Statement that was made by
Archpriest Mihajlo Doder of the Serbian Orthodox Church on Orthodox Christianity
<ORTHODOX@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU> on
May 28, 2001
"You act as if being in communion with the
Ecumenical Patriarchate is the litmus test of being Orthodox. While the Church
of Bulgaria was in "schism" with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the
Serbian Church served with both the EP and the Church of Bulgaria. Likewise,
the clergy of the Serbian Church often serve with the clergy of ROCOR, but are
also in communion with Moscow and the EP. We must get away from the idea that
the EP is some kind Orthodox "Pope"."
An in depth explanation by
Rev. Protodeacon Larry A. Faseruk of the intricate “canonical”
inter-relationships between various Orthodox Churches
In this (Archpriest Mihajlo Doder) gives two examples that communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is not an absolutely necessary condition to be in communion with other canonical Orthodox Churches. The first example, which is the Bulgarian Church is straight forward. This church was in schism with the Ecumenical Patriarch, but the Serbian Church served with the Bulgarian Church. The Serbian Church was not deemed to be uncanonical, and its Bishops were not excommunicated or anathemized by the Ecumenical Patriarch for these actions. The second case listed is ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, also called the Synod Church. The ROCOR is not considered to be a "canonical" church. It is not in communion with either the Ecumenical Patriarch or Moscow Patriarch. This means that it is in a similar state The UOC-Canada found itself prior to 1990 and the UOC-USA prior to 1995. Hence it is not necessary to be in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch in order to have communion with other Canonical Orthodox Churches.
Prior to 1990 the
UOC-Canada could not convince the other canonical orthodox churches to share
communion. In fact the UOC-Canada could not even convince Bishop Vsevelod to
share communion. I clearly remember several times in the late 1980s that Bishop
Vsevelod was present at liturgies in the Toronto area, and that he did not
share communion with the bishops of the UOC-Canada. Can a Canonical Orthodox
Church have communion with a heretic schismatic church? Consider what is
happening in Syria. The Non-chalcedonian churches were condemned as a heretic
sect and communion was stopped with them, and this was ordered by an ecumenical
council. Now according to Metropolitan George, who is a member of the Holy
Antiochian Synod, a canonical Orthodox Church : “ We are not in communion with the Syrian Church or the other
so-called non-Chalcedonians. We do, however, have a special relationship with
the Syrian Church, especially in the Middle East. There are many towns,
especially in northern Syria, where only one parish exists, be it theirs or
ours. There may be no other parish for many miles. In those cases, we allow
marriages, for example, to take place in each other's churches, as well as
shared communion, etc. This is a special agreement between the Patriarchate of
Antioch and the Syrian Church. Concerning the Melkite Catholic Church (eastern
rite Catholic Church), they officially proposed the idea of
"double-communion" with both Rome and the Orthodox Church at the same
time." There are also similar
agreements with the Alexandrian
Church (A canonical church)
and the Coptic Church (the monophysite heretics).
What has communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch meant to the UOC-Canada and USA? It means that the bishops of the UOC-Canada and the USA get to serve with the Bishops of SCOBA, and visiting bishops from the Moscow Patriarchate. Prior to 1990 for the UOC-Canada and prior to 1995 for the UOC-USA, these canonical churches looked at the UOC-Canada & USA, the same way that these canonical churches currently look at all the small orthodox jurisdictions, some that practice a realistic form of orthodoxy and others that practice a really strange form of what they call orthodoxy. It means that the bishops of the UOC-Canada & USA get to serve with canonical bishops, who in their hearts firmly believe that Ukrainian is a dialect of Russian, that Ukrainians are actually "Little Russians" and our ancestral home country is an inseparable part of "Great Mother Russia", and that Ukrainian Nationalism is a relatively recent idea, and at first a product of an Austrian and Vatican Plot to break up Russia, and then later it became a Nazi plot. These myths are not just confined to those bishops. It is found in every level of those churches from lay people on up from ethnic Russians, Serbs, etc to converts. Actually the converts take these myths to heart more than the ethnic Orthodox.
Why cannot the
UOC-Canada & USA serve with clergy from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-
Kyivan Patriarch? According to Fr. Mihajlo, the lack of communion with the EP
is not a sufficient impediment. Moscow has placed other blocks in the way. First
they have "defrocked" Filaret. That is they have reduced him in rank
from Metropolitan to monk, for daring to ask for the independence of the
Ukrainian Church from Moscow, and getting most of the bishops in Ukraine to
sign a request. So Moscow defrocked Filaret and then most of these other
bishops repudiated their signatures. Filaret rejected the defrocking as being
uncanonical and continued to help establish an independent Ukrainian church.
Moscow then issued an anathema against Filaret.
This Moscow issued anathema is constantly being used against the Kyivan
Patriarchate. Even the fact that the Ukrainian Churches in the Diaspora will
not defy the Moscow issued anathema is constantly used. Let us consider what an
anathema is. It is a pronouncement that places the target individual outside
the realm of salvation. In short it is taking the place of the Final Judgment,
usurping or acting as perjury for the Great Judge. In acting as a judge you
take a big chance, especially with the Great High Judge. If it is a judgment
that would be upheld then no problem, if it is not upheld, then a big problem
for the person who judged. Is it such a huge sin to request an independent
church? It was done for Constantinople itself, and a patriarchate was
established there with considerable opposition. Moscow got its independence
from Constantinople, as well as Greece and several others. So why is it a huge
sin when it is requested for Ukraine? Is Patriarch Filaret teaching anything
contrary to the established doctrines of the Church? NO! All he is asking for,
is an administrative change to boundaries to accommodate a Autocephalous
Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Much has been written about what is called
phyletism, the great sin of setting up more national churches, but the ones that
are existing are ok. That is complete nonsense. Nothing has been written about
the greater sin of Religious Imperialism, except by some to condemn the Pope.
The continued domination of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the Moscow
Patriarchate must end. Let all Ukrainians say, to the Moscow Patriarch, with
one voice the words of Moses to the pharaoh "LET MY PEOPLE GO".
Rev.
Protodeacon Larry A. Faseruk