Are Ukrainian believers entitled to autocephaly?
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is the numerically largest local church within world Orthodoxy. Even the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia (minus her foreign eparchies on all continents) comes second. We all know that Ukraine, with its population and territory, can hardly be categorized as a small state. Its Christian history spans more than 1,000 years. Some local churches (including the Russian Orthodox Church) were established hundreds of years later.
It should also be mentioned that the Kyiv diocese became part of the Moscow church not that long ago, in 1686. It is also hard to refute the fact that “Little Russians” (i.e., Ukrainians) introduced writings, intellect, a love of books, and a thirst for knowledge to the Muscovite clergy. This fact is recognized by Russian historians. Without Ukraine’s influence the Russian church and Russian culture in general would have taken a different, unpredictable, course.
Today, Ukraine is a universally acknowledged large, independent country. In accordance with ancient Eastern Orthodox canons, our country has every reason to establish its own autocephalous church, instead of being a member of a neighboring country’s church even on wonderful terms and conditions.
Why are Ukrainians, the bearers of the ancient Orthodox tradition, adamantly denied the right to exercise their will? Who has the right to block our path to autocephaly? Are we not a free nation that has the right of free choice in all matters, including the status of our church?
The resistance of the so-called mother church in Moscow is absolutely understandable: the Moscow Patriarchate is assisting the Kremlin, using all legitimate (and unlawful) means in order to establish another Russian empire in which the Russian Orthodox Church will finally acquire the status of the “Third Rome.”
The question is: why are the other churches in the ecumenical Eastern Orthodox community so concerned with suppressing Ukrainian autocephaly? Why is this true even of churches that have had to travel a long and thorny road leading to independence, the way we are traveling?
We know that the representatives of some autocephalous Orthodox churches visited Kyiv recently to attend the festivities honoring the 40 years of service of Volodymyr, the metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Pressed by the Moscow Patriarchate (or acting on its “initiative”), they sent a political message to President Viktor Yushchenko and other government authorities, requesting protection for the UOC (MP) from the encroachments of the Kyiv Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In other words, they want to “protect” a church that boasts countless parishes and has powerful protectors on all levels of the Ukrainian government. This message contains interesting passages, including this one: “After shedding the totalitarian, atheistic yoke of the Soviet past, Ukraine has regrettably failed to rid itself of its negative consequences, particularly in terms of gross intrusions in church life on the part of the secular authorities.” It is difficult to understand this reference to “secular authorities”: Ukrainian or Russian ones? After all, the interference of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine’s church matters greatly exceeds the feeble attempts of the Ukrainian government somehow to resolve the Orthodox interconfessional conflict. (Can you imagine a Ukrainian secular or religious figure trying to meddle in the affairs of the Russian church?)
The authors of the message are unhappy about the “split in Ukrainian society.” Perhaps foreign bishops do not know that this division is largely the fault of politicians, especially Russian ones. Remember how many politicians, important and minor ones, have flocked to Ukraine to be present during every election campaign as well as (without cause) to agitate, incite people, explain, and divide-and this, despite the fact that volunteers from Ukraine never visit Russia to agitate for the proclamation of autocephaly for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
It is a fact that this “division is harming Ukraine and its international image.” That is the gospel truth. This religious division is a huge thorn in our side. Why should we discuss the possibility of Ukraine’s EU membership when we have a proverbial fifth column consisting of emissaries representing Russian Orthodox brotherhoods, church-oriented lecturers, and anti-Ukrainian bishops, who have taken a firm foothold in our country?
It is worth focusing on what the message neglected to say. There is no mention whatsoever of the prospects of the ROC MP becoming Ukraine’s true autocephalous church, with all attendant rights and repercussions. It looks as though the whole issue has been deleted from the Moscow Patriarchate’s agenda and its obedient satellites within the ecumenical Orthodox community.
As for the Kyiv Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church arbitrarily leaving the Moscow Patriarchate’s jurisdiction (“actively assisted by the secular authorities, which is an act of blatant infringement of divine canons”), I would suggest that some of the foreign bishops visiting Ukraine recall the history of establishing autocephaly for their own Orthodox churches. For instance, is it possible to assume that Metropolitan Sergiy of Nekres and Eret of the Georgian Orthodox Church has forgotten the history of his own church, one of the oldest Christian churches (4 AD)? Has he forgotten that in 1811 the Georgian church lost its independence after Georgia was annexed to Russia? Does he not recall that 100 years later, after the February revolution in Russia, the Georgian clergy and believers proclaimed their own autocephalous church? They did this contrary to the will of the Moscow Patriarchate, which then severed all contacts with the “rebellious” Georgian church.
Georgia would remain “uncanonical” by definition for 26 years and was granted autocephaly only during World War Two, on orders from Stalin. Today Georgian bishops are visiting Kyiv and condemning the Ukrainian church for its desire to become independent of the Moscow See (or at least signing the above- mentioned message).
The Georgian church was not the only one to experience a long uncanonical period. You don’t have to look far for another example: the Moscow church did not have autocephalous status between 1448 and 1589.
The message to the Ukrainian government ends with this appeal: “Do not abet the schismatics...We request that you adopt all possible measures to lawfully regulate the church issue in Ukraine.” This leads to another important question: adopt measures? What will happen then to the proclaimed separation of church and state? Something is wrong here, esteemed bishops!
