Ukrainian Autocephaly is Eighty
An historic event took place in Ukrainian religious life in 1921 when an All-Ukraine Orthodox Church Council approved an autocephalous church structure, marking a departure from the Russian Orthodox Church. It was a choice made in favor of independent church life. The council adopted the hierarchy and canons that were clearly distinct from those practiced by Moscow in terms of democratic and national orientation. However, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church was short-lived. The Third All-Ukraine Council (1930) passed a resolution on the UAOC’s “self-dissolution,” whereupon most active secular and religious figures found themselves incarcerated. The fact remains that Moscow’s attitude toward Ukrainian autocephaly has not changed over the past eighty years.
On October 22 the Theological Academy of UOC, Kyiv Patriarchate, hosted a conference commemorating the eightieth anniversary of the first All-Ukrainian Orthodox Council and formation of the UAOC. It was attended by Patriarch Filaret of Kyiv and All Rus’, church dignitaries, academy teachers and students, government officials, and scholars. The papers made analyzed the lessons of history, but mostly focused on the current situation with Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Bishop Dmytro, rector of the Kyiv Theological Seminary, dwelled on the reasons why the proclamation of autocephaly in the Orthodox world is a such a complicated and long process. It is primarily because of the absence in the canons of clear conditions and procedures that can be applied in forming an independent church. This absence and the need to have such canons is acknowledged by all Orthodox churches, as evidenced, among other things, by the All-Orthodox Church Council at Rhodes in 1961. Despite this church’s legal status, we hear constant accusations of independent Ukrainian churches allegedly violating the canons: “There is an unpunished speculation with canons, relying exclusively on the ignorant masses of the faithful.”
Interesting ideas were expressed by Prof. Yury Kochubei (National Academy’s Institute for Oriental Studies) with almost forty years of diplomatic experience. He said that every normal country and every Orthodox state strives to form an independent church and keep it independent from all the other churches. He recommended that the Ukrainian Church establish permanent contacts with the other Orthodox churches and communion with them. From his own experience, he knows that the Ukrainian church is almost unknown elsewhere in the world, and that the only voice heard is that of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Among the conference participants was UAOC Archpriest Yury Boiko who read a message of greetings on behalf of the Autocephalous clergy. Regrettably, it was not a joint conference of two independent churches about to unite.
The conference also marked the sixth anniversary of the investiture of Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko). Needless to say, the past several years have been tempestuous and controversial, filled with constant confrontation, criticism on both sides, and risk-laden diplomacy. Filaret was even excommunicated by the Moscow Patriarchate (no clergyman can take excommunication in stride, for this is the church equivalent to capital punishment). One thing is certain. We owe Patriarch Filaret much for having church buildings in Ukraine where services are conducted and sermons delivered in Ukrainian, where prayers are offered up for the Ukrainian state, national holidays marked, and Ukrainian composers and icon-painters acknowledged. Thanks to Patriarch Filaret and his associates, we have theological institutions with instruction in Ukrainian, where Ukrainian books are published and Ukrainian is the working language of theological conferences. Many Ukrainians wonder about what is driving this or that politician, secular or religious. People are interested in the results, and so am I.
