Some Bohemian Reflections


	Ukrainian Orthodoxy		Orthodoxie ukrainienne

Patriarch Kiril in Ukraine: Moscow and Kyiv on a Collision Course?

Dr. Alexander Roman alex.roman@unicorne.org

Patriarch Kiril of Moscow is currently in Ukraine for a ten day visit of the major Cathedrals and shrines there and to meet with the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (which is in union with him). As expected, the topic of Ukrainian Orthodox Church unity and autocephaly figures very highly during this visit. The comments of the Patriarch in relation to these issues tell a fascinating story.

The first foray on Church unity and autocephaly was launched by President Yuschenko himself when he met with the Patriarch soon after he arrived in Kyiv earlier this week. President Yuschenko appeared to have received a quick lesson about the Patriarch’s strong political skills when he rebuffed Yuschenko with “There already is a particular, canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Without it, there would be no independent Ukraine today . . .”

After some initial speculation that Patriarch Kiril would meet with representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate (which is deemed “non-canonical” by world Orthodoxy), he finally clarified matters by affirming that he would definitely not be meeting with them.

The Patriarch then rejected the very idea of “autocephaly” for the Orthodox Church in Ukraine since it already has its own Synod which independently governs the affairs of the UOC-MP. He decried autocephaly as a “politicized concept and movement” that “divides Ukrainian society.” What Ukraine requires, the Patriarch said, is unity and especially church unity.

When pushed to the wall, the Patriarch expressed his surprise at the attitudes of the “nationalist demonstrators” protesting his visit. “’Why do we need to be subservient to the Moscow Patriarch?” they ask … And this from those who have no problem inviting the Patriarch of Constantinople to Kyiv! So why is the Moscow Patriarch a problem for them – and not the Constantinopolitan Patriarch?” Patriarch Kiril also affirmed that “Kyiv is our Jerusalem and Constantinople! Kyiv is the centre of Russian Orthodoxy!” The Patriarch also called “naïve” the popular and oft-repeated Ukrainian motto, “An independent Church in an independent Nation.”

Upon arriving in Kyiv, Patriarch Kiril took the unprecedented step to hold a ROC Synod in the Kyivan Caves Lavra – the first time this has ever occurred – to underscore his authority over Kyiv as an integral part of Russian Orthodoxy or the “Orthodox Church of Rus’.”

Certainly, it is a fact that Ukrainian Orthodoxy in Ukraine is in a sad state of affairs, being divided, as Yuschenko said, into “four jurisdictions.” To outsiders, the division of the Ukrainian Orthodox into “pro-Kyiv” and “pro-Moscow” camps could appear “justified” given the historic relations of Moscow’s dominance over and oppression of Ukraine and this with the collusion of the Russian Orthodox Church. What is much less understandable is how division among the independent Ukrainian Orthodox churches can continue to exist and for what reason(s).

In fact, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan has come a long way since Ukraine’s independence from Russia was a fait accomplit. The First Hierarch of the UOC-MP has proven, even to the oft-expressed satisfaction of members of the hierarchy of the Kyivan patriarchate, that he is nobody’s puppet and nobody’s fool. He also has around him, in the words of one member of the UOC-KP, a group of “dedicated Ukrainian bishops and clergy who are very committed to the Kyivan-Ukrainian Church.”

Metropolitan Vladimir, however, must also deal with the political realities of his relationship with the Moscow Patriarchate and also with the increasing autocephalous Orthodox movement. He is, in fact, between a rock and a hard place as he toes the line between two opposing religious-political agendas. And the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate has grown so substantially that it can no longer be dismissed by anyone as a fringe movement.

Even the bishops of the UOC-MP are now obliged to try and understand the sources from which the Ukrainian Orthodox autocephalous movement springs - beginning with the people’s desire for Ukrainian in the liturgy, to de-Russification and increased Ukrainianization in the Church, to church autonomy, independence and even a Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate in Kyiv which would be in union with and recognized by world Orthodoxy.

The Russian Orthodox Church, if the words of her Patriarch are anything to go by, isn’t about to loosen its grip on the UOC-MP by way of granting it autocephaly, much less a patriarchate, any time soon. Sensitive to geopolitics, the ROC has demonstrated that it is more than capable of “taking the train that says ‘Ukrainian Church’ but will get off at the stop that says ‘Moscow’s overall best interests.”

For example, the Moscow Patriarchate is all for the UOC-MP’s participation in the commemorations for the victims of the Holodomor. Even Patriarch Kiril did as much this week. But, at the same time, the Moscow Patriarch was careful to underscore that the Holodomor’s victims were both Ukrainians and Russians, done to death by an atheistic and cruel Soviet collectivization ideology. The Patriarch’s perspective on the Holodomor is definitely meant to “keep the ecclesial peace” along the Ukraine-Russia divide.

