On the occasion of the anniversary of the anti-canonical decisions of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople in 2018, some Ukrainian Internet resources issued materials dedicated to these events.
In particular, Gazeta.ua writes that “On October 11, 2018, the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate lifted the anathema from Filaret, Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, and Macarius, Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church. They were recognized as canonical. ”
It is even funnier further: “The Russian Orthodox Church has imposed an anathema to prevent the Ukrainian church from receiving a tomos.”
Those who understand the topic probably bleed from their eyes.
The author of this opus, obviously, does not know that the Moscow Patriarchate has never imposed any anathema on the priest of the Ukrainian exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church Makarii (Nicholas) Maletich. He was banned from serving in 1989 (!) By Metropolitan of Kiev … Filaret (Denisenko). That is, according to the logic of the journalist, the ROC, represented by Filaret, opposed the receipt of the tomos, which was not even included in the project.
However, what can be demanded of a journalist of this media, if the members of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople themselves poorly understood what they were doing.
For example, the wording of the Synod’s decision (as presented by some of its members – Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gall and Bishop Macarius (Griniezakis)) to “restore” Bishop Makariy Maletich to the dignity does not make any sense and is absurd in its content. Simply because Maletic was never a bishop before going into schism. And his “consecration” in the schism does not stand up to any criticism.
What could be “restored” and “returned to the canonical field” as a bishop and how is absolutely incomprehensible.
And to this day, the content of the decisions of the Phanar synod is puzzling. No detailed documents (protocols) on this matter have been published. There was no clear theological justification. Even in form, it did not correspond to the “appeal hearing” in the absence of signs of a real church trial.
In the synodal communiqué, only a few proposals are given to this decision, which speak of the “restoration” of Filaret, Macarius, as well as their followers, “in the hierarchical or priestly rank.” What this means (lifting the anathema, or something else), and what canons were guided by the Phanariots, is a mystery.
It could be assumed that Macarius was “restored” to the rank of priest (by canceling Filaret’s decision), but in the “OCU” he has the status of “bishop”, which leaves no room for another interpretation of the decisions made in the Phanar.
Thus, the Phanariots, who imagine themselves to be the most educated Orthodox theologians, “restored” to the rank of bishop a man who had never been a bishop.
Such a decision cannot be called any other word, except as “absurd”, “idiocy” and “savagery”. And this is not to mention a number of other wild formulations and decisions made by the hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople.