The issue of the consolidated local church has been actively discussed in the religious context for many years. There are many proposals and ideas how to achieve it; many of them remain to be heard. Our conversation with His Eminence Oleksandr (Drabynko) explores the multidimensional nature of the issue, as well as possible ways to achieve unity.
Your Eminence, recently in one of your interviews you presented your idea of prospective overcoming the split in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. I would like to ask you to outline in more detail your personal view of a model of the local church, especially under existing circumstances. What should mean the term “Foreign Church as part of the Moscow Patriarchate,” which you mention?
“Restoring the unity of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is the main historical challenge which Orthodox Christians of our country are now facing. The current situation of split is tragic and totally unacceptable for us both as Christians and citizens of Ukraine. I believe that in present historical circumstances the only way to restore unity is based on the new canonical status of the Ukrainian Church. The ancient Kyiv Metropolis has all relevant canonical rights to an independent, i.e. autocephalous existence.
“I studied in Moscow Theological Seminary and remember out teachers taught that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has the right to autocephalous life, and the only argument ‘against’ was the lack of unanimity among the bishops, clergy and believers of the Church in this issue.
“The Ukrainian Church should finally occupy its rightful place in the family of Local Orthodox Churches. The separation has lasted for more than a quarter of century. Over this time, many scenarios to overcome the split have been announced, which might present an alternative to the idea of the Ukrainian Church’s local status. Why none of them has ever been implemented over these long 25 years? The question is rhetorical, because it is absolutely clear: neither the modern Ukrainian society nor Ukrainian state nor the flock of the UOC-KP and UAOC will ever agree to any status of the Ukrainian Church that would provide for any jurisdictional dependence on the Moscow Patriarchate. The issue of autocephaly was raised in 1991, when the need for full canonical independence of our Church in the new historical situation was pronounced by the Council of Bishops of the UOC on November 1-3 in Kyiv. By the way, this Council was preceded by debate on the idea of autocephaly in dioceses. Furthermore, the idea of autocephaly gained support of the clergy and laity at the diocesan meetings in different regions of Ukraine. Neither this idea was rejected by the participants of Kharkiv Council.
“All the Council’s documents were published on its 20th anniversary. A photocopy of the Appeal of the Kharkiv Council of Bishops of the UOC to the President of Ukraine L.M. Kravchuk was also made public. Let me quote this historical appeal, which bears the signatures of then UOC episcopate: ‘Not only do we unanimously endorse and support the aspirations of the Ukrainian Orthodox flock to full independence, i.e. canonical autocephaly, but take all the steps to lawfully resolve this vital issue of our Church.’ This is also stated in the documents of the UOC in coming years.
“Today in Ukraine only a lazy person does not criticize His Holiness Patriarch Kirill. Some people do not like his ecumenical openness. Others dislike his position on the issue of Ukrainian autocephaly. But let’s try to understand the situation, in which His Holiness Patriarch Kirill now finds himself. The political elite and the people of Russia today dream of the empire, dream of restoration of the great Soviet statehood. Granting autocephalous status to the Ukrainian Church in such circumstances would be tantamount to challenging the Russian authorities and the sentiment of most church people in Russia. Just look at the reaction of fundamentalist religious circles at the meeting of Russian Patriarch with the Pope. Now imagine that tomorrow the Patriarch raises the issue of full canonical independence of the Ukrainian Church. The reaction can be quite disruptive and destructive to the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church. We have to forget the usual argument ‘Moscow interferes’ and realize that reunification will not occur without our involvement and without our pastoral labors. We, the canonical Orthodox Bishops of Ukraine, now realize our historical responsibility for the future and unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.
“There is one more important thing. The split in Ukraine has long ceased to be perceived by Universal Orthodoxy as an ‘internal issue’ of the Moscow Patriarchate. In the autumn of 2008, His Beatitude Metropolitan Volodymyr addressed the Heads of Local Orthodox Churches asking to help find the most appropriate way of healing the split in Ukraine through the conciliar efforts of Universal Orthodoxy. Metropolitan Volodymyr wrote in his appeal: ‘The Ukrainian Orthodox Church needs a shared perspective of all local Orthodox Churches on the manner of healing church divisions in Ukraine. We hope that, being enlightened by the Holy Spirit, the conciliar mind of the universal Church will indicate the way to recover church unity.’ Eight years have passed. But over time this appeal has only become more relevant.
“Russia and Ukraine today are de facto in a state of hybrid war. Annexed Crimea, continuing armed conflict in Donbas, where Russian military are deployed. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the split will not be coped with through the efforts of hierarchs of a single local church. It is also clear that delaying the church reunification until ‘better’ historical times is impossible, because it contradicts the interests of Ukrainian people. Let us remember the words of the Spiritual Testament of Metropolitan Volodymyr: ‘in modern historical conditions, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not entitled to idly contemplate the existing division.’
