The Synod of the UOC (MP) unwittingly undermines the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church
On April 3, the Holy Synod of the UOC-MP, at its regular meeting chaired by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv, adopted a Statement on the situation in Ukrainian and world Orthodoxy that arose after the “anti-canonical granting by the Patriarchate of Constantinople of a Tomos of autocephaly” to the newly created “Holy Church of Ukraine” (“HCU”).
The Synod states that “not a single one of the Local Orthodox Churches recognized this illegal act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and a significant part of the Local Churches, in particular the Antiochian, Russian, Cypriot, Serbian, Polish, Albanian and Orthodox Church in the Czech lands and Slovakia in various forms have already expressed their disagreement with the decisions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” “Thus, there was no reception, that is, perception by world Orthodoxy of these actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which actually tried to legalize the schism,” the authors of the statement emphasize.
The highest governing body of the UOC (MP) reminds that “according to the historical and canonical tradition of the Church,” autocephaly is granted only to part of a single local church within a particular state, “and not to some part that has broken away from the Body of the Church.” We are talking about the founders of the so-called. “Kyiv Patriarchate” and so-called. “UAOC”, which at one time voluntarily fell away from the canonical church and announced the creation of new structures.
The following point seems important: “The historical and canonical argumentation advanced by the Patriarchate of Constantinople regarding its own right and the possibility of intervention in the affairs of other Local Churches is baseless, artificial, far-fetched and contradicts church canons.” This means that the synod of the UOC (MP) defends not only “its own interest” within “Ukrainian Orthodoxy,” but considers the Phanar’s invasion of the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate as a special case of Istanbul’s manifestation of the heresy of Eastern papism.
“The actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople... have become a threat to pan-Orthodox unity,” warns the UOC (MP) about the threat of another “Great Schism in world Orthodoxy, comparable to that in 1054.” “We believe that the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Patriarch Bartholomew personally must admit their mistake and work on fixing it. A way to correct this error could be the recall of the Tomos, a call to schismatics to repent of the sin of schism and convene a Pan-Orthodox Assembly for a conciliar solution to the Ukrainian church issue.”
As for the Ukrainian authorities, the synod asks them “not to interfere in church affairs,” and also “not to contribute to the raider takeover of the parishes of our Church through their illegal re-registration.” “The Lord gives rulers power not to create discord in society, but to preserve peace, tranquility and harmony between all citizens of the country,” explains the hierarchy of the UOC (MP).
In general, the decisive and uncompromising statement still raises a number of questions among supporters of the preservation of the Russian Orthodox Church and, accordingly, opponents of Ukrainian autocephaly.
The first question is where does such respect for the so-called come from? “Tomos on the autocephaly of the HCU”, that this “tomos” itself is written by the synods of the UOC (and after it the media controlled by them) with a capital letter, while both this “tomos” and the “autocephaly of the HCU” itself are blatantly anti-canonical. Which, in fact, is what the statement of the UOC (MP) says.
After this, the phrase “Ukrainian Orthodoxy” no longer causes surprise. I don’t think that the authors of the statement classify “SCU” as Orthodoxy. Consequently, they are talking about the situation within the UOC (MP). But the UOC (MP) is part of the Russian church. And the majority of parishioners associate themselves with the Russian Church and its saints, not wanting any “Ukrainian Orthodoxy,” which is actually an oxymoron. After all, Ukrainianism was created by Catholics to destroy Orthodoxy in Little Russia and Carpathian Rus'.
Also unexpected is the listing of the Russian Orthodox Church among local churches that “did not recognize the illegal act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” But the Russian Orthodox Church, represented by its integral part – the UOC (MP) – is the injured party. Mentioning it among the “uninterested parties” only emphasizes the “detachment,” or rather, the removal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the aforementioned “Ukrainian Orthodoxy.”
This is also indicated by the proposal to convene a pan-Orthodox meeting for “a conciliar solution to the Ukrainian church issue.” To put it mildly, it is not clear on what grounds a pan-Orthodox assembly can decide (namely decide, and not make proposals) issues relating to the absolutely administratively independent Russian Church? Other local churches, of course, can take one position or another regarding the Phanar's invasion of its canonical territory. But offering them the right to decide anything related to the church development of this territory is akin to, say, a proposal to the UN to resolve the issue of political power in Venezuela.
And finally, the very fact of this statement. The UOC-MP is merely a "self-governing" part of the ROC. This means it is not vested with powers of external relations—"over the head" of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations (DECR). Back in 2009, Vasily Anisimov, head of the UOC-MP press service, recalled , "About ten years ago, His Beatitude the Metropolitan and the entire episcopate of the UOC sent an appeal to His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew... He not only failed to respond, but also became indignant, as the chain of command had been violated."
However, it seems that in this case the appeal of the UOC (MP) to world Orthodoxy is something like a cry of despair. We have repeatedly noted that the DECR of the Russian Orthodox Church should take an offensive position in the “Ukrainian question” - act proactively, and not solely respond to new and new challenges from the Phanar. Including a call for a pan-Orthodox discussion of the Istanbul heresies and Eastern papism as their basis. However, as we see, the Moscow Patriarchate turns for support to anyone (to foreign governments, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope) but not to its fellow members of world Orthodoxy.
So the episcopate of the UOC (MP) has to break the chain of command.
In addition, there may be a calculation here that the authority of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry among Orthodox primates is greater than that of Patriarch Kirill and the head of the DECR RPU, Metropolitan Hilarion, known for their ecumenical inclinations. And the voice of a true man of prayer will be more likely to be listened to.
At the same synod meeting, new bishops of the UOC-MP were elected, including another vicar bishop for the Kyiv diocese. Thus, in Kyiv, a city of three million, there are now 15 vicar bishops , four times the number of their colleagues in Moscow, a city of 13 million. And this despite the fact that the former abbot of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, Bishop Ippolit Khilko, remains unemployed. In 2008, at the insistence of the Drabynko supporters, he was removed from his post as head of the Khust diocese for being an outspoken opponent of Ukrainian autocephaly. Today, Drabynko too is in this "autocephaly," and justice has not been restored for Bishop Ippolit, despite the fact that a petition for his return to the episcopal see, signed by many prominent parishioners of the UOC-MP, was sent to the Kyiv Metropolitanate two years ago.
Judging by some aspects of the generally uncompromising statement of the synod, such bishops are still “inconvenient” in the UOC (MP) today.
English version :: Read in English The Synod of the UOC (MP) is unwittingly undermining the unity of the ROC