Interviewed by Tetiana DERKACH, risu.org
By
tradition, at the end of July, the Ukrainian Orthodox believers of all
jurisdictions celebrate the Baptism of Rus. The Ukrainian state,
represented by its leaderships and members of other local Orthodox
Churches, willingly participates in these celebrations. This year’s
celebrations were attended by Archbishop Job (Getcha)
of Telmessos, representative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who
came at the invitation of the President of Ukraine and kindly agreed to
give an interview for RISU. He gave direct answers to direct questions:
what will happen to the Churches which did not participate in the
Pan-Orthodox Council, what is the destiny of eschatological marginal
currents, why the issue of autocephaly was blocked, and if the Orthodox
Ukrainians may hope for autocephaly.
— Your Eminence, what is your impression of the Pan-Orthodox
Council in Crete? Has it achieved everything planned? Are the
organization and results satisfying?
— In principle, the Council was successful in the sense that all the
documents prepared and agreed upon in the course of preparation of the
Pan-Orthodox Council were adopted. Of course, with a few amendments, but
these amendments are minimal, and the documents have not changed in
essence. Therefore, we believe that the Council was a success. Of
course, it is a pity that four Churches refused to participate. They
refused at the last moment, while they were involved in its preparation,
they signed documents that had been prepared, they even took part in
organizational meetings a month before the Council. And the Russian
Orthodox Church was present even a week before the Council at the
meeting of the Committee to prepare its message to the Council. They
decided not to participate in the Council right at the last moment.
— Was it unexpected?
— We did not expect, of course. Unfortunately, the Churches made this
decision, and now they are responsible for this decision. But the
Council was held as planned.
— The absence of these four Churches has given grounds for
the ROC to declare that it does not recognize the Pan-Orthodox status of
the Council. But as we know from history, even at the Ecumenical
Councils all the then existing Churches and bishops were not
represented. To what extent is position of the Russian Orthodox Church
justified?
— In the ecclesial history, at most councils representatives of many
Churches were absent. Here the process of reception of the council is
also of importance. While many Ecumenical Councils failed to gather
representatives of all Churches, all the Churches received their
decisions, which gave the ecumenical status to these Councils.
— Thus, participation and reception are parallel concepts, not necessarily related to each other?
— Right. But from history we know there were the Churches that
refused to participate in some councils. And since they refused to
participate in the councils, they remained outside the Church. Well, for
example, the Armenian Church rejected the Fourth Ecumenical Council of
Chalcedon in the V century, because it thought that the problem of
Monophysitism is an internal problem of the Church of Constantinople and
it was not relevant for it. There were also political issues associated
with this stance. But now the Armenian Church is not in the communion
with universal Orthodoxy. It is one of the non-Chalcedonian Churches
that for centuries has remained beyond the universal Church.
— So, such a refusal can have any and all possible historical consequences.
— It depends on reception of the council. The Council is over, and
the Churches, which refused to participate in it, are now responsible
for their future.
— Recently, the Moscow Patriarchate spokesmen have made
several statements that the Russian Church has all the instruments and
mechanisms to convene a “true” Pan-Orthodox Council. How these
statements reflect the realities?
— Well, it is not for the first time that the Moscow Patriarchate
wants to act this way. Similar attempts were made in 1948, when they
tried to hold such a Pan-Orthodox meeting in Moscow, in Soviet times.
And we know that they did not succeed, and not just because some
Churches refused to participate. It must be borne in mind that the
Russian Orthodox Church has no canonical grounds to convene such a
Council.
— The Russian Orthodox Church actively promoted the political
doctrine “Moscow the Third Rome,” where the Church plays the role of
the “gatherer of Russian lands.” How does the Ecumenical Patriarchate
respond to it?
— The myth of “Moscow the Third Rome” rests on the opinions expressed
by Philotheus, a Russian monk who lived in the XV-XVI centuries. This
is an absolute myth, because in the history of the Church and in the
canonical sense there is no first, second, third or fourth Rome. There
was the old Rome, which was the center of the Roman Empire, the center
of European civilization, and there was the new Rome — the new capital
of the Roman Empire. There is no first or second Rome but there are the
old and the new ones. There will be no third, fourth and fifth Romes
either.
