Famous theologian, rector of the Ecclesiastical Academy
and Seminary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [UOC] Archpriest Mykola Zabuha,
invited by The Day, shares his thoughts on contemporary Orthodox life.
K. G.: Father Mykola, the first question is about the current
protest actions of some Orthodox brotherhoods. As we know, they picketed
not only Verkhovna Rada but also the UOC Holy Synod. The brotherhoods’
leaders lay claims, in the newspaper Rus’ Pravoslavnaya (Orthodox Rus’)
specifically concerning church policy such as UOC canonicity and the Moscow
Patriarchate. The Day, by the way, also received a strong criticism for
too little attention paid the brotherhoods’ activity. So we want to mend
our ways and thus ask you to tell our readers about contemporary Orthodox
brotherhoods.
M. Z.: Let me begin from the fact that few of us used the
newly obtained freedom for constructive ideas. This can be said above all
of our politicians who, while having only one clear as day idea, that of
independent Ukraine, broke up into dozens of hostile parties. And some
secular politicians close to the church abuse freedom the same way.
From the standpoint of history, especially in the seventeenth
century, the role of Orthodox brotherhoods in Ukraine was significant and
positive. They united society around the Church, did much educational work,
and — what is the most important — asserted Orthodoxy in the hard times
after the Union of Brest (when, beginning in 1596, an attempt was made
to force the Orthodox to accept Uniate or Greek Catholicism —Ed.). Now
something incomprehensible and irresponsible is going on: the leaders of
some brotherhoods, some of which arose without the Church’s knowledge,
actually set themselves above the clergy and even, incredibly, above the
Holy Synod. The newly created brotherhoods have several lines of struggle:
they oppose tax identification numbers and possible UOC autocephaly, while
favoring restoration of the Russian Empire. Let us talk about the first
two problems, for the third is not worth mentioning.
It is now hard to establish who first started the campaign
against identification numbers. Some clergymen, monks, and lay people joined
the brotherhoods. They are very active: they publish booklets and brochures
like Beware the Seal of the Antichrist! or Orthodoxy’s Call. And all this
without the Patriarch’s blessing, without permission. And what they write
there... — God forgive them! Even if there are good ideas in such booklets
they are expressed in such aggressive and insulting form that one simply
cannot accept them. People of the Orthodox Church should reason and discuss
calmly, sensibly, with respect for their interlocutors. No one should assume
the role of supreme arbiter and insult the hierarchy. These “brethren”
blame everyone — they take unto themselves the powers of the Lord God Himself.
They do not consider Synodal directives and their bishops’ decisions binding.
The church’s problems can be discussed as much as one wants but only before
the Synod’s decision. The decision adopted by the church’s supreme authority
is binding on us all. But the brethren want everyone to think only like
they do. This is nothing but a continuation of the totalitarianism of not
so long ago. But we should never forget that even the Communists with their
mighty punitive system did not manage to remold everyone the way they wanted.
National unity is based upon everyone’s right to be different from others.
The case of identification numbers was discussed at the
two last UOC Synods. A number of bishops and theologians, both from Moscow
and from Ukraine expressed their opinions. The majority consider identification
numbers to be not the seal of the Devil mentioned in the Revelation of
St. John the Divine. An identification number, unlike the seal of the Antichrist,
can be changed — for example, in case of system changes or when a citizen
loses his number. But the main thing is that the procedure for obtaining
identification numbers does not demand of the faithful any anti-Christian
actions such as refraining from church services, prayers, or confessions
of one’s sin. However, the Synod considered the faithful’s feelings and
appealed to the government asking it grant those who wish an alternative
way to register. And, as you know, the government responded to our wishes.
But the emotions did not die down — obviously, the brotherhoods’ leaders
do not want to lose such a lever to influence the faithful.
The brethren’s second goal is the struggle against the
specter of UOC autocephaly. In December the General Council spoke against
discussing this problem now. We believe, as we did before, in obtaining
the status of an Independent Church but in a canonical way. I would like
to add also that Moscow Patriarch Alexei II in this connection recently
asked our bishops whether they could guarantee that after final separation
from the Russian Orthodox Church [ROC] some regions of Ukraine would not
ask to be included under the Moscow Patriarchate’s direct jurisdiction.
And if Patriarch Alexei receives such a guarantee he will officially agree
to UOC separation. But today no one can guarantee such a thing. And the
brotherhoods’ activity once more proved it.
K. G.: Father, what is your opinion on the reasons for
such resistance to autocephaly?
