In the lawless actions of bishops Fanara the beginning of the twentieth and twenty-first century have much in common. Photo: ALERecognition of the Renovationists-Raskolnikov by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the twentieth century, and the obvious Parallels with the present.
Today, when we see before our eyes violated the canons of the Church, many Orthodox think that such lawlessness is unique and is performed for the first time. However, it is not so.
In his recent letter to the Primate of the Albanian Church, his Beatitude Anastasios noted that “the situation in Ukraine, provoked by Patriarch Bartholomew, reminiscent of the “meletinsky split”, the overcoming of which the Church has developed a variety of treatments, and “a final decision on this matter was given First Ecumenical Council”.
However, the Parallels with today’s events can be found not only in ancient times (meletinsky split), but in relatively recent history. We are talking about recognition by the Patriarchate of Constantinople Renovationist schism or the so-called “Living Church” that emerged on the territory of the Soviet Union. Then Fanar acted virtually the same methods as now. And got the result evaluation of their actions from the most prominent and authoritative representatives of the Russian Church. So.
Fanar and the Soviet Union: in search of protection
The Patriarchate of Constantinople has always sought strong political allies that would help him survive and be strengthened on the territory of the former Byzantine Empire after the Turkish conquest. From the beginning of the 20th century the residence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, located in one of districts of Istanbul, was threatened liquidation. Several times the Turkish government attempted to abolish the Patriarchate of Constantinople and expel the highest Church hierarchs Greek from its territory. Was passed a number of laws that are as complicated to make bishops of Constantinople on the territory of the Turkish state. Therefore, the phanariotes had maintained contacts with representatives of international organizations, members of other Christian denominations (primarily Anglicans and Catholics), with the representatives of the Greek state and the United States of America.
This relationship in itself, but especially given the current situation, would not be perverse if I did not put the Patriarchate of Constantinople into complete dependence on political and religious leaders and their interests.
Such examples were many.
In particular, Patriarch Gregory VII was personally against the calendar reform initiated by his predecessor, Patriarch Meletius, however, yielded to the pressure of the authorities of Greece, which are entirely dependent financially. By his own admission “a change in the calendar was imposed by the Greek government.”
As you know, in the 20-ies of the last century with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the formation of the Turkish state, came to power Mustafa Ataturk. His regime has obstructed the activities of the phanariotes, seeing them as reactionaries who destabilisateur society.
In turn, the Soviet government, which came to power in the October revolution of 1917, had quite a big impact on Turkey, as it has provided significant military assistance. Therefore, the phanariotes in search of protection from the regime of Ataturk, have turned their sights on Moscow.
Here it is necessary to emphasize that the young Soviet government in the 20-30-ies have embarked on the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church. It was not only about physical elimination of the hierarchy and priests of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Bolsheviks had created a parallel Church structure, which according to the creators had to destroy the Church from within. To this end, the government of the Soviet Union initiated the emergence of the so-called “Living” or “Renovationist” Church. Researchers believe that the characteristic features of Renovationism was the recognition of “justice has been committed in the country of the social revolution”, in close cooperation with the Soviet authorities, and in the first years of activities — reliance on repressive bodies.
I. Malyutin. The caricature of “red” (Renovationist) Church. The magazine “Crocodile”, 1923 godemann with the most repressive authorities in may 1922 and was created “a Living Church”, and the Patriarch of the present Churches (Tikhon) were arrested. Besides power, on the one hand supported the “both zhivotserkovnik”, and with another – as opposed to the functioning of the Russian Orthodox Church, which led to a sharp increase in the number of “Renovationist” parishes. As a result, in 1923, more than half of the bishops, priests and parishes were part of the “Living Church”.
However, dissenters, renovators there was a serious problem – the lack of recognition of the legitimacy of their actions by other local Orthodox Churches. With this purpose, they decided to enlist the help of vanara. This was done all the more easily that the phanariotes were in a very difficult position.