And this is not only the history of the Church, not only the history
of the empire – it is a history of human civilization. The Churches of
Rome and Constantinople today contain the legacy of these two Churches.
They are the heirs of their political, ecclesial, human history, and
they enjoy canonical grounds and privileges related thereto.
— In the Orthodox world and in the ROC it is very pronounced,
the currents are gaining ground that adopt a very aggressive
eschatological stance regarding the eighth, ninth and subsequent
Ecumenical Councils, and respectively, a very critical attitude, putting
it mildly, to the organizer of the Council on Crete, the Ecumenical
Patriarch. Do these eschatological currents with political overtones
pose a threat to the unity of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy? Generally, is
the conflict along the line of “fundamentalism – ecumenism” is a serious
challenge for Orthodoxy?
— These currents are marginal, despite the number of supporters. They do not represent the position of the Church.
— But the Russian Church does not counter them, it rather benefits from them.
— These currents are very dangerous and perverse. Therefore the
Church as such cannot accept these marginal viewpoints. These viewpoints
are not revealing the truth of the Christian faith and Christian
mission.
You see, someone likes to apply the principle of numbers, and
believes that the more followers there are, the more powerful or more
righteous they will become. If we go back to the history of the Church,
in the IV century Arians were so numerous and powerful, even such great
figures of the Church as St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Basil the Great
worried whether the Church would survive. But despite the number of
Arianism adherents, the Church never accepted such a standpoint, since
the Arian doctrine was marginal and did not correspond to the truth of
the Christian faith and Christian doctrine.
Later, in times of struggle with monotheletism in the VII century,
Saint Maximus the Confessor was almost the sole adherent of the Orthodox
faith. Almost everyone, most people were adherents of monotheletism.
But finally monotheletism was condemned by the Council and it was St.
Maximus the Confessor, who, being alone with his standpoint, finally
won. Therefore one should not rest any concept, theory or plan on
marginal views or numbers. You need not worry about that.
— So, historically, it is the truth that will win and not the number or aggressiveness of marginalized people…
— Exactly.
— Let me get back to the question of autocephaly. The
question of autocephaly proclamation was removed from the agenda at the
Pan-Orthodox Council as conflict-provoking and the one for which there
is no Pan-Orthodox consensus. Why does this issue evoke so much
controversy? After all, autocephaly is a natural way of church
governance.
— In the course of preparation of the Pan-Orthodox Council, the issue
of autocephaly and its proclamation was raised and discussed. There are
texts of the documents that were drawn up. I will tell about the whole
process to understand at what point everything stopped. The study began
with the allegation that the Ecumenical Patriarchate was considered the
only Patriarchate in the Orthodox world, which had the right to grant
autocephaly both for historical and canonical reasons. In the history
all new autocephalous churches which appeared starting from the XVI
century, beginning with the rise of the Russian Orthodox Church until
now – are the former territories of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to
which it granted autocephaly. And for canonical reasons the Ecumenical
Patriarchate holds the first place in the Orthodox world.
While discussing the issue of autocephaly at the Pan-Orthodox level
in a spirit of consensus it was stated: “No! Constantinople alone cannot
grant the autocephalous status. It should be added that for granting
autocephaly there should be consent and request of that Church, a part
of which wants to become autocephalous.” Here an actual example shall be
provided, if Ukraine wants to obtain autocephaly, then Constantinople
alone cannot establish it, a request of the Russian Orthodox Church is
required, as Ukraine is currently in the bosom of this Church.
Then, in the framework of preparation for the Pan-Orthodox Council,
the Patriarchate of Constantinople displayed willingness to compromise,
and agreed that autocephaly can be granted by Constantinople only with
the consent and upon request of the Church, to which this part belongs.
