Will this Unique, Perhaps Last, Chance for Unification Be Seized?

The jubilee session of the Episcopal Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC KP), has come to a close, unanimously passing several important documents which could shape the further destiny of this church or even of Orthodoxy as a whole in Ukraine. Although the program of the Council dedicated to the two-thousandth anniversary of the Nativity included discussion of papers on a wide range of problems, such as, for example, reform of the system of theological education (by Bishop Dymytry, Rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy), raising the living standards of monks (Hieromonk Yevstraty), or the draft of a future church doctrine, the participants, and guests focused on one issue. There is no need to stress that the issue is reunification of the UOC KP and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC), as well as awarding canonical status to the unified Local (pomisna) Church of Ukraine, which will mean joining the world Orthodox community, the so-called Orthodox Commonwealth, consisting today of fourteen autocephalous national churches. No wonder, then, that all the greetings, reports, speeches, rejoinders, and questions heard at the council displayed the same coloring and pursued the same goal: to put at least a partial end to the abnormal schism in this country’s Orthodoxy and to have, at last, a canonical Orthodox Church that would support the statehood of this, rather than any other, country.

The main practical result of the UOC KP Council was the adoption of two important documents. First is “The Appeal to UAOC Bishops, Clergy, and Laity” to its “Sister Church” which calls for doing away, on the threshold of the third millennium of the Christian era, with old misunderstandings and contradictions. “Let us not go into the new age with old problems!” The appeal also makes references to the Agreement on Joint Action signed by the two churches at the Ecumenical Patriarch’s residence in late 2000. The appeal contains a very important point that every clergyman and every believer will find a decent place for himself in the united church.

The other Council document is “The Appeal to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I” expressing gratitude for his efforts aimed at uniting the Ukrainian Orthodox churches and solving our painful problems inherited from long foreign rule, totalitarianism, and atheism. This appeal underlines the role of the Constantinople Patriarchate in the history of Ukrainian Orthodoxy and asserts that only the Constantinople Church, the Mother Church, has a legitimate right to grant the Ukrainians the Thomos (document) of church independence.

The UOC KP Council invites Patriarch Bartholomew I to pay a pastoral visit to Ukraine and arrive in Kyiv later in May 2001, thus expressing the hope that during t his visit the head of world Orthodoxy will present the Thomos recognizing the National Autocephalous Church. Patriarch Filaret reminded the audience that Patriarch Bartholomew I had already been invited by the President, the cabinet, and Verkhovna Rada (240 signatures of people’s deputies) of Ukraine. These invitations have now been complemented by one from the church.

Even diehard skeptics can believe today that two of the three Ukrainian churches are quite able to unite and that the united church will be recognized as canonical. Here are the domestic and foreign factors, on which the church situation fundamentally depends. First is the redoubled efforts of practically all branches and elements of government in Ukraine aimed at normalizing the situation in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Suffice it to recall the very active traffic on the road between Kyiv and Constantinople. The second, highly important, factor is that Patriarch Bartholomew I’s attitude toward Ukraine has resently undergone a radical change for the better under the influence of certain international circumstances. One of these circumstances is the stabilization of relations between the government of Turkey and the Constantinople See, the other is the worsening of relations between Patriarch Bartholomew and the Moscow Patriarchate, which rabidly opposes the creation of an independent Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Things have gone so far that this year the Moscow Patriarchate boycotted the traditional (Gregorian calendar) Christmas meeting of the representatives of all world Orthodox churches held December 26 in the Turkish city Iznik. Among other things, that meeting passed a joint statement proposed by Patriarch Bartholomew I on Christian unity. The fact that the meeting, despite Moscow’s absence, was attended by all the other Orthodox churches and that all of them signed the Patriarch’s ecumenical statement makes us feel optimistic about the future recognition of the Ukrainian National Church by the world Orthodox community.

As we see, the odds seem to favor unification and canonical recognition. Unfortunately, however, the churches are in no hurry to seize a favorable opportunity that might not reemerge. As long ago as September, the UAOC Council declared its readiness to reunite and for this reason even decided not to elect a new primate in lieu of the deceased Patriarch Dymytry. Numerous delegations of high-placed bishops have been visiting the Constantinople Patriarchate, signing agreements on cooperation, concerted efforts, and joint councils. Yet, all this remains on paper and in words. Christmas and the Great Jubilee have passed, but the Orthodox churches, which are supposed to unite in the nearest future, have not performed even one joint liturgy, although there are no canons or apostolic rules that ban full-scale communication between the two Orthodox churches. What really divides them is the so-called “human factor,” to be specific who will be who after the reunification: who will take a certain diocese, office, or parish? These considerations overpower their elevated and hotly touted religious and national patriotism.

Also surprising is the fact that no preparatory work has begun for reunification, although uniting the churches is not so simple. For, in one way or another, the churches will have to alter their geography and there will be a displacement of parishes, chairs, bishops, and priests. It is high time to form several mixed commissions to decide the destiny of each parish and each priest, let alone the high clergy. Of course, one can first unite and then get down to church restructuring. All this could lead to, however, is a new schism.