В журналі «Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies» опублікована стаття архієпископа Білогородського Сильвестра

В англомовному журналі «Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies» була розміщена стаття ректора Київської духовної академії і семінарії архієпископа Білогородського Сильвестра на тему: «The issue of recognition of ordinations performed in schismatic communities: theological, canonical, and historical aspects».

Журнал «Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies» – це науковий журнал, що публікує провідні наукові статті з усіх аспектів православного християнства та є ініціативою Центру православних християнських студій Фордгемського університету.

THE ISSUE OF RECOGNITION OF ORDINATIONS PERFORMED IN SCHISMATIC COMMUNITIES: THEOLOGICAL, CANONICAL, AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS

ARCHBISHOP SYLVESTER (STOYCHEV)

ABSTRACT: The proper procedures for receiving those ordained in schismatic ecclesiastical communities has become an especially important issue following the disputes over Ukrainian autocephaly and the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s restoration of Ukrainian schismatics to hierarchical and priestly ranks. This article analyzes Patriarch Bartholomew’s position on the reception of Ukrainian schismatic clergy and responses by Archbishop Anastasios of Albania. It sets this question against the historical backdrop of the church’s reception of clergy ordained by schismatics, looking especially at the church’s resolution to the Melitian schism. Following this brief historical survey, the article argues that the leniency displayed by Constantinople towards the Ukrainian schismatics deviates from the church’s historical practices and has deepened the threat of schism within global Orthodoxy.

The issue of the proper procedure for receiving people who were ordainedin schismatic communities into communion within the Orthodox Church is of particular importance today, given the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople in relation to Ukrainian schismatics. On October 11, 2018, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople adopted the following decision:

According to the canonical privileges of the Patriarch of Constantinople, such as accepting appeals from bishops and clerics from other autocephalous Orthodox Churches, [the Patriarchate has resolved) to accept the requests of Philaret Denysenko, Makariy Maletych, and those parties with them who were found to be in schism not for dogmatic reasons, and to restore them to the hierarchical and priestly ranks, and their faithful to ecclesiastical communion

Let us take a closer look at this document.

A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF OCTOBER 11, 2018

First of all, it is puzzling that, having made such an important decision, the Patriarchate of Constantinople officially published only a brief communiqué following the meeting of the Holy Synod. So far, no materials have been made public on the procedure for handling these appeals and on what canonical grounds the decision undertaken at the Phanar, on October 11, 2018, was based. Therefore, the above text of the communiqué gave rise to many questions.

The cited decision of the Synod of Constantinople declared the exclusive right of the Ecumenical Patriarch to receive appeals from bishops and other clergy from all autocephalous churches. Let us recall that the attempts of Constantinople to acquire the right to receive appeals have repeatedly provoked protests from other local churches. This right was disputed by well-known canonists of both the Byzantine era and modern times. For example, it was directly rejected by the venerable Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. I devoted a separate article to this issue,’ so will not discuss it in detail here. I only note that the very grounds on which the Synodal decision was made in October 2018 are disputable.

Furthermore, one can see that in the aforementioned resolution, the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople annulled all the canonical restrictions imposed by the Russian Orthodox Church on Philaret (Denysenko), Makariy (Maletych), “and those parties with them”, and restored both these two persons and all the clergy subordinate to clerical orders and received them into communion within the Church. It should be emphasized here that the cited document clearly states that Philaret (Denysenko), Makariy (Maletich), “and those with them” are accepted into the Church from the schism. While the document makes the claim that the schism was not for dogmatic reasons, it nevertheless acknowledges they were previously in schism. Thus, the document recognizes the reality of a schism in Ukraine, which means we are also talking about the acceptance into communion of persons who received ordination while found to be in schism.

There is another nuance that immediately catches the eye. Both Philaret (Denysenko) and Makariy (Maletych) are mentioned in the document without indicating their titles and clerical ranks: neither the clerical ranks that they acquired while in schism, nor the ranks in which they were accepted into communion with the Church, are specified. Therefore, it remains unclear from the text of the communiqué in what rank and in what status the Patriarchate of Constantinople accepted these persons. Were they accepted in the dignity they had before the schism, or in the rank that they received while already in schism? There are no answers to these questions in the document.

Therefore, after the publication of the communiqué, clarifications from representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople followed. On the day of the promulgation of the decisions of the Synod, Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gaul told reporters: “We heard the appeal of Philaret (Denysenko) and Makariy. It was decided that an anathema was pronounced [against them] for an insufficient number of reasons, for certain political reasons. Therefore, by the decision of the Synod, they were returned to the canonical fold.”