Furthermore, we reached the issue of preparation of the Tomos – a
document that proclaims the church autocephaly, and which contains all
points that a new Church should comply with, all the requirements that
it must perform. Again, it was stated that this Tomos should be signed
only by the Patriarch of Constantinople. As part of the discussions it
was stated: “No! It should be signed by all heads, all heads of the
local churches. They have to be in agreement, they should mutually
recognize this new church.” Again, the Constantinople Patriarchate made a
compromise and said, “OK. The Tomos will be signed by all heads of the
local Churches.”
— And every signature involves talks…
— Yes, it does.
Thus, Constantinople settled for a compromise. We reached the issue
of signing the Tomos. From history we know that Tomoses were signed by
the Patriarch of Constantinople, who, after putting his signature,
writes the word “proclaim”. Thereofore, the Ecumenical Patriarch as the
first hierarch, the one presiding at the Synod proclaims autocephaly.
Following this, the members of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople
affixed their signatures without a word. It is the head who proclaims,
others just put their signatures confirming it is an official valid
document. Constantinople wanted to adapt the practice and said, “The
Patriarch of Constantinople signs the Tomos putting the word “proclaim”
and other Primates, as previously the Synod members did, just affix
their signatures in the manner established by Orthodox diptychs.” Again,
there was discussion, and again a new requirement was made: “No! Other
patriarchs also should add the word after his signature.” And
Constantinople again agreed to a compromise. It said, “Well, then let us
do it like this: the Ecumenical Patriarch signs and puts the word
“proclaim” and the other patriarchs sign it and put the wording
“collegially proclaim” according to the principle of liturgical
worship.” After all, when the Divine Liturgy is performed, it is always
the first hierarch who celebrates, whom we deem to be presiding over the
service, while others co-celebrate.
— Quite logical.
— And again the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate disagreed —
with the word "collegially proclaim.” They wanted every patriarch to
put his signature with the word “proclaim”. And here the Ecumenical
Patriarchate disagreed. Not because of its dignity or for some political
reason. Just because it is illogical and wrong. Only one person can
proclaim and others, who are with him, can only collegially proclaim.
Everyone cannot proclaim separately. And since that time this issue has
been blocked. And since the time when these meetings were held in 2009,
if I am not mistaken, it has remained blocked.
In other words, the issue of autocephaly was considered, a compromise
text was elaborated, but due to the issue of putting signatures under
the Tomos, everything was blocked. So it was decided not to include this
issue in the agenda. For Constantinople it means that the issue of
autocephaly now regains the status quo it had at the beginning of its
consideration (i.e. the compromises that were agreed on are considered
not reached – Tetiana Derkach), as no conclusion was made for all the
ratified compromise versions.
— The first autocephalous Churches are termed ancient, then
there was the second wave – the new autocephalous Churches, starting
with the ROC, emerged, and they were somewhat qualitatively different.
In your opinion, is the need for the recent wave of autocephaly a
natural process or an evidence of specific problems within Orthodoxy? Is
universal Orthodoxy ready to the rise of the third, latest wave of
autocephaly?
— What is the difference between the first wave and the second wave?
In fact, the second wave began in the XVI century with the granting of
autocephaly to the Russian Orthodox Church. What is the difference
between the first wave and the second wave, why is their status
different? The difference is that the ancient centers, which included
Rome (but the issue of Rome is a different question at the moment) – the
Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Cyprus –
are the Churches that had been approved at the Ecumenical Councils. As
we know, it is the principle of the Church, and even fundamentalists
agree and repeat that the Orthodox Church must comply with the
Ecumenical Councils. We cannot consider ourselves Orthodox, if we
abandon some Ecumenical Council resolutions. They are binding for the
Orthodox Church.
These Churches have been confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils, while
others, the new wave of autocephaly, have been not confirmed by the
Ecumenical Councils. We cannot say that their autocephaly is something
different, but their status has not been confirmed by the Ecumenical
Councils.
— Were they granted autocephaly out of oikonomia, or for political reasons?
