Church at a crossroads

The current schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy not only reflects the split in Ukrainian society. It is also fueling it by placing a powerful instrument of spiritual influence on our citizens in hands that are not very clean or quite Ukrainian. Regrettably, in this complicated and rather uncertain period, Ukrainian Orthodoxy and its flock and hierarchs are still unable to rise above their internal problems, interests, prejudices, and relations and make mutual concessions above all in order to show the politicians of this country a worthy example: the rejection of all “departmental” interests for the sake of serving the Orthodox people, rather than “parties” of this or that church. Abandoning personal ecclesiastical-political ambitions for the sake of a higher goal, for the sake of the future independent single Ukrainian Orthodoxy, would demonstrate the highest level of public service.

Today The Day offers its readers an opportunity to learn more about the current situation of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine (UAOC), which in the past few years has faced the dilemma of whether to unite with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC KP), as viewed by His Eminence, Archbishop Makariy of Lviv, who administers the UAOC eparchies of Rivne-Volyn and Tauria. The UAOC tried to unite with the Kyiv patriarchate in 1992, but this alliance lasted for only two years. Who can say what the religious situation in Ukraine would be like today, had there been no schism in 1994? Do people know who organized it?

Would Your Eminence kindly bring us up to date on the UAOC’s current position? A number of rumors are circulating in Ukraine to the effect that the UAOC is uniting with the UOC KP.

Makariy: Despite all the rumors, the UAOC will remain independent and one in all its aspirations. The only exception is Archbishop Ihor (Isichenko) who was recently demoted to on-call status; since the days of Patriarch Dimitry, the church has been in no hurry to relieve its bishops of their posts, the way it’s done in the Moscow patriarchate.

At present, the Autocephalous Church and the government of Ukraine are making every effort to consolidate a single independent Local Church in Ukraine — but not the way that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP) is insisting: “Come to us and repent!” We have nothing to repent, especially to the Moscow church. We have been struggling on our church’s behalf for more than a decade. And if anyone can help us, it is Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, not the Moscow patriarchate.

The UAOC recently held several church councils during which the church discussed its plans. Is this true?

Makariy: Yes. The UAOC Council held on Aug. 11 was especially important, in that it considered ways out of the Orthodox crisis in Ukraine. Significantly, among those present were Patriarch Filaret of the UOC KP and Dr. Oleksandr Sahan, representing the Ukrainian government.

Were any concrete agreements reached?

Makariy: Unfortunately, the overall impression is that nothing will come of this. By this I mean the possibility of uniting the UAOC and the Kyiv patriarchate. The main reason is that Patriarch Filaret is dictating his conditions to us; while we discuss church unification, mutual concessions, and compromises, Patriarch Filaret is getting ready simply to “annex” us. But we will not accept this; the UAOC has its own history, martyrs, and special place in the history of Ukraine.

However, we decided to hold eparchial councils and meetings of archpriests throughout the entire church; if 75 percent of our clergy support Patriarch Filaret’s conditions, we’ll convene a unifying church council and elect a joint patriarch.

What’s the problem with electing a single patriarch? What procedures for naming candidates for the patriarchal chair and conducting elections have been ratified?

Makariy: No agreement on these questions has been reached; this is one of the key unresolved problems in our relations with the Kyiv patriarchate. Our see is proposing two rounds of elections. The first round will have five candidates. The two candidates that obtain the majority of votes will take part in the second round. Among the patriarchal candidates should be bishops of the UAOC (like Andriy Horak) and the Kyiv patriarchate. We also propose to add to the list a bishop who is recognized in the modern canonical world, for example, Archbishop Vsevolod of Skopelos of the Constantinople patriarchate. (There are seven Ukrainian bishops in this eparchy). There were also proposals concerning the name of the future unified church, like the UAOC KP, which would combine the names of both churches.

Patriarch Filaret, however, rejected all these intentions. And so, on Aug. 25, another church council was held, presided over by Metropolitan Mefodiy and attended by Oleksandr Sahan. This council set up a unification commission chaired by Bishop Roman of Vinnytsia, but in fact the positions taken by the negotiating sides did not change. In any case, we are in favor of elections held on equal terms.

Moreover, some church figures believe that the head of the Kyiv patriarchate should not take part in the elections at all, that “Patriarch Filaret should step down for the sake of unity of both churches,” as there is a big problem with the anathema with which the Moscow patriarchate excommunicated Patriarch Filaret from the church. The Kyiv patriarchate is certain that, after uniting both churches, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I will pronounce the anathema null and void; it was proclaimed for political rather than church reasons (because Filaret decided to part ways with the Moscow patriarchate). But so far these are only our expectations. Meanwhile, if a canonical bishop is elected patriarch of this united church (not necessarily a Ukrainian one), this may step up the process of canonical recognition of such a united church in the Orthodox world. Then the Moscow patriarchate will no longer reign supreme in our land. (Incidentally, Patriarch Bartholomew said at one time that after the reunification of the two churches the Ukrainian church would have to be ruled by an acting head, rather than a patriarch, until all canonical matters are settled. A patriarchate would only be introduced after the entire Ukrainian Orthodox community is finally united).

In general, Patriarch Filaret and Metropolitan Mefodiy should listen to what their priests have to say and renounce their ambitions. If everything is done contrary to the clergy’s wishes, then there may be a repeat of 1994. Priests of the UAOC will not want to be subordinated to a patriarch imposed on them by the hierarchy. We will be a laughing stock and there will be another schism. That is why a very important part of the unification procedure is to come to terms with the priests during eparchial councils and meetings of archpriests.

It was recently announced that the UAOC hierarch Metropolitan Mefodiy (Kudriakov) is planning this month to visit the so-called Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church of North and South America, and the Diaspora, where he will meet with local bishops. What is the aim of this visit, now that the process of unification with the Kyiv patriarchate has begun?