Archbishop Job (Getcha) of Telmessos at the same time explained that Philaret (Denysenko) was accepted into communion by Constantinople as “the former Metropolitan of Kiev.” And Bishop Macarius of Christoupolis (Griniezakis, now the archbishop of Australia) explained the decisions made by the Synod in his interview:

From now on, Philaret and Makariy are canonical hierarchs of the Church and have a canonical hierarchal rank. The same, of course, applies to other bishops, clergy and laity, who received the sacred sacraments from them… The Ecumenical Patriarchate applied canon law, studied the respective appeals of Philaret and Makariy, and found that as there were no dogmatic differences, it was for the benefit of the Church and the Ukrainian people that the clerical ranks of the punished bishops must be restored.

At the same time, Bishop Macarius specifically emphasized that Philaret (Denysenko), Makariy (Maletych), and the bishops subordinate to them were accepted into communion without the “positions and honors” they received in schism. He also claimed that “Patriarch Bartholomew and the Synod succeeded in uniting the two schismatic groups and restoring them to canonicity.”

Finally, Patriarch Bartholomew himself, in May 2019, in an interview with the Bulgarian edition of BGNES, explained that on October 11, 2018, the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized the episcopal dignity of Philaret (Denysenko) and Makariy (Maletych), “but not their rank.” Further, Patriarch Bartholomew said: “This means that Philaret is no longer the Patriarch of Kyiv, but only the former Metropolitan of Kyiv, and Makariy is not the Archbishop of Lviv, but rather the former Archbishop of Lviv.” The decision of October 11 was interpreted by Patriarch Bartholomew as the unification of “the two ecclesiastical jurisdictions of Philaret and Macarius under the spiritual leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”

From all these statements it becomes obvious that the persons who were in schism were received into communion with recognition of the episcopal dignity (i as bishops in general-trans.), but without recognition of their ranks, titles, and positions. Also, from the point of view of Constantinople, since October 11, 2018, all those who were previously in schism have now become clerics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but without assuming specific titles and positions. It turns out that from the point of view of Constantinople, from October 11, 2018, the UOC-KP and the UAOC ceased to exist, having merged into the Ecumenical Patriarchate and thereby united with each other. Philaret (Denysenko) was henceforth only “the former Metropolitan of Kyiv.” This title meant that from the point of view of Constantinople, Philaret (Denysenko) was a retired bishop and could not act as a primate.

However, the real situation in Ukraine was different. The UOC-KP and the UAOC continued to exist. After October 11, 2018, they continued to operate as two independent religious organizations. For example, after October 11, meetings of the Council and the Synod of the UOC-KP were held. Although the representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople unanimously declared that Philaret (Denysenko) was no longer a “patriarch” but only a “former metropolitan,” he himself looked at the situation differently. Already on October 11, in the evening, when it became known in Kyiv about the decisions of the Synod of Constantinople, Philaret (Denysenko), at a briefing for journalists, unequivocally stated: “I was a patriarch, I am a patriarch and will remain a patriarch.”

On October 20, 2018, the Synod of the UOC-KP decided to change the title of Philaret (Denysenko). Then the short and full versions of the title of the head of the UOC-KP were approved. The full title was: “His Holiness and Beatitude (name), Archbishop and Metropolitan of Kyiv – the mother of the cities of Rus’ – and Galicia, Patriarch of All Rus’-Ukraine, and the Sacred Archimandrite of the Holy Dormition Kyiv Caves and Pochayiv Lavras.” However, this title was to be used only within Ukraine. In relations with other local churches, Philaret now had to use a short title: “His Beatitude Archbishop [name], Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus’-Ukraine.”

These decisions of the UOC-KP clearly did not correspond to the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, there was no official reaction from Constantinople to the new decisions of the UOC-KP. Moreover, Archbishop Daniel of Pamphylia (Zelinsky, who in the fall of 2018 was Exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Ukraine), explaining the position of the Phanar on the status of Philaret (Denysenko), said: “This is an internal affair of the OCU. He was a leader, we call him a former metropolitan, and within his country he can retain the title that he had … out of respect for his advanced age and service to the church. But for Universal Orthodoxy, he is the former Metropolitan of Kyiv.” This statement sounds conciliatory, but, in fact, the actions of Philaret (Denysenko), who sought to maintain real power in the newly created OCU, very quickly led to a serious crisis, which will be discussed below.

CRITICISM OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE BY THE ARCHBISHOP OF ALBANIA, ANASTASIOS

Let us return to the analysis of the decision of the Synod of Constantinople on October 11, 2018. We see that the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized all the clerical orders received in schism for the members of the UOC-KP and the UAOC and accepted them all into Church communion. Both in the published communiqué and in clarifications from the bishops of the Church of Constantinople only one rationale for this decision was voiced: that these persons did not deviate from Orthodox dogma and thus ended up in schism for non-dogmatic (i.e., non-doctrinal) reasons. Other explanations as to why they were all accepted into communion in the existing rank were not expressed.

