On Ukraine and Alexandria

 So, the Orthodox Times has released an article of the Archbishop of Albania talking about the issue that has recently risen in Africa. For those who are not aware, please continue reading below.

Recently, the Russian Church, headed by the Moscow Patriarch, decided to create an exarchate in Africa. This was done after 102 priests from Africa asked to join the MP.

"The Synod heard a report from His Eminence Archbishop Leonid of Yerevan and Armenia on the appeals of numerous clergy from throughout Africa who reject Patriarch Theodoros of Alexandria’s recognition of the Ukrainian schismatics and therefore want to come under the Russian Church.

With the blessing of Pat. Kirill, Abp. Leonid recently traveled to Africa and met with many of the appealing priests. Today, at least 100 parishes of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, together with their priests, have declared their desire to move to the Russian Church. Many of them first appealed in 2019, after Pat. Theodoros first began commemorating the schismatic head of the OCU, “Metropolitan” Epiphany Dumenko"(See link above)

 Now, Archbishop Anastasios has described this development as painful. I think it is rather telling which side of the debate the author of the Orthodox Times article is on since they mention that the Archbishop justifies what Russia is doing.

So let us break this down a bit further.

I posted back in February of 2019 on what was happening in Ukraine. It basically boiled down to due to the rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine the Ecumenical Patriarch made a new Orthodox jurisdiction in Ukraine - one that didn't fall under Moscow. The problem with this is that this new jurisdiction was filled with schismatic priests and bishops. The canons of the Church have rules and guidelines on how to accept schismatics into the Church - there is a lot of repentance mentioned - and the EP didn't follow any of those. 

The Orthodox Church of Ukraine is headed by the Metropolitan Epiphanius who was ordained by the defrocked and deposed Philaret Denisenko. You can read more about why Philaret was defrocked here. Here is a an excerpt on what is discussed in that link.

"for the cruel and arrogant attitude of Metropolitan Philaret (Denisenko) to his subordinate clergy, dictatorialness, and intimidation (Tit. 1:7-8; Canon 27 of the Holy Apostles),

causing temptation among the faithful by his behavior and personal life (Mt. 18:7; Canon 3 of First Ecumenical Council, Canon 5 of the Fifth-Sixth Council),

oath-breaking (Canon 25 of the Holy Apostles),

public slander and blasphemy against the Bishops’ Council (Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council),

celebrating services, including ordination, in a state of suspension (Canon 28 of the Holy Apostles),

the perpetration of a schism in the Church (Canon 15 of the First-Second Council):
To depose Metropolitan Philaret (Denisenko) from his existing rank, depriving him of every degree of the priesthood and all rights connected with the clerical rank.
To consider all ordinations to the rank of deacon, presbyter, and bishop celebrated by Metropolitan Philaret in a state of suspension from May 27 of this year, and also all the punishments imposed by him on clergy and laity from May 6 of this year, illegal and invalid.
To depose Bishop Jacob (Panchuk) of Pochaev from his rank for complicity in the anti-canonical actions of the former Metropolitan of Kiev Philaret, depriving him of every degree of the priesthood.
The decisions of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the expulsion of Metropolitan Philaret (Denisenko) and Bishop Jacob (Panchuk) from their existing ranks and on their deprivation of every degree of the priesthood shall be brought to the attention of all the Local Orthodox Churches"

 Now, obvioulsy, Philaret continued on trying to be a priest and bishop even after he was defrocked. He caused a schism to form in Ukraine between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-MP and his own schismatic church. Any and all priests, monastics, bishops, and laity who went along or were ordained by Philaret are also in schism. 

What the Ecumenical Patriarch did was instead of going to the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine and granting them autocephaly - of which he had no jurisdiction to do so - he went instead to schismatics and made them a "canonical" church. He also had no jurisdiction to do that either. What he did would be akin to him, or another patriarch, going to Rome and declaring them canonical again.