Recognition of a split
In March, 1924, Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VII sends to the President of the “Renovationist” Synod “of Metropolitan” Evdokim a copy of the circular on the introduction of the new calendar style (such as the circular was sent and the name of Patriarch Tikhon). The circular “the both zhivotserkovnik” perceived as an act of recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In turn, the Renovationist Synod (of course, with the consent of Trotsky, Smidovich and Tuchkov) suggested that the head Fanara and his entourage, living on the territory of the Soviet Union “with the full expense, under the condition of legalization of the Synod and of all resolutions of the (revisionist – Ed.) Cathedral of 1923 that removed the Patriarch Tikhon”.
Apparently in a fit of gratitude for such a generous offer (which he rejected), Patriarch Gregory VII called upon Patriarch Tikhon to abandon the Patriarchate. Moreover, Patriarch Gregory stated that he assumes “at the invitation of Church circles” of the Soviet Union “the cause of peace happened recently in the local brethren Church of unrest and contention, by assigning to the Patriarchal Commission of the bishops”. Thus the Patriarch Gregory emphasized that in its activities the Commission must rely on “Church flow loyal to the Government of the USSR.”
It is known that this completely wild the position of the head Fanara significantly affected attitudes in the USSR representative Konstantinopolskogo Patriarchate Archimandrite Vasily (Dimopoulos), who informed the Patriarch of a very biased and one-sided. For example, father Vasily came down to the fact that he “rededicated” thrones captured in the canonical Church of churches, a “Eucharistic” fellowship supported only with the Renovationists.
The Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory VII century response letter to Patriarch Gregory, Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, St. Tikhon wrote: “We hesitated a lot and was surprised that the head of the Church of Constantinople, without any prior communication with Us as the legitimate representative and head of the Russian Orthodox Church, interfere in the internal life and Affairs of the Autocephalous Russian Church. Sacred Cathedrals (see 2nd and 3rd Rule of the II Ecumenical Council, etc.) was acknowledged for the Bishop of Constantinopole only a primacy of honor, but did not recognize him and do not recognize his primacy of power… And because every parcel of any Commission without intercourse with Me, as the only lawful and Orthodox first Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, without My knowledge are not legitimate, will not be accepted by the Russian Orthodox people and make not calm and even greater confusion and division in the life of the already long-suffering Russian Orthodox Church… the People are not with the schismatics, but with their lawful Orthodox Patriarch.”
After this letter the Patriarch Gregory completely broke any communication with Patriarch Tikhon and did everything to renovators recognized in other local Churches. In the end, of the four Eastern Patriarchates only Patriarch of Antioch, who was not in the orbit of influence Fanara was not on the side of the Renovationists.
Patriarch Gregory is completely interrupted any communication with Patriarch Tikhon and did everything to renovators recognized in other local Churches. In the end, of the four Eastern Patriarchates only Patriarch of Antioch, who was not in the orbit of influence Fanara was not on the side of the Renovationists.
“Church vandalism” Fanara and Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). Since 1918 the Metropolitan of Kiev and Halych, the first Hierarch of ROCOR (1920-1936)it is Interesting that the Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory VII was a great supporter of the Soviet government and considered himself entitled to punish bishops who opposed the Soviet regime. In particular, it was forbidden in service of the two archbishops in Constantinople – Anastasius (Gribanovsky) and Alexander (Nikolovska) – because they commemorated the Patriarch Tikhon gave the advice to recognize the Bolsheviks. After staying on the Patriarchal throne for about a year Gregory VII was replaced by the Patriarch of Constantine, to whom Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) wrote:
“Hitherto from the days of my youth, I raised his voice only to praise the East, in particular, the Ecumenical Patriarch, orally and in print… I’m with word, always declared themselves as Philhellenes and a fan of great ideas. However, I am not a Papist and I well remember that in addition to the great bishops of the Church, there were many others, and the internal enemies of the Church, heretics and even heresiarchs — is That this same path of disobedience to the Holy Church and the canons referred to the predecessor of Your Holiness”.