However, the question of recognizing ordinations performed in schism has always caused intense discussions throughout the history of the Church. Therefore, the decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to retrospectively recognize all ordinations performed in the UOC-KP and the UAOC also caused a very ambiguous reaction from the local Orthodox churches. In this regard, the reaction of the primate of the Albanian Orthodox Church, Archbishop Anastasios, was most indicative.

On December 24, 2018, Patriarch Bartholomew sent a letter to Archbishop Anastasios informing him of the decisions of the Synod on October 11 and the intention of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant autocephaly to the newly created OCU. This letter was examined by the Synod of the Albanian Church on January 4, 2019. On behalf of the Synod, Archbishop Anastasios sent a reply to Patriarch Bartholomew. In this letter, he expressed doubts about the possibility of retrospectively legitimizing consecrations performed by persons excommunicated from the Church. He reminded Patriarch Bartolomew that Philaret (Denysenko) was defrocked in 1992, and excommunicated and anathematized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997. “Moreover, these actions,” writes Archbishop Anastasios, “were recognized by all autocephalous Orthodox Churches.”

Being under anathema, Philaret (Denysenko) continued to perform consecrations and other sacraments, which, according to Anastasios, “are invalid, empty, devoid of divine grace and the action of the Holy Spirit.” Archbishop Anastasios qualifies these actions of Philaret (Denysenko) as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and, therefore, expresses sincere bewilderment: “How did the consecrations performed by Philaret, who was under excommunication and anathema, retroactively, without canonical consecration, acquire legitimacy and the true seal of apostolic succession in the Holy Spirit?”

Archbishop Anastasios also draws attention to the fact that Philaret (Denysenko), even after his acceptance into communion by the Church of Constantino-ple, continues to call himself “patriarch,” which only intensifies the church conflict in Ukraine. Proceeding from all this, the Albanian Church refused to recognize Epiphany (Dumenko) as a legitimate primate and did not include his name in its diptych. Concluding his letter, Archbishop Anastasios points out that as a result of the ill-considered actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, “there is a danger of destroying the unity of Universal Orthodoxy.” Therefore, he asked Patriarch Bartholomew to convene a Pan-Orthodox Synaxis or Council as soon as possible, “in order to prevent the obvious danger of a painful schism that threatens the integrity of Orthodoxy and its convincing testimony to the modern world.”

On February 20, 2019, Patriarch Bartolomew sent another letter to Archbishop Anastasios, in which he tried to explain his position on the Ukrainian issue in more detail. This letter is of undoubted interest. Here, first of all, much is said about the special rights of the see of Constantinople (in particular, about its exclusive right to receive appeals from other local churches and about the same exclusive right to issue tomoi of autocephaly). As concerning the main question raised by Archbishop Anastasios (on the issue of retroactively accepting consecrations performed in schism), Patriarch Bartholomew refers to the study of Metropolitan Vassilios (Asteriou, 1835-1910, also known as Metropolitan Basil of Smyrna), published in 1887. As Patriarch Bartholomew points out, the position of Metropolitan Vassilios was “collectively approved” by the Church of Constantinople. Therefore, he refers Archbishop Anastasios to this work, which sets out the official position of Constantinople.

It should be clarified here that the work cited by Patriarch Bartholomew in his letter was written at the request of Patriarch Joachim II of Constantinople by Metropolitan Vassilios in 1874 (at that time he was still the archbishop of Anchialos and the rector of the Theological School of Halki). The immediate reason for writing this essay was the rupture of relations between the Constantinople and Bulgarian Churches that occurred in 1872.

In response to Patriarch Joachim’s commission, a professor at the Halki school, Archimandrite loannis (Anastasiades, later Metropolitan Caesarea of Cappadocia), also gave his opinion on the reception of schismatics into the Church. As Archbishop Vassilios reported to the patriarch, he and Archimandrite John each wrote their own treatise on the topic in question but came to the same conclusions.

Two years later, in 1876, the Patriarchate of Constantinople set up a commission of six persons (four metropolitans and two archimandrites) that examined the work of Archbishop Vassilios and approved the conclusions contained therein. And on July 21, 1879, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople examined and approved the conclusion of this commission. In 1887, Metropolitan Basil’s essay was published in Smyrna under the title “Discourse on the Validity of the Ordinations of Clergy by a Deposed and Schismatic Bishop.”

Thus, Patriarch Bartholomew, without giving in detail the justification on the basis of which the decision was made on October 11, 2018, simply refers all those interested to the book of Metropolitan Vasilios (Asteriou).

Further, Patriarch Bartholomew gives several examples of how the Church accepted schismatics into communion without performing new ordinations over them. In particular, he mentions the Melitian schism that took place in Egypt in the fourth century. The leader of this schism, Bishop Melitius of Lycopolis, was deposed by the Church of Alexandria at the beginning of the fourth century. However, “without accepting his deposition, he created a group around himself, the so-called Melitian schism.” The followers of Melitius, as Patriarch Bartholomew writes, “were accepted without re-ordination in their positions.” The laity “were accepted into church fellowship without re-baptism and even without chrismation.”