It would have been one thing if these schismatics were accepted back into the Church and then the EP helped broker a deal with the MP to grant the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-MP autocephaly, but he went out of his jurisdictional boundaries and completely bypassed the proper way to do things by saying the schismatics were right all along, and also they can definitely be their own church.

This whole thing was a pandering to Ukrainian nationalists who wanted their own independent church that wasn't under Moscow. They didn't care how it happened, they just didn't want to bow to Russia. The funny thing is that the majority of Ukrainian Orthodox have remained in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-MP rather than going to the schismatics.

Personally, I believe that the Ecumenical Patriarch put himself into schism when he decided to jump out of his jurisdiction and proclaim a schismatic church to not only be canonical, but autocephalous as well. I think it was perfectly OK for Russia and others to say that the EP was now in schism. 

And this brings us to the original article that I mentioned.

The Alexandrian Patriarch has decided to go along with the EP and say that Orthodox Church of Ukraine is canonical and autocephalous. This has obviously put him into schism as well. And since the Alexandrian Patriarch is in schism, there are priests that want to leave and be a part of a canonical Orthodox jurisdiction.

These priests reached out to the Russian Church and asked to be received. Russia said OK. I agree that it is painful. I think it is painful that certain hierarchs want to get one up on one another and play games like this to the detriment of the faithful.

And more on Alexandria. They want to get upset when Russia creates an exarchate in their canonical jurisdiction. But a huge problem that I see is that Alexandria has been dropping the ball on missionary outreach as evidenced by Russian monastics and missionaries creating missions and parishes in Africa. Obviously, the continent of Africa is ripe for missionary work, and yet it seems that Russia has made more headway in bringing Africans to Orthodoxy than Alexandria has.

Now, perhaps Alexandria is stonewalled by being in Egypt - but the fact that they have archdiocese throughout Africa seems to say otherwise. And I don't see why they couldn't send out missionaries into the heart of the continent - unless it's a money issue. I can definitely see if they have a money issue since they only operate in Africa, and have no parishes outside of said continent. Whereas Constantinople, Antioch, and Moscow all have parishes in the US (and elsewhere) and receive cash flow from those areas - it definitely puts them in a better position monetarily wise if they want to do any kind of mission work.

Or, maybe I just don't hear or read about any missionary work done by the Alexandria Patriarchate because they have such a small presence in the online communities I frequent. I'm currently trying to teach Google to give me more Orthodox news and articles, but it keeps giving me Roman Catholic stuff instead. Perhaps I'll find a different place to find the news I want in one convenient location.

Any way, to me it seems like Russia is doing a lot of missionary work in Africa whilst Alexandria is not. Maybe Russia should have left Africa to Alexandria, but I think they saw an opportunity to fulfill the Great Commission and took it. Perhaps Russia could have given its money and support for missions to Alexandria - but Russia could be hard pressed to find that money and support if they themselves weren't doing the mission work; if a Russian parish in the US is going to fund monastics and missionaries they probably want to be involved in some way and get updated, etc. without the need for a middleman to pass along information.

But, to bring this all back together. I think it is very painful for these situations to have arisen. We have hierarchs fighting with each other, and causing division, instead of working together like they should. We have hierarchs going into schism instead of looking at the big picture and trying to figure out what would cause a greater unity among the faithful.

I think I agree with my own Patriarch, JOHN X of Antioch when he stated he had,

"deep, heartily pain and great sorrow towards what is happening in our Orthodox Church these days and Her affliction as a result of individuality, lack of dialogue, and absence of conciliarity, and of what happened recently in Ukraine". John X also appealed to all the primates of the Orthodox autocephalous churches and said it was time "to gather and meet in order to proclaim our commitment to the unity of our Holy Orthodox Church, and our belief that Her light coming from the Light of Christ remains bright and glorious."(Sourced from Wikipedia)

 I'm very thankful that Antioch hasn't gone into schism over petty reasons recently. Wait, what's that?