A requiem is being sung for us
Many religious and political figures in Russia have joyfully welcomed the latest political developments in Ukraine, because they are also pinning great hopes on the so-called anti-crisis coalition to effect changes in the life of the Orthodox Church. Judging by the speedy work of the new Ukrainian parliament’s leadership, they will not show any particular delicacy (they are simply incapable of this) and will immediately mount an “attack” on the problematic Ukrainian churches. There are ample grounds to fear that the current atmosphere of tolerance, our citizens’ respect for faith and church, and the collective nature of resolving common problems, may evaporate in the nearest future.
Below are some quotations from Agafangel, Metropolitan of Odesa and Ismail (Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate); fragments of an interview with Kirill Frolov, chief of the Ukraine Department at the Institute of CIS Countries and spokesman for the League of Orthodox Citizens, which was posted on the Web site www.Pravaya.ru, as well as proposals from the Moscow- based philosopher Arkadiy Maler.
Metropolitan Agafangel:
“One must know and always remember that there was a baptism of Rus’, not of Ukraine.
“Kyiv is absolutely and totally unthinkable without or outside great Russia.
“Love for our homeland should not drown out and overwhelm our love for all of Russia and the Sole Orthodox Russian Church.
“Ukraine’s separation from fraternal Orthodox Russia means the final disappearance of Russia as a great power, as a protector of worldwide Orthodoxy. [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, the ideologue of globalization, delights in stating, ‘Without Ukraine, Russia will never be a great power.’ Those in Russia who are indifferent to what is going on in Ukraine should remember this.”
Kirill Frolov:
“Political Ukrainianism is the fruit of Uniatism.
“It is the Greek Catholic factor (neither a Russian nor a Pole, but an ‘independent Ukrainian’) that laid the groundwork for a Ukrainian identity and the Ukrainian idea.
“The collapse of the ‘Orange coalition’ has suddenly boosted the importance of the 320 th anniversary of the union between the Kyiv Diocese and the Moscow Patriarchate, i.e., the reunification of the Russian Church. This reunification, which took place in 1686, was absolutely canonical and never raised any objections until the Constantinople Patriarchate sank into the mire of ungodly modernism in 1924.
“Moreover, the 320 years of the united Russian Church is the age of Little Russian domination. As a result of the 1654 reunification [of Ukraine and Russia], from the early 18th century Kyiv— and Lviv-born people ruled the roost in Russia’s scholarly, literary and religious fields. The overwhelming majority of the Russian Orthodox bishops who pronounced an anathema on Hetman Mazepa in 1709 were Little Russians. Before [Empress] Elizabeth Petrovna issued an ukase on April 1754 on the ordination of Great Russians as bishops, only Little Russians occupied episcopal thrones in the Russian Church. When, in compliance with Peter I’s ‘Theological Regulation’ (1721), every archpriest began to set up a theological school at his residence, the teachers were exclusively Ukrainians, who followed the didactic system of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. (This is all true, but what is Mr. Frolov driving at? — Author)
“Unfortunately, the current actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate will lead to a catastrophe for Orthodoxy in Ukraine and elsewhere. In fact, these actions amount not only to intervention in the Russian Orthodox Church’s canonical territory but also the destruction of Orthodoxy. It is also demagogy when the Constantinople Patriarchate claims that it wants to help heal the rift in Ukraine.
“It is time to put the record straight: there is no schism in Ukraine’s Orthodoxy. The overwhelming majority of Orthodox believers in Southern Rus’ belongs to the canonical church of the Moscow Patriarchate and categorically opposes autocephaly and a change of jurisdiction. The most convincing illustration of this is the reception of the miraculous icon of Tsar Nicholas the Martyr in Tulchin Diocese, when tens of thousands of Orthodox Ukrainians knelt down to repent of regicide and apostasy and kept asking in anguish: who separated us from coreligionist and consanguineous Russia?
“The Russian state should be aware that by supporting the Moscow Patriarchate, it will support its own sovereignty and the very possibility of restoring Russia as a world power. Now that Montenegro has broken away, all the other Orthodox nations and their local churches should understand that without a great Orthodox Russia, Orthodoxy will be marginal on the global scale and the Eastern Christian nations will vanish from history. Orthodox Russia is a chance for them. The Russian Church and the Russian state should at last enter into a covert internal and external political alliance.
“To be attractive to other Eastern Christian nations, Russia should become a country of exemplary church-state relations: Orthodox television programs should be aired on national TV channels during prime time, diplomas of theological schools should be recognized by the state, etc.
“On the international arena, the Russian state should marshal all of its powerful political, economic, and analytical resources to help the church thwart plans to use the Constantinople Patriarchate as a ‘Trojan horse,’ i.e., apply all its formal and informal leverage to foil the Constantinople Patriarchate’s work in Ukraine.
“Either this will be done now or no high oil prices will ever save Russia. In no way can everything be measured in barrels!”
Arkadiy Maler:
“The very existence of an independent Ukrainian state poses a threat to the national interests of Russia because the entire Ukrainian identity is based on rejecting ‘Russianness.’ Russia should conduct a tough political dialogue with the Ukrainian leadership, which must end in the only possible way — demarcation of the Ukrainian state.”
