too, St John agreed to remove his candidacy in favor of the youngest of the hierarchs (by date of consecration), Bishop Philaret of Brisbane, Australia. As a result, he was unanimously elected First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. |
| Archive Funeral service for Metropolitan Cornelius of Tallinn and All Estonia takes place in Tallinn 23 April 2018 year 06:13 On 22 April 2018, the funeral service for Metropolitan Cornelius of Tallinn and All Estonia was held at the Cathedral of St. Alexander Nevsky in Tallinn. Vladyka Cornelius passed away on April 19, at the age of 93. The service was celebrated by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations; Archbishop Yevgeny of Vereya, chairman of the Education Council of the Russian Orthodox Church; Bishop Lazar of Narva and Prichudye; Bishop John of Jelgava; Bishop Sergy of Maardu; and an assembly of clergymen. Among those present in the church were Mr. Taavi Aas, Mayor of Tallinn; Archbishop Urmas Viilma of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Estonia; Mr. Alexander Petrov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Estonia; Mr. Anatoly Stepus, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Belarus to the Republic of Estonia; Metropolitan Stephanos and Bishop Ilias (Orthodox Church of Estonia of the Patriarchate of Constantinople); and Hegumenness Philareta (Kalacheva) of the Pühtitsa Convent. Prior to the service, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk read out a message of condolences of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia over the death of Metropolitan Cornelius of Tallinn and All Estonia. Addressing all those present, Vladyka Hilarion also said, in particular: “The life of the late Metropolitan Cornelius was full of labours and afflictions. He became a priest in the year when the Great Patriotic War ended, and performed his ministry, first as a deacon, then as a priest, and later as a bishop, for over seventy years. In 1990, at a mature age, he became a bishop and headed the See of Estonia. “Vladyka Cornelius went through terrible ordeals. He was unlawfully sentenced to imprisonment in corrective labour camps and spent several years in “harsh labour,” but then by the mercy of God he was released and continued his ministry. In the 1990s, when the revival of the Church began all over the Holy Russia, he witnessed and took part in the revival of the church life in the Estonian land. However, even at that time he suffered numerous afflictions, enduring them as a good soldier of Christ. The Lord granted to him a long life. Metropolitan Cornelius outlived many of his brothers the clergymen and bishops. God preserved him until the day when He willed to take His faithful servant to the heavenly dwellings. |
|
|