Patriarch Bartholomew also refers to the example of the acceptance into communion of the Bulgarian Church in 1945 after a seventy-three-year schism. At that time, all ordinations performed during the period of the schism were recognized. Another example cited by Patriarch Bartholomew is the resumption of communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, during which there were also no repeated ordinations.

Note that Patriarch Bartholomew left unanswered the proposal of Archbishop Anastasios to convene a Synaxis or a Pan-Orthodox Council to discuss the Ukrainian problem. In his letter, he unequivocally declared the right of the Church of Constantinople to unilaterally undertake decisions on such matters, without inviting other local churches to the discussion.

On March 7, 2019, this letter of Patriarch Bartholomew’s was considered at a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Albanian Church. Following the discussion, Archbishop Anastasios sent another letter to Patriarch Bartholomew (dated March 21). In this letter we see consistent answers to the main theses of the Patriarch of Constantinople. In particular, Archbishop Anastasios once again speaks of the “insidious role” played in the history of the Orthodox Church by Philaret (Denysenko), who continues to call himself “patriarch.” Archbishop Anastasios emphasizes that his opposition to the recognition of consecrations performed by Philaret (Denysenko) is due to the fact that “divine grace does not work when the performer is a person who has been defrocked, excommunicated from the Church and anathematized.” Archbishop Anastasios recalls the axiom of Orthodox ecclesiology: “A bishop who ordains in a canonical manner does not act in his own power, but on behalf of the Church, the only bearer of the grace of God.” Proceeding from this, he asks a rhetorical question: “Does the restoration of Philaret in the canonical rank automatically legalize the ordinations performed by him?”

The letter then contains several extremely important theses. On the Melitian schism, Archbishop Anastasios points out that in the work of Metropolitan Vassilios sent to him, the appendix directly states that Melitius himself was received into communion in episcopal dignity, but “without the right to serve as a priest.” And the clergy ordained by him were received “under the same conditions, and in the same way as the eighth canon [of the First Ecumenical Council) prescribes to receive Cathars or Novatians, i.e., through a simple laying on of hands with affirming each of them to the appropriate sacred degree” (highlighted by Archbishop Anastasios). Patriarch Bartholomew, in his letter, speaking about the acceptance of the Melitians into communion, omitted the phrases about the laying on of hands and about establishing them by this method in clerical orders.

Archbishop Anastasios also recalls that the Melitians, after being received into communion, should have taken second place after the canonical bishops and were subordinate to the archbishop of Alexandria. They were also deprived of the right to take part in the election of bishops. In the future, they could be elected to vacant episcopal sees, but Melitius himself could no longer lead any diocese.

Further, Archbishop Anastasios draws a conclusion of a fundamental nature. As can be seen from the history of the healing of the Melitian schism, the acceptance into communion of clerics who received consecrations during the schism involved several obligatory elements: (1) their repentance; (2) the laying on of hands by canonical bishops (to confirm the apostolic succession): (3) prayer; and (4) recon-ciliation. Archbishop Anastasios emphasizes that this procedure should be followed “in all cases of schismatics returning to the Orthodox Church without exception.”

Looking at the Ukrainian situation, a number of questions immediately arise. First of all, it is not known whether Philaret (Denysenko) and other members of the schismatic groups submitted petitions of repentance. Did they acknowledge their past mistakes and repent of them? It is only known that they filed appeals to Constantinople. But an appeal does not necessarily involve repentance, only disagreement with the judicial decisions of the Moscow Patriarchate. Then, despite the fact that Philaret was received without the right to manage Church structures, he continues to call himself “patriarch,” wear special distinctions of the patriarchal rank, and participate in meetings of councils and Synods. None of this was allowed in the fourth century for Melitians returning from schism. In addition, the analogy with the Melitian schism is not entirely appropriate, since the decision regarding Bishop Melitius was made by an Ecumenical Council and not one of the patriarchs alone.

All these arguments of Archbishop Anastasios’s actually refute the theses presented in Patriarch Bartholomew’s letter. Archbishop Anastasios also considered inappropriate the analogies between the Ukrainian situation and the overcoming of the schism in Bulgaria in 1945, as well as the resumption of communion between the ROC and ROCOR. He emphasizes that in the case of the Bulgarian Church, there was a break in communion between the entire Church of Bulgaria and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In Ukraine, the discussion is about division within the Orthodox flock. As for ROCOR, “there were no excommunications from the Church, no anathemas, and the apostolic succession was not called into question.” Rather, there was only a division along political lines, which was overcome after the fall of the atheistic Soviet regime. At the end of the letter, Archbishop Anastasios once again emphasizes that the situation in Ukraine now threatens the unity of Universal Orthodoxy and he suggests that a Pan-Orthodox Conference be convened to discuss this situation.

