Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your Beatitude and Most Holy ALEXIY, Patriarch of Moscow and all
Russia, our Modesty’s most beloved and dear brother in Christ God and
concelebrant, embracing Your venerable Beatitude fraternally in the
Lord, we greet You exuberantly.
The unexpected character of this letter compelled us, out of respect for
the peace held between us, not to respond immediately, so that it not be
thought that we were hasty or under pressure in judging the curious and
discomforting contents of the letter, or that we were under the effect of
the unfavorable sentiments which we justifiably felt.
We, therefore, should like to remind you briefly of only a few but very
important truths concerning the issue, which, unfortunately, Your beloved
Beatitude and the Most Reverend brothers with you either overlooked out
of human weakness, or, even worse, because you believed it possible for
the issues of those affected to be passed over without protest.
First, we must state categorically that we do not recognize the Most Holy
Church of Russia as having any authority whatsoever over the Ukrainians
in the Diaspora who have come under the omophorion of the Church of
Constantinople since they, being abroad, had the right to seek the
protected shelter of the Mother Church of Constantinople with which they
historically have unbroken bonds and whose rightful jurisdictional
authority and obligation it is to bring about their restoration.
Second, the often troubled past throughout the history of each individual
group concerned here as it relates to the Church — for which, we repeat,
as it is known, the leaders of schisms and irregular situations are not the
only ones to blame, and still less to blame are their distant descendants of
today — was by no means unknown to the Church of Constantinople due
to her inherent ties to all the Orthodox peoples of the Balkans and
beyond. Thus, regretfully, but with great forbearance, we can at best
characterize the canonical-historical presentation of the problem in your
letter as an oversimplification.
Third, it is certainly well known to Your Beatitude and your brothers that
the recent attempt by the Church of Constantinople to regularize a faction
within the Diaspora’s pending canonical issues — which ought not to be
— was neither without precedence nor was it a hurried or novel action.
On the contrary, this recent attempt came about in continuation and as a
natural consequence of similar formal acts of the past clearly aimed at
unification in the spirit described above. We regret that unfortunately the
same cannot be said for the repeated actions undertaken by the Church o f
Russia in these very same regions of the Diaspora. The consequences of
such actions not only undermines the peace of the Church which has
existed between us until now, but also mortally injures pan-Orthodox
order and progress; the foremost and most outrageous instance being the
totally unmanageable “autocephality” of the Metropolia in America.
Fourth, we must confess with great sadness that throughout the entire
seventy years of Soviet tyranny the Mother Church of Constantinople,
while painfully observing the uncanonical defiances [sic] or incidents
going on here and there, had the impression that such actions were
dictated or even imposed by the hegemonic tactics of the atheistic regime.
The same must be also said of our dutiful assistance offered Estonia, as
our official delegation mentioned above tried to fully explain when they
visited you. Responding to the persistent petition of the Estonian
Orthodox Church to return to the autonomous status granted her by the
Ecumenical Throne in a Patriarchal and Synodal Tome, which
unfortunately was forcefully and simultaneously unilaterally abolished
when the Soviets deprived the Estonians of political freedom, we are
providing a way out of the bitterness borne from the hardships
contiguously endured during the tyrranical period.
The development and further regularization in their relations with the
Church of Russia would thus become easier psychologically and certainly
no one could then deny the Church of Russia’s contribution to them.
+BARTHOLOMEW of Constantinople