— The new wave of autocephaly always arose in response to political
circumstances — the establishment of a new state or a new empire.
Autocephaly was granted to the Church taking into account the situation
of the state to solve an administrative problem. So this second wave of
autocephaly continues nowadays — most of autocephalous Churches were
proclaimed in the late nineteenth and in twentieth century.
— The second wave of autocephaly separated from Constantinople, but
there is a third wave, when the Churches do not separate from the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, but from its affiliated Churches. This is the
problem both of the Serbian Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. But
Constantinople it has already overcome it.
— Constantinople has always believed that the territory of Ukraine is
the canonical territory of the Church of Constantinople. I should be
kept in mind that it was on the basis of the Kyiv Metropolis that the
Polish Church was granted autocephaly in 1924. The Polish state appealed
to Constantinople ...
— Was it the government that appealed?
— Right, this is how it happened. In the 20-ies, the Polish state
became independent. And the government said, ‘We do not mind that
Orthodox Christians live in Poland and practice their faith and have
their own church. But we do not want the state to Poland to have a
church that would be a column of an alien state, and even more – of an
antagonistic state.” Therefore the Polish state appealed to
Constantinople in 1924 so that Constantinople granted the autocephalous
status to the Polish Church. It was the request of the state for a
solution of the political problem.
— So, the church problem can be a political problem as well…
— Right. For Poland it was no issue of Orthodox faith, Orthodox
doctrine of Orthodox worship – this is religious issue and not of the
state. But the Polish state faced a political challenge: it did not want
the Orthodox Church in Poland to serve the interests of others states.
And for this reason it appealed to Constantinople to be granted
autocephaly and resolve political problems.
On what grounds did Constantinople give Tomos in 1924 to the Polish
Orthodox Church? Constantinople considered the Polish Church as former
part of the Kyiv Metropolis. As we know, under Metropolitan Cyprian
Tsamblak’s tenure the Kyiv Metropolis was located within the
Polish-Lithuanian state, i.e. its borders extended to the territory of
Poland and contemporary Lithuania. The same situation was at the times
of Petro Mohyla, who was Metropolitan of Kyiv. The Kyiv Metropolis then
was subject to Constantinople. As long as Poland once related to the
Kyiv Metropolis that was in direct canonical subordination to
Constantinople, Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Polish Church
in 1924.
So, as long as Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Polish
Church on the basis of the Kyiv Metropolis why today Constantinople
alone has no right to grant autocephalous status to the Kyiv Metropolis?
If it was possible in 1924 –it is possible today.
— The Ukrainian delegation as part of the Russian Church did
not participate in the Pan-Orthodox Council. Another part of Orthodox
Ukrainians remained without any representation in universal Orthodoxy.
Who is responsible for this pitiful state of relations between the
Orthodox Ukrainian, as this state of affairs is abnormal?
— The Ecumenical Patriarch has repeatedly stated that the Church of
Constantinople is the Mother Church for the Ukrainian Church. He has
repeatedly emphasized that he is the spiritual father for Ukrainians.
So, the Ecumenical Patriarch continually monitors the situation of the
Orthodox Church in Ukraine and is concerned over it.
Moreover, after the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine appealed to the
Patriarchate of Constantinople to establish a canonical autocephalous
Church, the request was considered at the last Synod and the Synod
decided to bring this issue to the Commission for a serious and thorough
study of the issue. So, Constantinople is considering this issue.
— It is widely stated that this solution should result in the
unification of all Orthodox branches. But how to unite if one of the
branches does not see such a need, if other Orthodox jurisdictions do
not exist for it as such? Thus, we have an unpleasant phenomenon of
isolation of the canonical branch represented by the episcopate and
clergy. They react very painfully to the very appearance in Ukraine of
representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
How can we talk about unification, if one jurisdiction lives
in its own parallel reality where no one else exists? With this in mind,
does the Ecumenical Patriarchate have any mechanisms to solve the
Ukrainian issue? At the level of statement of the UOC (MP) hierarchs,
the problem of status change allegedly does not exist.