As one can see in the correspondence between Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Anastasios, important precedents for the admission of members of schismatic communities into the Church were touched upon; but these two hierarchs interpreted those precedents in different ways. Therefore, below, this article will pay attention to some examples from the history of the ancient church that are also reflected in the canonical tradition.

OVERCOMING CHURCH SCHISMS IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH: GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF THEIR APPLICATION

First of all, let me point out that Canon 68 (Ap. C. LXVIII) of the Holy Apostles forbids performing a second ordination over a deacon, presbyter, or bishop, “unless it be established that his ordination has been performed by heretics.” And thus the general norm is established: “For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergymen.”

Bishop Nikodim (Milas) summarizes the principle established in this canon thus: “It is forbidden to re-ordain someone to the same clerical rank if the first ordination was valid.” The exception is consecrations performed in heretical communities. At the same time, as the history of the Church shows, in the case of each specific community that separated from Church unity, the decision was made separately. Therefore, in the words of Bishop Nikodim, the Church, in accepting members of schismatic communities into communion, subjects the legitimacy of the priesthood in those communities to “its own examination.” But the practice of applying this general principle in specific historical situations could be different.

The First Ecumenical Council discussed the issue of admitting two schismatic communities into the Church: the Novatians (in the canons they are called katharoi or Purists/Puritans) and the Egyptian Melitians (followers of Bishop Melitius). Canon 8 of the council is dedicated to the Novatians. Here it is said that the Novatians who join the Church must, first, “confess in writing that they will agree to, and adhere to the dogmas of the catholic and apostolic Church.” That is, first of all, they must testify in writing that they repent and renounce their errors. Further, it specifies that “after they have had hands laid upon them, [only then] they remain in the clergy.” However, the recognition of such persons with the clergy has some limitations. The rule indicates that in those areas (cities or villages) where there are no other clergy besides former Novatians, they can remain in their former church positions. However, where there is a “bishop of the Catholic Church” (i.e., a legal canonical bishop), there he must retain his authority. And it is the local bishop who must decide in what capacity the former clerics of the Novatians can serve. In such dioceses, former Novatians may become either chorepiscopoi or presbyters – there cannot be two reigning bishops in the same city.

An important addition to Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council is the judgment of the fathers of the council on the admission of Melitians to the Church. The Melitian schism appeared in the Alexandrian Church around 306. It was connected with the fact that during the persecution of Christians in Egypt a large group of fallen Christians formed. These Christians were the ones who renounced their faith in order to save their lives. The initiator of the schism was Bishop Melitius, who occupied the see of Lycopolis and was considered the second hierarch after the bishop of Alexandria. While Saint Peter of Alexandria advocated a clement attitude toward the fallen, allowing them to return to the Church through repentance, Melitius cook a harder position. He believed that the fallen laity should go through lengthy penances and that the clergy should be deprived of their dignity. This led to a breakdown in relations between Peter and Melitius. The followers of the latter called their society the Church of the Martyrs. Melitius began to ordain his supporters as bishops, insisting on the autonomy of the see of Lycopolis in relation to the see of Alexandria. Thus, a schism began, and a parallel hierarchy appeared in Egypt. There were no dogmatic differences between the Catholic Church and the Church of the Martyrs. The conflict was purely disciplinary in nature. During the conflict, Melitius conducted himself very harshly, effectively pitting his supporters against the Catholic Church.

The decision taken at the First Ecumenical Council concerning Bishop Melitius and his supporters was not set forth in the canons of the council but, rather, in its epistle to the Church of Alexandria. This document has been preserved in its entirety in the Historia Ecclesiastica (Church history) of Socrates Scholasticus. The epistle indicates that Melitius himself is received into communion with the Church in the rank of bishop, but that he “exercise no authority either to ordain or nominate for ordination; and that he appear in no other district or city on this pretense, but simply retain a nominal dignity.” As for the clergy ordained by him, they must be “con-firmed by the mystical ordination”, and only after that are they accepted into communion. However, as was the case with the Novatians, clerics returning from the Melitian schism “should… regard themselves as inferior in every respect to all those who have been ordained and established in each place and church by our most-honored fellow-minister, Alexander.” Former schismatics “shall have no authority to propose or nominate whom they please, or to do anything at all without the concurrence of some bishop of the Catholic Church who is one of Alexander’s suffragans.” Only in the event of a vacancy in a see can former Melitians be elected to it by the people and confirmed by the bishop of Alexandria. However, this does not extend to Melitius himself, “on account of his former disorderly conduct, and because of the rashness and levity of his character”; because he is “a man liable again to create similar disturbances,” he can no longer have any church authority (Book 1. Ch. 9).

