ERASMUS, economist.com
ONLY a few hours ago, Orthodox Christian bishops from many countries
were preparing smoothly enough for an historic gathering in Crete which
although diminished by some last-minute withdrawals will still be a huge
landmark in the history of eastern Christianity.
As I explain in this
week’s print edition (see article),
preparations for the Holy and Great Council, the first of its kind for
many centuries, were disturbed by the late pullout of four of the 14
participating churches: those of Bulgaria, Georgia, Antioch (based in
Syria) and finally the Patriarchate of Moscow, which is the biggest.
But
bishops from such countries as Romania, Serbia, Poland, Greece, Cyprus
and Egypt were still converging on the Greek island; and the meeting’s
host, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (pictured), insisted that
the Council’s authority would not be diminished by the absentees. He
urged the nay-sayers to relent and attend after all. The Council, whose
main business will begin after Pentecost celebrations this weekend, is
due to issue pronouncements on topics such as marriage, fasting and
Orthodoxy's relations with the wider Christian world.
This
morning, however, another political bombshell reached the ears of the
Cretan gathering. Parliamentarians in Ukraine formally called on
Bartholomew I (who, as Ecumenical Patriarch, is Orthodox Christianity’s
first among equals) to recognize and help establish a fully independent
Orthodox church in that country. A resolution backed by 245 legislators,
comfortably above the required minimum of 226, urged the Istanbul-based
Patriarch to facilitate a “unification council” for Orthodox Christians
in Ukraine, out of which a single, internationally recognized national
church would emerge.
Such a turn of events would be greeted with
deep dismay both in the Kremlin and the Patriarchate of Moscow, which is
now accepted by most other Orthodox bodies as the legitimate church
authority in Ukraine. When communism collapsed, the Patriarchate of
Moscow had more active parishes in Ukraine than in Russia. After Ukraine
became independent, a breakaway "Kiev Patriarchate" proclaimed itself
the new Orthodox authority in the country, and it controls thousands of
parishes. But it has won very little international recognition.
According
to the Ukrainian parliamentarians, granting the country an independent,
recognized church would simply be righting an historical wrong: the
fact that in 1686, the metropolis (ecclesiastical authority) of Kiev was
transferred from Constantinople to Moscow. In other words, the fact
that Russia religiously annexed Ukraine. But Muscovite religious
scholars have a very different reading of church history and insist that
their own hierarch, Patriarch Kirill, is the legitimate spiritual
leader of the eastern Slavs.
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has
already warned Patriarch Bartholomew that any move to detach Ukraine
from Muscovite authority would be devastating for the relationship
between Orthodox Christianity’s two most important sees, those of
Constantinople and Moscow.
Patriarch Bartholomew will certainly
not act hastily over a change which could have huge strategic
repercussions. But thanks to Moscow’s last-minute withdrawal from the
Cretan Council, Patriarch Kirill has lost a bit of leverage over his
Istanbul-based counterpart. Patriarch Bartholomew has hitherto walked a
delicate line over Ukraine. When he visited that country in 2008, he
accepted the legitimacy, for now, of Moscow's religious authority but
also expressed understanding for many Ukrainians' wish for an
independent church. We can all expect to hear more about the
ecclesiastical tug-of-war between Moscow, Kiev and Istanbul.