Religious Information Service of Ukraine
Andrew Sorokowski
Andrew Sorokowski
…
the Moscow Patriarchate is busy both in Ukraine and the outside world
agitating against such a grant of autocephaly to the UOC-KP and the
UAOC, which it regards as schismatic. But its ability to influence world
Orthodoxy is limited…
Last April 17, Ukrainian President
Petro Poroshenko called on Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to grant
autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. He was joined in this
request by the heads of the two independent Orthodox churches in his
country: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate
(UOC-KP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC). The
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, however, opposed
the request. On April 19, Parliament voted to support the President’s
initiative.
What is autocephaly? Literally, it is
“self-headedness.” That is, an autocephalous church has its own head,
who does not report to any higher earthly authority – although it does
recognize the spiritual authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch of
Constantinople. Furthermore, this hierarch is elected by the church
itself, not by some outside authority. The head of an autocephalous
church may be a patriarch, a metropolitan, or an archbishop.
How does autocephaly arise?
Historically, autocephaly was granted by the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. Thus, the Patriarch recognized the autocephaly of the
Bulgarian church in 870, and that of the Serbian Church in 1219. But
some churches have simply declared themselves autocephalous, or begun
to act as such. Thus, the Muscovite Church became de facto
autocephalous in 1448; the Georgian Church declared its own autocephaly
in 1917. Those autocephalies were formally recognized later. Often,
the initiative for autocephaly comes from the secular power. In the
middle ages, this could be a monarch or emperor. In the modern era,
this was sometimes the government of a nation-state newly liberated
from an empire. Thus Romania, formed in 1859 from formerly
Ottoman-ruled Moldavia and Wallachia, passed a law on autocephaly in
1872; the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized this church’s
independence in 1885. The Directorate of the Ukrainian People’s Republic
issued a law on autocephaly in January 1919.
Sometimes, a church attempts to grant
autocephaly to one of its constituent parts. Thus, in 1970 the Moscow
Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church purported to grant
autocephaly to its North American Metropolia, known as the Russian
Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America. Thus was created the
Orthodox Church of America. Most Orthodox churches, however, do not
recognize the OCA’s autocephaly.
Does the Moscow Patriarchate have the
sole right, as it claims, to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church? It bases its claim on the fact that in 1685, the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, then under Ottoman rule, transferred
the Kyivan Metropolitanate to the jurisdiction of Moscow (whose
autocephaly it had recognized in 1589). The validity of this transfer,
however, has been challenged. Moreover, when in 1924 the Ecumenical
Patriarch issued a tomos (decree) of autocephaly to the
Orthodox church in Poland, which then included the Orthodox Ukrainians
of western Volhynia, it effectively declared the 1685 transfer
uncanonical. If Moscow’s jurisdiction over the Kyivan Metropolitanate
is invalid, then it has no right to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian
church. Furthermore, the Kyivan church, founded in 988, is older than
the Muscovite church, which can be dated back only to the 14th century. For a “daughter church” to give autocephaly to its “mother” would be anomalous.
Assuming, then, that it is the
Ecumenical Patriarchate that is entitled to grant autocephaly, to which
Ukrainian church would it grant it? Since the UOC (KP) and the UAOC
both supported the President’s appeal, it is they who would become
autocephalous. Of course, it would behoove them to unite in advance of
any such grant.
But these two Ukrainian Orthodox
churches are already acting as de facto autocephalous churches. Indeed,
one of them has the word “autocephalous” in its name. It would thus
seem more correct to speak of the Ecumenical Patriarch “recognizing”
their autocephaly rather than “granting” or “creating” it. And since
they are not regarded as “canonical” in the Orthodox world, it might be
technically better to first recognize their legitimacy, and then their
autocephaly.
Can the Ecumenical Patriarch do this by
himself? He is reportedly consulting with his synod, which would have
to agree. Some opponents claim that without the consent of all the
Orthodox churches of the world, autocephaly should not be granted, as
it changes the structure of world Orthodoxy. At the least, the opinions
of the various Orthodox churches should be solicited.
Naturally, the Moscow Patriarchate is
busy both in Ukraine and the outside world agitating against such a
grant of autocephaly to the UOC-KP and the UAOC, which it regards as
schismatic. But its ability to influence world Orthodoxy is limited, as
became evident when it opposed the pan-Orthodox conference on Crete in
2016. And in the 1990s, it failed to head off a revolt by a part of
the Estonian Orthodox church, which came under the direct jurisdiction
of Constantinople. How it will fare in the Ukrainian case, which is
more serious, cannot be predicted.