Here we see the same approach, which is established in the eighth canon of the Council of Nicaea. Melitians are accepted into Church fellowship through a special rite, which involves the laying-on of hands. Once accepted, former Melitian clerics are restricted in their rights: they are made subordinate to the canonical bishops and only in the future can they be elected to vacant sees with the obligatory approval of such an election by the primate of the Church of Alexandria.

At the same time, Melitius himself, whom the fathers of the council characterized as a “rash” and stubborn person, can no longer be allowed to rule a diocese or jurisdiction; however, his episcopal dignity was preserved on the personal level. Using modern terminology, one can say that Melitius was received into communion as a retired bishop, deprived of teaching authority and all ecclesiastical posts.

In order to implement this decree of the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, it was decided that Melitius should hand over to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria a list of all his clerics. This list was kept in the Apology against the Arians of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. It includes twenty-nine bishops, five presbyters, and four deacons. Considering that, according to the same Saint Athanasius, the entire Alexandrian Church then consisted of one hundred bishops, it turns out that the Melitian schism covered about a quarter of its episcopate.

Although the general meaning of the eighth canon of the First Ecumenical Council and the decree regarding the Melitians is clear, it is still not entirely clear from the cited texts what is meant by the “laying on of hands” (or even “the mystical laying on of hands”) that the fathers of the council speak of. Different interpretations of this expression have been offered at different times. For example, it could be understood as the performance of a second ordination, or a special blessing as a sign of reconciliation with the Church, or the sacrament of repentance (involving the reading of a prayer with the laying on of hands). Archbishop Saint Theophilus of Alexandria saw in this expression an indication of consecration (this is evidenced by his twelfth canon). In the Western tradition in the Middle Ages, this expression was also understood as a requirement to perform a new consecration. It is this interpretation that is contained in the decree of Gratian.

In the eighth century, Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople gave his interpretation of the eighth canon of the Council of Nicaea. During the work of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the issue of the procedure for accepting iconoclasts into the Church was discussed. In connection with this, the fathers of the council read the eighth canon of the First Ecumenical Council. Patriarch Tarasius then explained that the laying on of hands mentioned in this canon should be understood only as a blessing and not as ordination. The same opinion was later held by Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, as well as by Bishop Nikodim (Milas). However, the well-known canonist Archbishop Peter (L’Huillier) believes that the interpretation of Patriarch Tarasius “is theoretically possible, but, nevertheless, such an understanding is associated with significant difficulties.”

Yet, there is no doubt that the acceptance of persons who received ordination in schism necessarily presupposed the performance of some rite. For example, Metropolitan Vassilios of Smyrna, in his book, says that the Melitian clergy who were accepted into Church communion received “confirmation in their sacred degrees through prayer with chirothesia.” At the same time, Metropolitan Vassilios points out that the adoption of both Melitians and Novatians was carried out according to the same procedure.

However, it should be noted that if the eighth canon of the First Ecumenical Council speaks of chirothesia, which must be performed over the Katharoi (Novatians), then in the letter to Alexandria the word “ordination” is used to emphasize “mystical ordination.” This difference in terminology has also generated debate among researchers. Thus, Emil Amann wrote that, on the one hand, the new “mystical laying on of hands” most likely was not identical with ordination. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that the fathers of the Council of Nicaea considered consecrations performed in schism to be “wrong,” and, therefore, requiring “correction.” Therefore, a certain rite was established, which included the laying on of hands with prayer. Thus, possible claims to the legality of the initial consecration received in the schism were removed. Amann suggests that this rite could “be performed in private, so as not to discredit those who were received into fellowship.” However, he acknowledges that the exact meaning of this rite remains “obscure to the modern theologian.”

Professor Annick Martin believes that in this “mystical affirmation through the laying on of hands” one should see only a blessing – i.e., confirmation of a previously performed ordination and an act of reconciliation with the Church. This point of view is shared by the Polish researcher Ewa Wipszycka.

However, the Belgian researcher Hans Hauben insists that the council showed greater severity in relation to the Melitians than to the Novatians. Hauben believes that the “mystical laying on of hands” in the letter of the fathers of the council meant a new full-fledged ordination. Therefore, here Hauben proposes to understand the Greek word mystical as “sacramental.” Given this, the whole phrase used in the letter should be understood as an indication of re-ordination. This means that the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council still believed that Melitian consecrations had no effect, and, therefore, when entering into communion with the Church, a new consecration was necessary for Melitian clerics.

At the same time, regarding those who were ordained in the Catholic Church and then deviated into schism, Hauben agrees with Annick Martin that the consecrations were not repeated (as can be seen from the rulings regarding Melitius him-self). However, these clerics, in case of return to the Catholic Church, were subjected to the same restrictions as those ordained in schism.

