On March 30-31, news agencies Georgian Times (1, 2, 3), Georgia and the World, Tvalsazrisi, and Publicist published an identical article titled “Bartholomew is Part of the Deep State – The Politics of the Patriarch of Constantinople Does Not Go Unnoticed in Georgia.” The article discusses a protest held in front of the Turkish Embassy in Tbilisi against the Patriarch of Constantinople. Protesters claimed that Bartholomew (Bartholomew I), “who pretends to be the Ecumenical Patriarch,” is part of the Deep State, follows U.S. policy, and engages in subversive activities against Orthodox Christianity. The article states that, according to the protest organizers, the patriarch “unilaterally granted the Tomos, i.e., ecclesiastical charter, to Ukraine’s non-canonical church in violation of ecclesiastical canons, which he had no right to do.”
Despite the identical title and text of the article, suggesting that these outlets did not prepare it independently and relied on the same source, none of them cite a source.
Notably, the online news agency Tvalsazrisi published a bilingual version of the article, with a Russian translation included beneath the Georgian text. Additionally, similar content, albeit with different wording, was published in both languages on the Georgian- and Russian-language websites of the Russian state-owned news agency Sputnik.
The claim that Bartholomew’s granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was illegal is false. Based on historical precedent, the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to carry out such an act, and it does not contradict existing ecclesiastical canons. Moreover, historically, this patriarchate has been the mother church of the Ukrainian Church.
The article emphasizes that Bartholomew’s decision on January 5, 2019, was unilateral, which constitutes a violation of ecclesiastical canons. They argue that granting autocephaly requires the consent of all Orthodox churches. However, this is not true. According to former Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, there is no specific law in ecclesiastical legislation that regulates the granting of autocephaly; therefore, this process is primarily based on historical precedent. As theologian Guram Lursmanashvili stated in an interview, the right to grant autocephaly belongs solely to the mother church or the Ecumenical Patriarch. The latter does not grant a Tomos to a church unless its ecclesiastical boundaries align with secular borders. Consequently, Bartholomew had full authority to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, as historically, the Church of Constantinople has been considered its mother church.
It is worth noting that, initially, most Orthodox churches did not recognize the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church (Kyiv Patriarchate). Church leaders discussed this issue again on April 18, 2019, agreeing only to hold further negotiations. However, some churches recognized Ukraine’s autocephaly later that same year. The first to do so was the Church of Greece, followed by the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Cyprus. Additionally, while the Bulgarian and Romanian Orthodox Churches have not officially stated their positions on Ukraine’s autocephaly, they maintain a positive stance toward it and conduct joint religious services with the Ukrainian Church. The Georgian Orthodox Church has not recognized the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Manipulative and false claims suggesting that the Tomos was granted in violation of ecclesiastical canons and that no Orthodox church recognizes Ukraine’s autocephaly have been repeatedly spread in the past. For more details, see our previous reports:
- “Stalin” against Ukrainian Church Autocephaly and Kremlin’s Three Myths
- Stalin’s Two Lies About the Churches of Ukraine and Constantinople
- The Role of Poroshenko in the Process of Obtaining Autocephaly – Did he violate the Constitution of Ukraine?
- Five Pieces of Disinformation About the Ukrainian Church and the Ecumenical Patriarch
- Which Orthodox Countries Have Recognized the Autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church?
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
