After the Holiday
Much attention was placed on religious affairs as Ukraine was celebrating the 14th anniversary of its independence. For starters, members of parliament and cabinet ministers met with top clergymen representing twenty of the largest church communities of Ukraine at Kyiv’s St. Sophia Cathedral. Among those invited to the festivities on the invitation of the president of Ukraine were Patriarch Filaret (Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyiv Patriarchate), Bishop Mitrofan (Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate), Cardinal Lubomyr Huzar (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church), Metropolitan Mefodiy (Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church), Markian Trofimiak (Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops of Ukraine), Hryhoriy Komendant (All-Ukrainian Union of Christian Baptists), Bishop Viacheslav Horpynchuk (Ukrainian Lutheran Church); Sheikh Ahmed Tamim, Mufti of the Theological Directorate of Ukrainian Muslims; Emirali Ablayev, Mufti of the Theological Directorate of Crimean Muslims; Yakiv Dov Bleich, Chief Rabbi of Kyiv and Ukraine; Anatoliy Hlukhivsky, president of the Ukrainian Biblical Society, and others.
The clerics who spoke near St. Sophia’s vault, including Patriarch Filaret, who was the first to speak, wished the people of Ukraine peace and prosperity. A similar prayer offered by the leaders of this country’s Christian churches, was made at the same church in January after Viktor Yushchenko won the presidential elections. The event was crowned by a splendid performance of Mykola Lysenko’s sacred hymn “Prayer for Ukraine.”
The president also touched upon church affairs in his speech on Independence Square, where he declared, “The revived Single Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church should carry out the noble mission of bringing the nation back to its spiritual sources.” These words inspire hope that the government and parliament of Ukraine, in spite of countless urgent matters requiring urgent attention, are not forgetting about our divided Orthodoxy, its impact on public affairs, and the necessity to form — with the assistance of Ecumenical Orthodoxy — an autocephalous Ukrainian church — at least in view of the coming elections, if not for the sake of the nation’s spirituality and unity. Incidentally, the president’s words about the plans to restore the Single Local Orthodox Church of Ukraine drew by far the heartiest applause. Without a doubt, the Ukrainian government that manages to resolve the ongoing Orthodox conflict will go down in the history of our state. But will this be possible?
On the eve of Independence Day the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church leadership moved from Lviv to Kyiv — in full compliance with Rule 57 of this church’s Canon Law. Although the transfer of its administrative center to Kyiv is an internal matter of this church, some Ukrainian and Russian lay and clerical politicians went into hysterics, as though it were an apocalyptic catastrophe. Much to our regret, some passages in Metropolitan Volodymyr’s (Sabodan’s) Address, which he made public in connection with this event, sound like an incitement of his Ukrainian flock to riot. Metropolitan Volodymyr was also “conspicuous by his absence” from the festivities at St. Sophia. Was this a show of protest and disagreement with the president of Ukraine, who commented on the relocation of the Greek Catholic Church: “This is an internal matter of the Greek Catholic Church. Nobody has the right to point a warning finger at anybody as far as their choice of faith is concerned or to prevent a church from deciding where its center should be located. If we follow the Bible and consider ourselves faithful, let us love our neighbor, his feelings, and his faith. This is the only way to build good neighborly relations with fraternal churches.”
In conclusion, let me quote one of the many letters recently sent to The Day by conscientious Ukrainian citizens who belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP).
“To Metropolitan Volodymyr, with copies to the mass media.
Your Beatitude and Reverence,
Your latest interviews show that the latest information on the life of UOC MP Dioceses does not always reflect the true state of affairs as it goes from bottom to top. This is especially evident when reports to Kyiv or Moscow present the viewpoint of a certain hierarch and his immediate entourage as representative of all the clerics and laymen of a diocese. Suffice it to recall the last presidential elections, when our lay people faced — not for the first time — inexorable pressure from their bishops and priests. Although we held out, we were subjected to humiliation on a scale unthinkable even in the years of communist repression. We all knew full well that those strategies of ‘interference’ were orchestrated in Kyiv.
“Also noteworthy is the fact that when the UOC MP leader says that ‘a local Ukrainian church already exists,’ Ippolit, the Bishop of Tulchyn and Bratslav, and his entourage are constantly and actively opposing the autocephalous and local status of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, even though they are in the minority, because hundreds of thousands of ordinary lay people are in favor of this status.
“I would also like to know on what ‘referendums’ Archpriest Balashov (Moscow Patriarchate) is basing his claims that the majority of clerics and lay people of the UOC (MP) are satisfied with the current religious setup. Meanwhile, a great number of Ukrainian lay people know only too well that Ukraine’s Orthodox body is torn into three parts and that the Orthodox brethren and sisters are divided. Who will answer to God for the split and the plight of His children?
“I will say again in conclusion that only an independent Ukrainian church based on the UOC (minus ‘MP’) and the implementation of the well-known Address by Sofroniy, Archbishop of Cherkasy and Kaniv, as well as the fraternal support of the entire Orthodox world, will ensure the unity of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.” Signed by “a Kherson layman.”