His response to the sociological fact of the Orthodox autocephalous movement in Ukraine was a “non-response.” He denied there was any church division in Ukrainian Orthodoxy and that the UOC-MP has maintained its inner unity as the only true, canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine. He went on to bluntly warn of God’s punishment on those who persist in schisms and separations from the Church. “Politicization” is a crime placed firmly at the feet of the “schismatics” while the ROC, with its emphasis on the continued unity between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples, focuses on true “spirituality.”

The problem with the Patriarch’s pointed barbs and ideologically-based affirmations is that they are falling on increasingly deaf and even antagonistic ears, even within the UOC-MP. His visit can be seen to be a major setback for Metropolitan Vladimir and his efforts to respond positively to the legitimate desires of Ukrainian Orthodox (a good number of whom, it must be said, define themselves as belonging to NO Orthodox jurisdiction at present) for their own “Ukrainian Church.”

Much of what Patriarch Kiril accuses the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate of doing is just what the Russian Church (and others) did when it proclaimed its own patriarchate and without asking anyone’s permission at the outset. The great unanswered question during the patriarchal visit to Ukraine is simply that – why can’t there be a Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate in Kyiv? If Kyiv is the Mother Church of Moscow, how can the “Daughter” dictate to its Mother what it can or cannot do in this respect?

Patriarch Kiril’s comments comparing Ukraine’s relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (we note that he purposefully omitted the “Ecumenical” title when referring to Constantinople) and that of Moscow were based on a grossly tendentious understanding of history. But this hasn’t stoped him from doing this, time and again, during his visit in Ukraine.

The Patriarch needs to have a reality check in this respect and come to understand that Ukrainians are not the colonized, Russified “Khakhols” of yesteryear. Hiding behind a “canonicity” where the Moscow Patriarchate has established itself as the final arbiter decided who is or is not “canonical” is disingenuous altogether. Calling Ukrainians who seek an autocephalous, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Patriarchate names or else attempting to see them as subservient agents of foreign powers etc. is not what is required to resolve the growing problem of church unity in Ukraine today.

Hopefully, the Patriarch will leave Ukraine with perhaps a keener insight into the scope and magnitude of the problems he came to view for the first time since assuming the Muscovite patriarchal throne. The Patriarch is an intelligent man whose adaptive skills have guided the ROC for years. We may only hope that this visit is the beginning of a deepened understanding of Orthodoxy in Ukraine in future.