— You have outlined the problem and in this outline you emphasized
its complexity. There must be a certain process to solve this problem
that we must explore and find. And this is precisely the objective of
this Commission. If there was an answer how to solve the problem – it
would have been solved long ago.
Constantinople does not need to study the Ukrainian issue in order to
decide whether it has the right to grant autocephaly or not, whether
the Ukrainian church is the daughter of the Church of Constantinople, or
not, whether Ukraine is the canonical territory of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, or not. Constantinople knows it well enough, which it
repeatedly emphasized and stated. The issue should be studied in terms
of finding a way to solve the problem. This is the objective of the
commission. Therefore, at the moment I cannot tell you in which way the
problem will be solved. We have not yet found the process to implement,
otherwise the issue would have been resolved.
But it should be noted, and this is a canonical principle that one
and the same territory can have only one Church. That is, two
autocephalous Churches cannot simultaneously operate on the same
territory. Proclaiming an autocephalous Church requires unity.
Therefore, we should work on this unity.
— Today many Churches face the challenge of separation and
unrecognized jurisdictions. Representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate
in Ukraine believe that even keeping a quiet peaceful dialogue with
opponents is non-canonical, it cannot be conducted in any way.
— Can’t we hold a dialogue?
— No, we cannot. The “Kyiv Patriarchate is schismatic, and
there is an only way – to return to the fold of the Moscow
Patriarchate.” Is this stance in line with the canonical principles and
Christian conscience in general?
— I will quote just one example from the Bible. Open the Book of Job
in the Old Testament. The first chapter of the Book of Job tells about
the dialogue (“dialogue” is the Greek for “conversation”) between God
and the devil. In the Book of Job, God has a dialogue with Satan. If
such a dialogue is possible — between God and the devil! — Why would the
dialogue between Christians and especially between Orthodox Christians
be impossible now?
— The Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine is trying to present the
situation as the unprecedented persecution in Ukraine of the only
recognized jurisdiction. To what extent are the Orthodox Churches
objectively informed as to why there are conflicts over church buildings
in Ukraine, why the UOC Moscow Patriarchate enjoys a low level of
trust, what role the ROC plays in fuelling the conflict in Donbas? To
what extent is this information available?
— You mean, how well are the Churches outside of Ukraine informed?
— Right.
— It should be noted that very different and contradictory
information is being spread. This is not anything new: in any matter,
i.e. political, if we compare the information submitted by American
journalists, it can diverge with the information supplied by Russian
journalists. And even in the same country, depending on political
preferences of newspapers and journalists the information is highlighted
differently in different newspapers.
I would say that the world is really poorly informed about what is
going on in Ukraine. For example, I was asked a question by a bishop of
the Patriarchate of Constantinople before my trip, whether Russian
troops are still in Ukraine. He was under the impression that this issue
was resolved after Minsk agreements. This is just one example.
The information is certainly available, and there are various
contradictions in this information, but, frankly speaking, they write
not much about Ukraine in the media outside Ukraine.
— But how the Ukrainian issue can be solved if there is no
full, objective information about the situation and relations between
Ukrainians? Is this also the issue for the Commission?
— This is one more reason why the matter was transferred to the Commission for a deeper study.
— The UAOC has also filed an appeal to the Ecumenical
Patriarch for its recognition as part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Will it be reviewed by the Commission?
— When referring to the Ukrainian issue, we are speaking about the
Church globally. This is not only a study of one part or one branch, the
question is considered in its entirety. Of course, this matter will be
considered too.
— So, is it planned to turn all the centrifugal tendencies in the opposite direction?
— Sure, to consider them jointly.
— And the last question, Your Eminence. Perhaps it may seem
funny to you. But in Russian circles it is rumored that you have been
appointed as Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine. Can you
comment on this?
— (Laughing) Never heard about that, first of all. Second,
Constantinople could not be doing this either, because the study shall
begin from the beginning, not from the end.
— Thank you, Your Eminence!