The Kyiv Pecherska Lavra Monastery of the Caves has marked its 950th anniversary. Among the attendant events observers point to what is described as a success of the Moscow Patriarchate’s diplomacy. Actually, it is described as quite an achievement. Church diplomats arranged for the festivities to be attended by clergymen representing almost all the Orthodox churches that have declared they recognize only the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOCMP), and that the Russian Orthodox Church is the only one competent to handle matters relating to the Ukrainian Orthodoxy. This might have been a joyous attainment to some, but it was a bitter disappointment to others.
Personally, I would be in no hurry to talk about success and attainment. There are indications that make one wonder. First, despite the monastery’s great significance for the Christian world and its age, the festivities were not attended by the highest ranking clergymen, merely their representatives. Indeed, the head of the Orthodox Church of Greece arrived, bringing the holy relics of Saint Andrew. It was a great honor, for the relics seldom leave their Hellenic sanctuary. Yet the Greek hierarch returned home prior to the festivities, leaving the relics in the monastery’s custody. No special reasons for the departure were given. His behavior was described as strange. And the other heads of churches did not arrive supposedly because Moscow Patriarch Aleksiy was not expected.
Then the only logical question is, Why did Aleksiy fail to attend the occasion? Was it to show that the Lavra was too small an occasion? That would be a gross violation of church diplomatic protocol. Or could he have been, unlike Yury Luzhkov et al., barred entry at the Ukrainian border? Definitely not. Some newspapers fleetingly mentioned his dissatisfaction with the quarters allocated him in Kyiv. Could it be that the Lavra organizing committee had nothing to offer the head of the Russian Orthodox Church to meet his requirements as a humble servant of God? After all, there had been ample time for arrangements, and that the latter were all to be made by his subordinates.
All this sounds less than convincing. Aleksiy had other reasons. If he came, he could have been exposed to unwelcome comparisons. First, he was sure to confront demonstrators carrying posters and shouting something like Moscow Hangman, out of Ukraine! He would not have been surprised: he has seen it all before. But such protesters might turn out in numbers greater than the weakly cheering babushkas whom his people would have lined up for his arrival (which was also problematic). Of one thing he would be certain; the number of those greeting him would be far less than cheered the Pope. And the memories remain fresh.
Another possibility is that statements made by people of the highest rank are often later amended or additional explanations provided. As for statements made by representatives, they are considerably less reliable. Afterward, they can even be denied. Also, the heads of churches might have been reluctant to appear in the limelight with such unequivocal declarations concerning Ukraine. The fact remains that Ukraine will eventually have its own church. No one knows quite when exactly, but it might happen soon, the more so that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is reported to be working on it. Why risk an embarrassing situation? Possibly church diplomats, seeing the patriarchs’ reluctance, talked them into showing “comprehensive support” for the Russian Orthodox Church [in Ukraine], even if at a lower level. And so they did, but by not attending in person they put a certain distance between themselves and the unequivocal statements. Under the circumstances, Aleksiy’s visit made little sense; his attending in the absence of other hierarchs would have been a sure sign of his waning authority and influence.
From such an assumption it follows that the church hierarchs did not attend not because Aleksiy did not, but vice versa. If so, the victory of Moscow’s patriarchal diplomacy is best described as Pyrrhic.
As for Orthodoxy in general, its unity and interrelations, the matter is highly questionable. We can say with perfect certainty that there is a single Catholic Church. Can we say that there is a single Orthodox Church? Perhaps we should face it and say Orthodox churches? Indeed, the Catholic world is not homogenous, but its essential unity is clear. There are structures to work out decisions binding on all, there are time-tested methods of their implementation, providing for all diversities and preventing dissent as best as absolutely possible. And there is the universally recognized and respected Vicar of Christ. Most importantly, there is the Catholic awareness of belonging to one Church.
Do we in the Orthodox world have anything like that? Unlike the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch has a “primacy of honor.” Over the past several centuries, Moscow, striving to turn into a Third Rome, has reduced his status to very much like that of the British queen. Does he like the situation? The answer is obvious. Do all the other Orthodox churches like Moscow’s claims to be the Third Rome? Hardly. Even if they agree there must be one center, the latter has to inspire respect and support. Moscow has always had problems with precisely that. Previously, recognition was obtained by force. Now this is also a problem. Russia’s weakened state machine means waning strength for Aleksiy. He could not protect his “own canonical territory” from Catholic “proselytism,” for the Pope did visit despite how much Aleksiy campaigned against it.
Aleksiy’s fiasco made other Orthodox hierarchs ponder, and not only this. Quite likely, what is happening in church politics reflects what is going on in secular politics where Russia is not shown much respect in words, while being quietly pushed to the side in deeds. Perhaps, other hierarchs declined to come because of their awareness of Aleksiy’s being weakened, and he, aware of their attitude, had to think of a pretext not to come either.
Another point is that when the Orthodox Church appeared in Yakutia it was obvious to everyone that it would take orders from Moscow, for the religion came from Moscow. Who would object? A daughter often manages to boss her mother, but she cannot be her mother. It was a very careless gesture by the Moscow Church to refer to itself as the Mother Church with regard to the one in Ukraine. They should have been more prudent; as it was, they made themselves look ridiculous.
Also, there was the Greek bearing gifts in the form of the relics of Saint Andrew, the very apostle who had visited here and prophesied that Kyiv would turn into a great city with many churches and that His Grace would be bestowed here. That happened when frogs croaked contentedly in the swamps where Moscow now is. It was from Kyiv that Christianity spread to the area where Moscow would appear many years after. So much for the Mother-Church.
How tactless of the apostle! He ought to have traveled a bit farther northward and prophesied the Third Rome there, along with the exclusive right to be the mother of one’s own mother (I’m my own grandma? — Ed.). But no, he visited Kyiv and now the situation looks very embarrassing. So perhaps bringing the relics, a rare fact in itself, had this context? After all, our ancestors noted that the Greeks were a crafty lot.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. Therefore, we should not idolize canonicity, even less so when it comes from Moscow. We must unite what we have and what we can bring together. We must develop it. The main thing is for our people to firmly believe in God. If we have this faith, our church will be strong. Recognition will come as a matter of course, along with canonicity, plenty of it. Then everyone will say how much we have always been respected and acknowledged, and how perfectly canonical we all are.
