In an interview with Associated Press that was published in late June Metropolitan Volodymyr of Kyiv and All Rus’-Ukraine commented on the stand taken by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP). Among other things, he stated that the UOC-MP is “free and independent in terms of its administration, in keeping with the patriarchal decree of October 27, 1990.” This author would like to remind the learned reader that this decree has long been forgotten in Kyiv and Moscow, most likely because it was considered a dangerous sin of the feverish “revolutionary times.” Meanwhile, the ecclesiastical life of the UOC-MP is completely subordinated to the rules and enactments of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Here is a recent example. On June 29 the UOC-MP faithful picketed the Verkhovna Rada in protest against — guess what? — Ukraine’s European integration plans, condemning them as “attempts to forcefully separate the UOC from the Moscow Patriarchate.” Picketers chanted “No to Autocephaly!”, “No to Autonomy!”, “No to the Uniate Church!”, “Alexis II Is Our Patriarch!” They also rallied against the Constantinople Patriarchate’s “interference in UOC affairs” in general and against any other “interference” in the life of Ukraine under the current president. They urged the clergy to remember the “social concept of the church,” whereby if the government “acts contrary to the freedom of conscience, the church can deny the state its confidence and call to its flock to engage in peaceful civil resistance.” It is important to note that the demonstrators were referring to the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. Indeed, the concept was drawn up and approved in Moscow, and the current threat of civil disobedience is aimed against the Ukrainian government (I suspect that the civil disobedience clause was designed in Moscow especially for the UOC MP).
Asked about the possibility of establishing a Local (Pomisna) Autocephalous Church in Ukraine, Metropolitan Volodymyr replied that “there is a real possibility for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to acquire a new canonical status and take its worthy place in the diptych of Orthodox churches. In 1993 the Holy Synod of our church addressed a message to the faithful (07.27.93) declaring that we, too, want the UOC to become a full-fledged member of the family of Orthodox churches, but that we are following the canonical road.”
After this statement was released a number of Ukrainian Orthodox adherents would like the Moscow-affiliated metropolitan to mention even one step that the UOC-MP has made along this “canonical road.” All talk and promises concerning church autonomy back in the early 1990s have long been forgotten. Celebrating divine services in Ukrainian is still regarded as heresy; Ukrainian newsstands are packed with Russian religious publications; in most churches here people are encouraged to pray for the recently canonized Russian tsar Nicholas II (such canonizations are effectively driving Ukrainian believers from their national church and history). Yet any mention of autocephaly, even by the president, is met by protest actions engineered by the UOC-MP. No autocephalous terms or conditions are discussed in church in Ukraine; the very notion is regarded as nonexistent.
Considering these realities, one may well wonder how fast and for how many more centuries will the Ukrainian Orthodox Church be following this “canonical” path in order to become a full-fledged member of the family of Orthodox churches. I would like to remind readers that the church at issue is arguably the world’s largest Orthodox church and that it is historically the mother-church of the Russian Orthodox Church.
In his interview Metropolitan Volodymyr spoke about Orthodox unity and that obtaining the status of a Local Church “depends not so much on us as on all those who today stand outside church unity with Universal Orthodoxy,” i.e., apart from the faithful of the Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. They have been told “magnanimously” on more than one occasion: “Join us, repent, and we will then consider your autocephaly.”
There is, however, a different path. Had the Ukrainian Orthodox Church made up its mind to withdraw from the Moscow Patriarchate and declared its independence — as was done by a number of Orthodox churches, including in Greece, Serbia, Poland, and Georgia, it would have been joined shortly by the so-called non-canonical churches. In that case even the Patriarch of Constantinople would have acted in a more decisive manner and issued an appropriate decree. There are more than enough historical precedents.
Finally, when asked about the notorious involvement of UOC clergy in the presidential campaign of 2004-2005, Metropolitan Volodymyr replied very diplomatically, in the best Byzantine tradition: “The holy fathers of the church made no official statements on behalf of the church in support of either candidate, and only official statements can have authority and meaning for the entire church. As for your examples of ‘interference’ that did take place, those did not reflect the church’s general stand but the attitude of certain hierarchs, clerics, and laymen as citizens of this country.” This is how the head of the Moscow-affiliated Ukrainian Orthodox Church defined his religious and civic stand; nothing was clarified, no one was cautioned, and, I might add, no one was censured. In a word, they acted as though they were in a foreign country. Metropolitan Volodymyr also refused to comment on the well known actions of certain UOC MP bishops and members of the synod, even though they are all under his direct religious jurisdiction.
Russian president Vladimir Putin recently signed an edict conferring the Order of Honor on Metropolitan Volodymyr (Slobodan) of Kyiv and All Rus’-Ukraine “in recognition of his outstanding achievements in the development of spiritual and cultural traditions and the furthering of Russian- Ukrainian relations.” Does this award mean an acknowledgment of service rendered in the past or is it a warning for the future? Remember: the next elections are not far off.
The absence of a Local Orthodox Church in Ukraine is an act of glaring injustice and a serious violation of the universal Orthodox canon — a church with a thousand-year history, which even now, when the difficult process of building a state is taking place, is treated as though the issue concerns several dozen parishes or some new and completely unknown religious formation. It is painful to watch the Ukrainian bishops of the UOC-MP being forced to keep their mouths shut, not daring to claim their legitimate rights or show any noble desire to facilitate the historical process of restoring the unity and independence of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Are all these Ukrainian bishops so intimidated or generously bribed? Are they so devoted to the idea of the Third Rome? (Fortunately, not all of them! We have just learned about a message issued by Archbishop Sofroniy of Cherkasy and Kaniv).