The situation in the Orthodox world to supply Fanara, when the patriarchs of Constantinople intervened in the Affairs of other Orthodox Churches, Metropolitan Anthony called “Church vandalism”.
When the government removed from the control of the Finnish Church of Archbishop Seraphim (Lukianov), phanariotes is suggested without consulting him and contrary to his opinion, to ordain Archimandrite German (AAVA) as Bishop. And he was later elected head of the Finnish Church.
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) called Hermann a “pseudo-Bishop” and those who served with him and communion – called to repentance. In a letter to Valaam hieromonk Polycarp the Bishop wrote: “Sad news I received and many mourned the ruthless ferocity of the Greek hierarchs, and Herman I believe in simple layman… it is Clear that the Patriarchate of Constantinople became heretical gang… in the Name of God suggest: do not obey pseudo-Bishop Herman and shameful-deceased Patriarch Gregory VII-mu ruined his business Patriarchate …”.
Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Renovationism of the phanariotes
Patriarch Constantine remained on the throne only 43 days and was first repatriated by the Turkish government with the country, and then completely abandoned the Patriarchate. In his place was elected Metropolitan of Nicaea Basil, who continued the policy of rapprochement with the Renovationists.
The Synod of the “Living Church,” responded to the election message, in which he asked the new Patriarch “fatherly keepers to look after our Church’s grief and podvinulsja to rescue hurting daughters of the Russian Church”, and invited him to take part in the revisionist “local Council”.
Patriarch Basil said: “in Absentia depressum with you and, as possible, will promote the early and complete destruction of that unfortunate separation, which being harmful to the Orthodox Church, your deep sorrow takes the Great mother Church”. This letter and some other documents has allowed the schismatics-the revivalists to claim that they “commune with the primordial center of Eastern Orthodoxy” and reject all the canonical authorities of the Church authorities.
The dissenters pointed out that they are recognized by the Eastern patriarchs, and thus no doubt their legitimacy can not be.
In response to a letter from one of the revisionist Bishop, who resorted to such arguments, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) wrote: “an indication of the fact that some of the Patriarchs, for example, of Constantinople and, in recent years, Jerusalem, and exchanged with the [Renovationist] Synod of the messages, we are not convinced. We know that in the unity of the Church are only those who are in communion with their legitimate Bishop and Patriarch; that excommunicated their Patriarch can not be accepted into the fellowship of other (wise., 1 right.)… And he entered into communication with excommunicated is to be excommunicated (Apost. 10, 12).
So, if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem entered into communion with the Renovationists, the worse for the Patriarchs. Before the Law of God all are equal: and the patriarchs, and the laity. When the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 15th century was no longer in Union with Rome, the Russian Church did not go after him and living in Russia priests from the fact that it wouldn’t become Orthodox. And communication of the Patriarchate of Constantinople with the Renovationists can only Patriarch to make the Renovationists and not Renovationists Orthodox”.
Agree, if in this quote instead of the term “Renovationists” write “the members of the PCU”, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem to replace the Alexandria, the words of Metropolitan Sergius as if written today.
As you can see, once again, fair is the aphorism that history always repeats itself twice. On the one hand, this is bad, because it means that the defendants in the present history is not made the right conclusions from what was before. But, on the other hand, repeating, history shows us the mechanisms that can help overcome modern problems.
And most importantly – seeing how active and engaged are now promoting the structure of the dissenters, we should not succumb to anxiety and perhaps even depression. The Church of Christ in its history, has repeatedly passed the test of heresies and schisms, but each time was forced to remember the words of Christ: “I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16, 18).
That is why our attitude towards dissenters of the PCU should be based on the same principles as the attitude of the revivalists of the 20-ies of the Russian Church. These principles are effective – the gospel, the Tradition of the Church and its canons.Konstantin Samluk