The Profane and The Sacred

The recent visit by Russian President Putin to Ukraine had a religious aspect to it, aside from its many other aspects. Putin has again confirmed the historic unity of the Russian state and church that, unlike in Ukraine, has been preserved in Russia through the centuries and that Moscow’s official church policy is but a continuation of its lay policy. Conversely, it would be correct to say that at certain points in his recent visit Putin acted as if he were an envoy of the Moscow Patriarchate.

In his address at the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra Monastery of the Caves, Putin claimed to know about the problems of a schism in Ukraine’s Orthodox Church (“We are with you heart and soul”), yet he is not interfering and will not interfere with the church affairs (that is, with the church affairs of a different state). He was kind to say this, especially if you recall that Russian emperors have always considered it their holy duty to “protect” Orthodox believers abroad, which they did for the benefit of the empire.

Further, the guest of honor uttered the symbolic words that have quite clearly described the general direction of Moscow’s both church and secular policy toward Ukrainian Orthodoxy: “Ukraine’s Orthodox Church is independent [Putin has been misinformed, to put it mildly, because this applies to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate — Author]. Its sole connection with the Russian [church] is canonical and spiritual. This is something that has remained absolutely single, and we must preserve this unity for future generations.” This way Ukrainians have been given to understand that in the foreseeable future the current Moscow Metropolis on Ukrainian territory (Ukrainian Orthodox Church) will remain a part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Such is the stance of both the Russian church and Kremlin. Thus, let not the Ukrainian presidents ever again request the Moscow Holy See to grant the UOC autocephaly or autonomy.

Neither did Russia’s president forget to remind the champions of autocephaly for Ukrainian Orthodoxy about the infamous canonicity or, put simply, that the independent Kyiv Patriarchate is not canonical and therefore illegal. This is what the all too familiar clerical writings are all about, showing complete disregard (or is it ignorance?) of the fact that the Moscow Church had also lived through times when it was identically “not canonical.”

Every word in Putin’s speech is of consequence. Consider for example the image of the church as a “single [? — Author] bond” between Ukrainians and Russians. This is a quite familiar motif from the repertoire of numerous Russian and pro-Russian religious publications; it is also voiced by some high hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church. In fact, what they mean is a great “historic mission” of the Russian Orthodox Church to not only prevent further disintegration of the state but also restore the Great Russian Empire that has been criminally destroyed by stupid politicians at the close of the twentieth century; to restore the empire on the basis of Russian Orthodox unity.

Putin ended his religiously political address with the words: “We remember and understand full well that Rus’ was baptized here on the banks of the Dnipro. The cradle of Orthodoxy is here.” His words are a further reminder that the Kyiv Church is almost five centuries older than the Moscow Church and that the Kyiv Church is in fact the mother church of Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish, and Russian Orthodoxy. Then why should this church, contrary to its birthright, remain subordinated to the Moscow Patriarchate?

Putin thanked Metropolitan Volodymyr for his permission to visit the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra Monastery of the Caves and sent all the Ukrainian hierarchs (the “canonical” ones, of course) a warm brotherly greeting from Patriarch Alexis. Putin also decorated and praised those of the Ukrainian clergy who are the most outspoken in their defense of Moscow Orthodoxy and kindly praised his Ukrainian counterpart Kuchma for paying much attention to supporting the church. One needs not specify which church he meant.

Kuchma in turn reminded all that he is “a staunch supporter of the unity of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. It would be a godsend for us.” In his view, the schism has caused the emergence of many new religious trends and adversely affected the morals of the clergy: “Some [clerics] mess up in one church and then switch to a different church and deliver other sermons from the pulpit — just as it happens in our parliament.”

Reading between the lines of Kuchma’s speech at the Lavra in the presence of Putin and remembering his unchanging in recent years thesis about the unity of Orthodoxy, I suddenly grasped the high degree of ambiguity of these words. The ambiguous phrase “unity of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine” indicates either the unity of Ukrainian Orthodox believers within the independent Orthodox Church of Ukraine or unification of all Ukrainian Orthodox believers within the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate under the pallium of the Moscow Patriarch. This is a quite apt choice of words, which the conflicting parties can interpret and cite as they see fit, both gladly agreeing with the president. The storied oracles used similar ploys in olden times and were never wrong.

As a closing remark, I will quote a letter to The Day from our devoted reader and regular contributor Borys Filipchenko: “How should a patriotically-minded citizen of Ukraine and a parishioner of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate feel after watching a televised report on the reception of the Russian president at the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra Monastery of the Caves? I for one pictured a visit by Tsar Peter I attending a meeting of the Kyiv Holy See, where he kindly praised Ukrainian hierarchs for their loyal service to the Russian throne...”