Hauben’s point of view is also shared by Professor Spyros Troyanos, a contemporary Greek expert in canon law. Troyanos believes that the repetition of ordinations over persons ordained in communities that separated from the Church was considered the norm at that time. And, he contends, deviations from this norm (for example, in the case of the Novatians) were understood as economia due to special circumstances. In relation to the Melitians, such indulgence was not shown, and their clergy went through the procedure of re-ordination.

However, the reconciliation of the Melitians with the Catholic Church proved to be fragile. After the death of Saint Alexander of Alexandria and the election of Saint Athanasius in 328, the conflict began again. In addition, a kind of coalition of the Melitians with the Arians was now formed, which gave the conflict even greater tension.” Nevertheless, by the end of the fourth century, the schism of the Melitians practically ceased, although certain references to the Melitians are found in sources up to the eighth century.

Another example of the acceptance into communion of clerics ordained in schism concerns the Donatists and dates back to the fifth century. Typologically, the split of the Donatists was close to the splits of the Novatians and Melitians. Supporters of Bishop Donatus in the Carthaginian Church in the first half of the fourth century advocated a tough attitude toward the traditors (sinners, those who handed over sacred items to persecutors-trans.] They considered it inadmissible to elect the traditors to episcopal posts, and they condemned the Catholic Church for clemency toward such fallen sinners. The Donatist movement became widespread in North Africa and even beyond its borders (Italy, Spain, Gaul). The attitude toward the acceptance of Donatist clerics into the Catholic Church was not the same in different local churches. Thus, for example, in Rome the Donatists were treated more strictly than in Carthage.

The question of the procedure for the admission into communion of the clergy who received ordination from the Donatists was considered at several councils in Carthage at the beginning of the fifth century. In particular, the decision was made to turn to Pope Anastasius of Rome and Bishop Venerius of Milan in order to find out their position on this issue. In response to a request from Carthage, a letter was received from the bishop of Rome, Anastasius, which was read at the council in Carthage on September 13, 401. The text of this letter has not been preserved, but, as can be seen from the materials of the council, a strict point of view was expressed in it, apparently suggesting re-ordination of Donatist clerics.

However, in Carthage they made another decision. The council decided to deal with the Donatists “leniently and pacifically” (rule 66, according to the account of the Book of Rules, 77). It was considered possible to receive Donatist clerics into communion in their existing rank. At the same time, the fathers of the Carthaginian council specifically emphasized that they should show leniency toward the Donatists, “not in violation of the Council, which was about this subject in the countries lying beyond the sea” (i.e., in Rome), but “according to the great need of Africa” (rule 68, according to the account of the Book of Rules, 79). That is, the fathers of the Carthaginian council considered the severity expressed in the bishop of Rome’s letter fair, but, due to the lack of clergy in the Carthaginian Church, they decided to show leniency toward the Donatists and accept them without re-ordinations. Later commentators generally looked upon this decree as an example of economia exercised for special circumstances.

The examples given of overcoming schisms in the ancient church allow one to draw several conclusions of a fundamental nature. Despite the fact that at different times and in different local churches one can see a special attitude toward various communities that separated from the Church, one can still single out some general principles developed by the Church in the fourth and fifth centuries.

First of all, the clerics who were in schism had to repent and renounce their delusions. Moreover, an official written renunciation was considered desirable. After that, they could be accepted into communion through the performance of a special rite, the content of which remains the subject of discussion. It is quite obvious that this rite involved the laying on of hands, with a prayer, on a cleric accepted into the Church. Thus, his consecration, performed in schism, received a “correction.”

After being accepted into the Catholic Church, clerics coming from separated communities were restricted in their rights. This restriction was manifested in the fact that, first, they without question obeyed the legal, established (Catholic) hierarchy. It was the legitimate bishops who did not fall into schism, and who, based on local conditions, had the prerogative to decide on potential future service of the former schismatics within the Church. If, in the locality where the former schismatic bishop was received into communion with the Church, there was already a legitimate hierarch of the Catholic Church, then the former schismatic could serve only as a chorepiscope (i.e., rural auxiliary bishop) or presbyter. In the future, such clerics could be elected to the episcopal cathedras, but such an election must necessarily receive approval from the legitimate primate of the local church. Further, the former schismatics themselves were not allowed to take part in the election of bishops.

At the same time, the heresiarchs and initiators of schisms were usually treated with greater severity than their followers. So, Melitius, although he was received into communion as a bishop, was deprived of all titles and positions and could no longer be a ruling bishop in the future. If, in history, some exceptions were allowed for clergy received from schismatic communities, then this was understood precisely as a leniency of grace (economia – i.e., deviation from the strictness of the canon) and was due to special circumstances.

These are the general principles of the position of the Orthodox Church toward ordinations performed in schism.

