• Home page
  • Yuriy Chornomorets on the inter-Orthodox dialogue in Ukraine...

Yuriy Chornomorets on the inter-Orthodox dialogue in Ukraine

23.01.2013, 14:16
Yuriy Chornomorets on the inter-Orthodox dialogue in Ukraine - фото 1
Since the mid-1990s exists a commission for an official dialogue between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC-MP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC).

ArticleImages_50949_chornomor.jpgSince the mid-1990s exists a commission for an official dialogue between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC-MP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC).  There has been progress in relations. But the fate of the dialogue depends more on the developments that take place inside the churches themselves. Accordingly, the dialogue is activated or weakened due to certain internal processes. For example, you can analyze the initial positions, which are the bases for each of the churches.

The UOC-MP’s initial position, which it promoted in the 1990s, was the following: “We are the national church in Ukraine. We are a church that is recognized by other Orthodox churches. The other two denominations are dissenters, and this division is their problem and they have to join us by repentance. We are self-sufficient.”

The main idea of ​​the Kyiv Patriarchate was and is: “We have declared autocephaly, we are actively developing our structure, we have many supporters, we are self-sufficient and we do not need either Moscow or Constantinople. If they do not want to recognize us then it is their problem. If the Moscow Church is in Ukraine then it is a big problem that we cannot solve by ourselves. Therefore, we appeal to the state as a judge and a lawyer to help solve this problem, considering the example of Constantine, who in order to overcome the Arian schism convened the Ecumenical Council and solved this problem.” This is the basic position, which was repeatedly voiced in the 1990s. And Patriarch Filaret from time to time comes back to it. I once called this position the “ideology of self-isolation,” and I think that it is not constructive.

The UAOC actually resumed its activities in 1995. From a micro-church it transformed into a prominent structure with about 1,000 communities and which has influence in three western regions of Ukraine. Its initial position is the following: “We have independently existed since 1995 and we have no problem continuing to exist.” At the UAOC council in late 2011, when there was discussion that it would be good to intensify the dialogue with the Kyivan Patriarchate and resolve the issue regarding unification, and when Metropolitan Makarii (Maletych) of Lviv very actively advocated for uniting with the Kyivan Patriarchate, Metropolitan Mefodii (Kudriakov) expressed this view: “We have independently existed since 1995. Everything is fine. We will continue to exist. We are self-sufficient.”

 

The feeling of autonomy of every church is occasionally shaken, disturbed. This can be when, for example, the UOC-MP begins to realize that the split is a global problem for Ukrainian Orthodoxy, that dissenters should be sympathized, that we should put ourselves in their place, that this is some kind of existentially incorrect situation. It thinks maybe at certain times we need to be more Ukrainian, to be native to Ukrainians, and so that they themselves feel comfortable with us, that perhaps we should be somehow more Christian, more churchly, so the spirit of the church can draw them in. The unification should be Christian, it should be churchly. And accordingly, the more a canonical Church becomes churchly and the more noticeable its own internal development, then the more it draws others to it. This pattern, if there are some positive trends such as, for example in the Kyivan Patriarchate, the growth of theological consciousness in recent years, interest in eucharistic ecclesiology, then immediately it raises the idea that “in principle, we too could be united if...” and so on. That is, in many ways the stereotype of the self-sufficiency of each jurisdiction starts breaking down, and this is connected with the growth of the church’s consciousness, overcoming political logic! By the way, it is the same with the UAOC: when occasionally some internal positive trends are seen, then the idea arises that “we could start a dialogue.”

And the dialogue takes place on two levels. The first level is common matters, which are made together, and which greatly unite the churches. There are common matters are made in the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations. This aspect is very important for Ukraine, and it is often not considered. In fact, three Orthodox churches communicate in the AUCCRO and have joint projects that are common to all three and a number of religious organizations and churches. These matters very much unite them and allow them to start certain initiatives – bilateral or joint – such as the appeal on the 20th anniversary of the referendum on December 1, 1991, which confirmed the independence of Ukraine. All of this grows from the experience of cooperation in the AUCCRO: if there were no such experience, things would be very bad. This experience is often not considered by analysts; in fact, today it is the main place where there is a real dialogue, real collaboration, real progress, and so on.

As for commissions for dialogues, it is the second aspect. Commissions are formed when there is some interchurch crisis, and when it is necessary for the voice of ordinary Ukrainians to be taken into account in these developments. For example, the last time the commissions picked up their work was when it there was an obvious threat to Moscow (and perceived threats to all Kyiv players) that Constantinople would simply declare Ukraine its own territory and just go there one way or another, using its sympathizers from all denominations, and appoint its own bishops, thus causing a global crisis for Orthodoxy. What was Constantinople’s reasoning? “We, as the mother church, must intervene in your situation because you do nothing.” And so, when there is a threat of such intervention, there is an official dialogue. Then there was the Preparatory Commission on a Dialogue with the Kyivan Patriarchate, and some discussions started on common aspirations, etc. And what about these shared aspirations which are implemented from these seven common points of resolutions of the commission? Practically nothing is done, except for what was done by the AUCCRO. For example, meetings at conferences, discussion of common issues, and so on and so forth.

And the situation is the same with the Autocephalous Church. The UAOC and UOC-MP are even more ready for a dialogue, and this readiness is “aggravated” when Constantinople begins to engage in the matter of accepting the UAOC under its leadership as the Kyivan Metropolitanate, or when it simply draws geopolitical attention to this space. Then the UOC-MP fears losing any common processes it has with the UAOC.

There are special motives regarding the dialogue of the Kyivan Patriarchate and the Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The problem is that leaders of the Kyivan Patriarchate cannot not have a dialogue with the Autocephalous Church, because the active Ukrainian society and their faithful constantly ask a very simple question: “Why has the Autocephalous Church, on acceptable terms for their bishops of de facto autonomy, still not been accepted into our ranks – the Kyivan Patriarchate?” And indeed there is no good answer, because here the human factor plays a role – some political issues, personal ambitions, and so on. But for society it is important that the UOC-KP and UAOC somehow try to negotiate. The situation always rests on a personal aspect: of Metropolitan Mefodii’s and Patriarch Filaret’s. They have a complicated history of relations, and everything is stalled because of this.

The prospects of a dialogue, first of all, are related to the development of the cooperation in the AUCCRO and this dialogue must be conceptual, that is, concern the joint formation of a Ukrainian Orthodox theological culture, formation of civil society. There are many initiatives from below, from believers of various churches, which also fall in unison with the cooperation from above, at the level of the AUCCRO. This is the first point. The second one is that there are formal and informal negotiations taking place, as well as the building of positive resources within each church, building of cultural, theological, personnel, and educational potential. What for? So that when some crisis related to the actions of Constantinople or Moscow or the government, or linked to the death of some heads, at this “hour X” the church will be attractive, truly Christian, and truly Ukrainian for the other two churches. For this unification to take place, what is needed is most likely the Bulgarian scenario when there are joint councils, symbolic acts of repentance, church and jurisdictional unification, and so on. But they must be culturally, theologically and humanly ready. And so this work, which may be completely unnoticeable because it does not consist of public meetings of official commissions, but just of the vital construction of each church every day, is much more important. For example, last year a lot was done in the Kyivan Patriarchate to make it a more ecclesiastical structure. A lot of positive things happened in the UOC-MP for its development. This is the growth of the spiritual backbone and the growth of spiritual muscles so that later the family could come together.

Full text of the interview in Ukrainian

Yuriy CHORNOMORETS