Your reaction to this article (in either language) which will be posted here immediately: Name (or pseudonym): Email (will not be posted): Please enter the code word which you see at right: 7Etu5X
Reactions previously posted:
By: Watching and wondering You are missing the chance. Reunite the groups. Then wait five years, then asks that the Patriarch move back. As Patriarch Kiril said, “Kyiv is our Jerusalem and Constantinople! Kyiv is the centre of Russian Orthodoxy!” So he should be asked to more the Patriarchate back from Moscow to the center of Russian Orthodoxy.
By: zienmike One should ask the question - what would be lost by the Russian Orthodox Church if UOC-MP had autocephaly, or full autonomy, or there existed a full Patriarch in Kyiv of a unified, UOC-KP? For Moscow, as I have heard (maybe erroneously), is that a substantial (if not majority) of its parishes are actually in Ukraine, and that a very large part of its clergy are originally from Ukraine. Losing Ukraine for Moscow would basically destroy its claim to superior numbers of parishes, clergy, parishoners, etc, and then it could no longer try to usurp authority from Constantinople and make a claim to be the 'Third Rome'. Correct me if I'm wrong in this understanding - it seems to me that the ROC is only political, as spiritually it is empty without Ukrainians.
By: Alex Roman Dear "Watching and wondering," Thank you for your email and your points of comment! In terms of reuniting the Ukrainian Orthodox churches, that process is already quite strong in Ukraine, despite the still divided jurisdictions. For example, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church is very close to full union with the UOC-KP and recently one of its larger eparchies in western Ukraine united with it. In addition, there are a growing number of Orthodox hierarchs, clergy and laity in the UOC-MP that are now pushing for autonomy and even autocephaly for the canonical UOC. The sociological reality of the people's desire to have a united, autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in canonical unity with world Orthodoxy is undeniable. This brings us to the question of Patriarch Kiril and the Russian Orthodox Church. There is no question that the Russian Orthodox Church cannot, credibly, continue to present itself as the "Church of Rus'" meaning that it includes, under its umbrella, the Ukrainian and other Orthodox Churches, as it did in Tsarist and Soviet times. Even the website of the UOC-MP refers to the "Russian Orthodox Church" and the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" both canonical and both as individual entities. The UOC-MP itself contradicts any ROC claim to exclusive rights over Kyiv. Kyiv is most certainly the Mother Church of Moscow and was once the "Orthodox Church of Rus.'" But today "Russian" and "Rus'" do not mean the same thing. The former refers to the Russian people and nation while the latter is the historic name of the empire of St Volodymyr the Great. "Rus'" as such no longer exists as a socio-political reality today. When it is used by those espousing Great Russian chauvinism, it refers to a geopolitical, imperial ideology that is designed to promote the subjugation of churches and peoples under Moscow, spiritually and politically where the two are intertwined. Kyiv is also most certainly a "New Jerusalem" on the basis of the many holy Orthodox Shrines, Saints and great missionary outreach of Kyiv throughout the centuries. At no time was Kyiv ever considered to be a "Constantinople" (and this was said as an unkind thrust at the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to be sure). For 700 years the Orthodox Church of Kyivan Rus' was in full union with Constantinople - there was never any question that Kyiv ever wished to usurp the role and position of New Rome in any respect. After the Treaty of Pereyaslavl, Kyiv came under Moscow. Before then, Kyivan Metropolitans moved northwards to escape the increasing destructive incursions of Asian hordes. At no time prior to their being taken over by Moscow did they refer to themselves as anything other than "Metropolitans of Kyiv." Moscow not only considered itself to be the "Third Rome," but also the "New Kyiv." The tradition of the Metropolitan of Kyiv and that of the Apostolic Founding of Kyiv by St Andrew was adopted and taken over by Moscow. So, in effect, Moscow sees herself as being in possession of Kyiv's Apostolic and ecclesial heritage. Moscow is therefore "already home" and the question of "moving back" to Kyiv would never occur. The superlatives used by Patriarch Kiril are therefore, and unfortunately, empty, politically-inspired phrases reflecting a call to return, not to Kyiv, but to subjection to Moscow within the classical caesaro-papist model (did not Patriarch Kiril compare Ukrainian Orthodox loyalty to himself with Ukrainian Catholic loyalty to the Pope?). Kyiv was, is and always will be a great Orthodox centre. 1,000 years+ after the baptism of Kyivan Rus' Kyiv is the Ukrainian capital of an independent Ukrainian nation. It was and is the Mother Church to Moscow. There is no reason why an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate, recognized by world Orthodoxy, cannot be established in Kyiv today. No one wishes to deny the Moscow Patriarchate anything except the right to try and reignite its imperial stance toward Kyiv.
By: Alex Roman Dear zienmike, Thank you for your email! Politics has always played its role in religion (as it does everywhere else). The Russian Orthodox Church has achieved many great strides in reclaiming lost influence in Russian society since the fall of the USSR. It is working hard to combat the agressive proselytism of Western denominations and sects attempting to capture the hearts of the unchurched in Russia, to stave off secularism and addiction in the lives of the people and to, once again, be a witness to Christ to the Russian people. With respect to Ukraine, even when western Ukraine was under the Moscow Patriarchate, many Orthodox priestly and monastic vocations came from there, as well as the strongest possible spiritual and financial support for the Church. When the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church came up from underground, the ROC lost those strong resources. Scholars in the West appeared perplexed at the return of the UGCC in post-Soviet Ukraine as they wondered why the people wanted to leave what seemed to them like ecclesial freedom from Rome (dating back to Polish colonial times when the Union of Brest was imposed) only to go right back to Roman jurisdiction. But the church of Galicia was and is the UGCC. The UGCC and the Ukrainian Orthodox autocephalous jurisdictions reflect the deepest spiritual/cultural identity and desires of the people. The Russian Orthodox Church does not. This is also why the UOC-MP has made many great strides in its own program of "Ukrainization" as well. Religion and culture go hand in hand in Europe. Many North Americans fail to understand this relationship, but given the long tradition of separation of church and state here this is not surprising. So one could say that the Russian Orthodox Church is certainly for Russians and those who relate to a Great Russian cultural identity or who are open to it (which includes English-speaking North Americans, to be sure). The Ukrainian Orthodox have yet to be united as one, but they do know what they are looking for by way of a final goal which they wish to realize. Many Ukrainian Orthodox in Ukraine are actually outside any particular Orthodox jurisdiction - they may even form the greatest number of all, unfortunately. We must pray for the day to come soon when there will be a united, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate in Ukraine (which might even include many Ukrainian Greek-Catholics who might opt for the "unity factor?") alongside the Russian Orthodox Church whose mutual relations will be characterized by a renewed mutual respect, love and cooperation. Let's pray for this and may the Lord use both these Churches in the spiritual renewal of Europe itself!

[ Home ] [ Articles ] [ Prayer ] [ Saints ] [ Theophilus ] [ Q & A ] [Discussion Forum] [About Us] [ ]

Ukrainian Orthodoxy - Українське Православ'я