THE UKRAINIAN SITUATION

If we now look at the procedure by which, in 2018, the Patriarchate of Constantinople received the Ukrainian schismatics into communion, it is easy to notice a flippant disregard for almost all of the above-listed principles. It is my deep conviction that the Patriarch of Constantinople had no right at all to consider the cases of Philaret (Denysenko), Makariy (Maletych), and “those with them.” But even if we leave out of the discussion the question of the legality of this act itself, there are still many other obvious questions that arise.

As the Albanian Archbishop Anastasios rightly pointed out in his letters, there is not a word in the published documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople indicating that the Ukrainian schismatics repented and admitted their mistakes and errors. In not a single public statement by Philaret (Denysenko), Makariy (Maletych), or other representatives of the UOC-KP and UAOC does one see repentance before the Church for the sin of schism. Second, the admission of these persons into Church communion and the retroactive restoration to the sacred degrees of all those who were ordained in the schism were accomplished in a purely administrative manner – i.e., through the adoption of the Synodal decision. Crucially, no liturgical rites were performed on the former schismatics. There was no laying on of hands, no recitation of special prayers, and no other liturgical-sacramental actions. This also clearly does not correspond to the practice recorded in the documents of the First Ecumenical Council.

Another blatant violation of the precedent for healing schisms that was established in the ancient church is the total disregard by the Patriarchate of Constantinople for the legitimate Church hierarchy serving in the territory of Ukraine. In ancient times, clergy accepted from schism were limited in their rights and were necessarily placed in strict submission to the canonical hierarchs. The return of schismatics to full-fledged Church service was possible only after testing the sincerity of their intentions, and only by the decision of the canonical bishops who did not fall into schism.

In Ukraine, the clerics accepted from the schism were not subjected to any restrictions by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Regarding the former Melitians, the First Ecumenical Council made an unequivocal decision that they “have no authority to propose or nominate whom they please, or to do anything at all without the (consent of the] bishops of the Catholic Church”; in Ukraine, on the other hand, people who were ordained in schism held a so-called Unifying Council on December 15, 2018, at which they announced the creation of a new church structure and the election of its primate. There was no conception of any subordination of clerics returning from schism to the local canonical hierarchs.

In fact, the decisions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 2018-19 endowed persons received from the schism with full rights of Church administration. At the same time, as Patriarch Bartholomew stated in October 2020 from the point of view of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, after the publication of Tomos in January 2019, the hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, who remained faithful to the Catholic Church, suddenly are “temporarily tolerated” only as “titular bishops” and should now recognize the rule of those who for several decades have been out of communion with the Church.

All of these obvious deviations from the practice of the ancient church led to the ecclesiastical schism in Ukraine not being healed and instead gaining new strength. As Archbishop Anastasios points out, the healing of the schism should have resulted in the reconciliation of Orthodox believers in Ukraine. However, the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople led to the opposite result. The intervention of Patriarch Bartholomew in Ukrainian Church affairs upset the already fragile confessional balance in Ukraine and provoked a new wave of religious violence. In 2019, we witnessed the violent takeovers of churches and the illegal re-registration of religious communities. All of this can hardly be called “reconciliation.”

Moreover, the extreme leniency shown by the Patriarchate of Constantinople toward the schismatics led to a split occurring within the first months of the existence of the OCU. Philaret (Denysenko), as is known, stated that he continues to consider himself a patriarch, and he claims to be the leader of the OCU. He actually renewed the activities of the self-dissolved UOC-KP, continuing to perform episcopal consecrations, which are now no longer recognized in the OCU.

The latter circumstance once again proves that accepting into communion the perpetrators of church schisms, who spent many years not only outside the Church but also in an active struggle against the canonical Church, requires special wisdom and responsibility. Ill-conceived decisions that ignore the canonical tradition of the Church do not lead to peace within the Church, but only to the deepening of the schism.

As we have seen, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as a justification for exercising maximum lenience toward the members of the UOC-KP and the UAOC, pointed out that they were in schism not for doctrinal reasons – i.e., that the Orthodox teaching in these communities was not violated. However, even in the ancient church, deep divisions and schisms occurred, not only on doctrinal grounds but also simply for disciplinary reasons. Even in those cases when clerics from communities that did not deviate from the dogmatic teaching of the Church were accepted into communion, they could still be subject to strictness. According to the correct observation of Bishop Nikodim (Milas), the Church always subjects the issue of consecrations performed in schism to special inspection, and every time it undertakes a special decision.

Unfortunately, today Universal Orthodoxy is in severe crisis. One cannot but agree with Archbishop Anastasios of Albania that the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine have brought all of Universal Orthodoxy to the edge of schism. Overcoming this crisis is possible only under the condition of strict observance of those canonical principles that have been developed by the centuries-old experience of the Orthodox Church.

UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

UKRAINE