M. Z.: There are several. First of all, the idea of autocephaly
was compromised in Ukraine during the first years of independence. There
is no need to explain who did it and how. People of the Orthodox Church
are afraid of “self-consecrated” autocephaly (reference is to the creation
of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in 1921, when in defiance
of Russian hierarchs, who refused to consecrate the autocephalous bishops
and citing the Alexandrine precedent, the dissident priests themselves
consecrated their bishops. Many consider this a violation of the canons
on apostolic succession — Ed.) and now associate this with church lawlessness.
The idea of an Independent Church now has been transformed into accusations,
insults, and opposition. There are also other reasons.
First, people fear that separation will result in inevitable
and immediate revision of the ecclesiastical calendar, and all the names
of Russian saints like Aleksandr Nevsky, Sergei of Radonezh, Serafim Sorovsky,
and others will be removed. Such a thing will never happen — do not forget
that we still venerate Egyptian, Greek, and Roman saints. So Russian saints
will remain in the calendar. But some people are very hard to persuade,
though they ought to trust their priests.
Secondly, many people do not want to lose direct communion
with the Moscow Church, with which Ukrainian Orthodoxy has been united
for centuries. For them separation would mean strengthening Western (Roman
and Greek Catholic) influence on Ukrainian Orthodoxy. in their opinion,
such influence can be displayed through switching to the new style; the
faithful are afraid to accept the Gregorian calendar when Easter and other
holidays are calculated according Catholic formulas.
Third, laymen, especially the brethren, do not want divine
services conducted in Ukrainian instead of Church Slavonic
K. G.: Incidentally, what is your attitude toward Ukrainian
as the language of divine services?
M. Z.: Such a problem cannot be solved by a simple wish
even of the top hierarchs. First of all a professional translation of all
the books of the Bible into Ukrainian from Greek originals — and they are
many — is needed. For example. The Serbian Orthodox Church has been translating
these books into modern Serbian for 35 years, while divine services in
most churches are still conducted in Church Slavonic. Those amateurish
translations that are used now in our churches are no answer to the problem,
the more so that often the priests read the texts from a piece of paper.
I think, the only way to solve the problem is to found a Biblical Study
Institute as a part of National Academy of Sciences where scholars and
theologians would work together on a Ukrainian translation. The foundation
of such an institute would be a worthy celebration of the 2000th anniversary
of Christ’s birth.
K. G.: Orthodox brotherhoods are most active in the southern
and eastern regions of Ukraine, that is, where pro-Russian tendencies are
strongest. Don’t you think that the grounds of the brotherhoods’ activity
are political and treasonous? Many brethren even call their church, that
is, the UOC, the Russian Orthodox Church.
M. Z.: I do not think that the brotherhoods are pursuing
some sort of political goals; this is purely an internal church affair,
although there is much that is strange, to say the least. For example,
the appeals of some brotherhoods for the restoration of Russian monarchy.
What do they know of that monarchy, why do they need it? It cannot be even
called nostalgia, for all of us were born after the revolution.
K. G.: The Russian Orthodox Church has the right to be
proud of its role in the formation of Russian state — first of the Muscovite
Principality, and then of the Russian Empire. What will the UOC be proud
of? Does it play a similar role now, during the important years of young
Ukrainian state formation, the formation of its spirituality, culture and
language?
M. Z.: Since the schism of Orthodoxy we have been accused
of treason. The old tried and true methods of branding ones opponents have
been used. When one part proclaimed itself the “patriotic national” church,
it was obvious that there also had to be a “treasonable” one. The result
of such a label was that many political, public, and creative organizations
for a long time did not dare offer us any form of cooperation. Now the
situation is improving. We actively participate in many measures, work
with the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and have many contacts with cultural institutions.
K. G.: Reverend Father, what do you think of the current
state of the Orthodox schism?
M. Z.: It is hard to say something that would raise hope.
Orthodox Ukraine today is entangled with parallel church structures — there
are three bishops in every other region, three churches in every other
village. This a very serious obstacle in the path of unity. Today we can
talk of a certain stabilization if this can be described as the silent
opposition of churches with slight elements of neutrality. Let me remind
you that many bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church — Kyiv Patriarchate
and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in their time tried to return
to our church. Almost all of them.
K. G.: In the Russian Orthodox Church conservative, even
isolationist tendencies can be traced; attempts to leave not only the global
ecumenical movement but also break the connections with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, Romanian Church, etc. UOC is under the jurisdiction of the
Moscow Patriarchate. Does this mean that its policy has to conform with
such tendencies? If, for example, the relations between Moscow Patriarchate
and Romanian Orthodox Church become complicated (an argument over Moldovan
parishes), will the UOC maintain normal relations with Romanian Church?
M. Z.: It cannot be like that, for we conduct our own external
policy and determine it ourselves. Thus, we are not going to leave world
ecumenical movement, for the Church’s mission is dialog with others.
K. G.: Thank you for your attention to The Day’s readers.