“On the one hand, there are millions of supporters of autocephaly in Ukraine. On the other hand, many want to remain in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The positions of both sides are proven and well-formed. So, one cannot rely on the fact that some of the parties in the foreseeable future shall renounce their principles. What can be done in this situation? Shall we continue tolerating the fact of church split for another quarter of a century? However, Metropolitan Volodymyr outlined his pastoral position very clearly in his will: ‘The situation where one third of Orthodox Christians in our country remain in split with the Ecumenical Orthodoxy is absolutely abnormal and needs to be addressed urgently.’ In search of a way to solve this complicated historical situation we should remember the fundamental values of Christianity – freedom, love, and forgiveness. Hierarchs and communities that want to remain part of the Moscow Patriarchate shall have such opportunity and retain their current jurisdictional affiliation.
“The bodies of the Russian Orthodox Church exist in many European countries and in the United States, Canada, Latin America... Why should not they exist in Ukraine, where the leadership declares its commitment to European values? On the other hand, many people in Ukraine are striving to full canonical independence of the Ukrainian Church, i.e. its autocephalous status. We may not limit the rights of bishops and church communities. Autocephaly is not a synonym for ‘split.’ Autocephaly is a mode of church life. There are 14 generally recognized Autocephalous Churches. They are in the unity of faith and prayer. Why is the Ukrainian Church devoid of the right to be an equal sister church in this family of Local Orthodox Churches? ‘The main thing is maintaining the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church,’ some people say. ‘The main thing is ecclesial ‘deoccupation’ of Ukraine,” others believe. But both positions are much politicized. The main thing is the restoring unity in Christ and the Eucharist. The main thing is that the adherents of full canonical independence and those willing to preserve their ties with the Russian Orthodox Church shall remain full part of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy and remain in communion with each other.
“The need for a new canonical status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not my invention. As I said before, the need and requirement of full canonical independence was discussed in many documents of the UOC in previous years.”
How, in your opinion, one can practically implement these initiatives of creation of a common space of Ukrainian Orthodoxy?
“It all depends on the real intentions. Those attempting ‘to talk round the issue,’ have been coming up over the years with new arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo, which is separation. And those guided by the pastoral and evangelical logic are looking not for excuses but for opportunities. The idea of dialog has absolutely no alternative. According to His Beatitude Metropolitan Volodymyr, ‘Historical experience shows clearly that all disputes that arise in the Church should be solved through dialog. This also applies to the problem of religious divisions. We have to sit at the negotiating table and with God’s help to seek ways of reconciliation.’ For our dialog to be launched and for it to be effective, each side of this dialog should be prone to change their own position. This is especially true for our Church. We must finally realize – reunification is only possible based on the local church status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. I understand the diplomatic stance of many bishops of our Church. Many of us studied in Moscow theological schools, we all have many friends in Russia. But it is important to realize the full canonical independence is today the only way to overcome the church division. We do not have to choose: either wide autonomy within the Moscow Patriarchate or autocephaly. The moral, pastoral aspect of our choice is something else. We must choose between maintaining the status quo, i.e. maintaining the division, and the restoration of church unity, i.e. autocephaly.”
In the church circles there are many discussions regarding the Pan-Orthodox Council, in particular, the clergy hopes that throughout this time the Ukrainian issue will be reviewed, and this event will be like the Second Vatican Council, a kind of “ventilation” for Orthodoxy. Others, however, do not really expect anything from the Council. What do you think about it?
“The Pan-Orthodox Council will not become analogous to the Second Vatican Council for Orthodoxy. Neither will it consider the issue of Ukrainian Church. The historical task of the council is different. It has to bring the Orthodox world to a new level. The councils of such level have not convened for many years. This Council is the first for many centuries. Therefore the main task of the Council is to open a new ‘conciliar era’ in the life of modern Orthodoxy, i.e. to show the unity of Orthodoxy on the one hand, and ensure further convening of these councils, on the other hand.
“Modern Orthodox world is a rather ‘colorful’ phenomenon. It has its own ‘reformers’ and ‘conservatives,’ supporters of improving their canonical status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (i.e. its changing to autocephaly) and those who strives for any cost to maintain the existing status quo. That is why any ‘revolutionary’ decisions will not be accepted by the Council. A decision will be made on how to grant autonomy. As for the creation of new autocephalous churches, the document that outlines the process of proclaiming a new autocephalous church will not be submitted to the Council for review, as the churches of Constantinople and Moscow have not yet agreed on this issue.”