Makariy: I believe that this visit is hopeless and even superfluous. Very likely, the canonical bishops of the American UAOC will simply not want to meet with Metropolitan Mefodiy, as a bishop who is not recognized by ecumenical Orthodoxy. In this likely case, his contacts will be limited to meetings with bishops who are not recognized by the Church of Constantinople, and this will not add to Metropolitan Mefodiy’s image and reputation in ecumenical Orthodoxy.

How does Your Eminence assess the role of the ecumenical patriarch in solving Orthodox problems in Ukraine?

Makariy: I am convinced that this role can and should be very important. I am also sure that the ecumenical patriarch has both a desire and the right to intervene in our affairs. That is why not only our eparchy but our entire church mentions his name in prayers and the diptych, and recites his festive messages in the churches. I would like to point out especially that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I has not rejected this religious practice of ours, which doesn’t fully correspond to church rules; in our prayers we should only remember the head of our church, i.e., Metropolitan Mefodiy (who has very little to do with the affairs of our church).

What is the attitude of the episcopate of the ecumenical patriarchate toward the UAOC bishops? Are the latter completely isolated and regarded as noncanonical?

Makariy: No. The bishops of the UAOC in the US, who are subordinated to the patriarch of Constantinople, have often visited the UAOC in Kyiv. They have celebrated divine services in our churches, although they only served together with Ukrainian priests, not bishops. The main thing is that Patriarch Bartholomew did not ban these joint services.

There is a lot of talk in Ukraine about opening a court (spiritual mission) of the ecumenical patriarchate. What is the church’s attitude to this? Are there any problems, and what horizons are opening up?

Makariy: Allow me to remind you that in 1588 the ancient church of the Holy Dormition in Lviv, where we are now, was granted stauropegion (exempt status), i.e., it began to be directly subordinated to the patriarch of Constantinople. Why not restore this tradition today? Let Lviv’s Dormition Church become a stauropegion of the ecumenical patriarchate. Come to think of it, when the ecumenical patriarch visits Ukraine, there simply won’t be a place to welcome him properly. The Moscow church can protest all it wants and we shouldn’t be intimidated by the ecumenical patriarch’s possible intervention in our internal affairs. History offers graphic proof that the Greek (Constantinople) clergy has traditionally — since the Christianization of Kyivan Rus’ — seldom intervened in Ukraine’s church affairs, all the more reason why we should meet it halfway today.

Thus, I am in favor of a stauropegion in Lviv and a patriarchal court in Kyiv, as the ecumenical patriarch will decide. I think that the Kyiv patriarchate could allocate Vydubychi Monastery for Patriarch Bartholomew’s court, although Patriarch Filaret is proposing the church on the campus of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. I am even prepared to go so far as to agree that Constantinople’s representative serve only with UAOC priests (not bishops), until such time as our Orthodox matters are finally resolved. I am also certain that many people will gather to attend the divine services in the Dormition Church and Vydubychi Monastery, and that this will be Ukrainian Orthodoxy’s significant step forward on the road toward its admission to ecumenical Orthodoxy.

Is Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I really interested in autocephaly for Ukrainian Orthodoxy?

Makariy: He is interested in this as much as Ukrainians are, if not more. I believe that the reasons are generally known. Perhaps few people know that Patriarch Bartholomew forwarded two letters to President Kuchma and that he received no answers. Metropolitan Meliton of the ecumenical patriarchate wrote to Viktor Bondarenko, the head of the former State Committee for Religious Affairs. There was also no reply. Everything should change now: we must meet each other halfway, but not just our church but the secular authorities as well. The authorities must appeal to the ecumenical patriarch, the way the Estonian parliament did in the early 1990s, when it asked for canonical independence from the Moscow patriarchate for the Eastern Orthodox believers of Estonia. Nor should we delay forwarding an official invitation to the ecumenical patriarch to visit Ukraine, making arrangements for ecumenical representation in Kyiv, or granting Lviv stauropegion status. These are important steps to be taken, but they are not as difficult as they seem.

Will the ecumenical patriarch agree to this plan?

Makariy: He will because he does not forbid us to mention his name in our diptychs during Masses or to read his messages on religious holidays in our churches, and so on. It is only on this road — only through the assistance of the patriarchate of Constantinople — that the Ukrainian Orthodox community can receive its overdue status.

* * *

On Sept. 16, 2005, Bishop Nikolai Balashov, secretary for external relations of the Moscow patriarchate, announced that the patriarch of Constantinople does not denounce the efforts of the UOC KP and the UAOC, regarded as dissenters by the Russian Orthodox Church. He believes that, under the circumstances, it would be very important for the Church of Constantinople to make its position clear — e.g., support for “canonical Orthodoxy” in Ukraine (i.e., support of the UOC MP) and condemnation of the activity of dissenters (the Orthodox of the UOC KP and the UAOC) who are introducing discord in the life of the church and society. “Unfortunately, this position is lacking,” said Balashov. The secretary for external relations also noted the “strange statements” made by Archbishop Vsevolod of Skopelos several months ago, when he declared that Constantinople contests the association of Ukrainian Orthodoxy with the Moscow patriarchate. The most surprising thing is that Archbishop Vsevolod’s statements were never corrected by the patriarchate of Constantinople — nor were they confirmed. No answer was given to an official question forwarded by the Moscow patriarchate to Phanar, the official residence of the ecumenical patriarch in Istanbul.

Ukrainians may regard the clear-cut and consistent stand taken by the ecumenical patriarchate (interpreted by the Moscow patriarchate as a provocation) as a “sign,” a boost to action — to unification. Will the hierarchs of the UOC KP and the UAOC succeed in raising themselves above today’s private interests and take advantage of such favorable signs?