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.