.png "English"){kind=small}
Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk
On September 25, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR) announced the suspension of joint service with the bishops of the Constantinople Patriarchate. And the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate demanded that the Exarchs of Constantinople leave Kiev. The issue of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a pre-election political project, and the actions of Constantinople in Ukraine are anticanonical, says Metr. Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for external church relations. In an interview with Izvestia, he also spoke about why what was happening would not heal the schism, but legalize it, why the ROC is not afraid to be isolated among local churches, and why the Russian Church calls for an all-Orthodox discussion of the problem to be initiated.
VN: In the history of Orthodoxy, there have been many cases of granting autocephaly or autonomy to churches of independent states. Have such decisions always been made under political pressure? By what criteria does the church make such a decision? Is autocephalous UOC necessary now?
ΜVΙ: The church determines the optimal form of dispensation of church life in a particular territory, based on the internal ecclesiastical expediency. In this case, many factors are taken into account. The attainment of state independence is not a decisive factor at all. For example, after the collapse of Czechoslovakia into two independent states, the Orthodox Church in these countries remained united. The same applies to the Serbian Church, which maintains unity in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
A change in political organization is not a reason to establish an autocephalous church in each individual country. Otherwise, it would be necessary in Africa instead of one Alexandrian Patriarchate to have 54 autocephalous churches.
Local authorities, major political forces are often interested in having a church structure on their own territory, as isolated as possible from outside influence, a kind of “pocket church”. After all, for secular politicians, the Church is a part of the electorate, a lever of influence on society. But church people separate church expediency from political interest and do not lend themselves to catchy political slogans. The slogan “an independent state - an independent church”, which now sounds so often, is a purely political manifesto, born not at all in the Orthodox community, but in Catholic Italy and not related to the standards of church life.
The issue of autocephaly in Ukraine now is a political election project, which has nothing to do with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Read its charter: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is already independent; it has more rights than church autonomy suggests. It is a self-governing local church with its Synod and cathedrals, with an independent administrative structure. It is completely independent in its internal management, personnel decisions, and strategy for its development. She has no need to participate in dubious political projects, and this is directly stated by her hierarchy. Moreover, under such state pressure and with the participation of non-canonical, that is, not recognized in the Orthodox world, groups that undermine church unity in Ukraine.
VN: You stated that if autocephaly was granted to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, bloodshed could begin: dissenters would take control of large monasteries such as the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, and Orthodox believers would protect these holy places. What are the sentiments of the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate? What allows you to assume that a tough confrontation will begin between believers?
MVI: The declared goal of the project is to unite Ukrainian Orthodoxy, which has suffered from schism for more than 20 years. But the canonical norms of restoring the unity of the Church through repentance of those who caused a schism are ignored. The position of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is also not taken into account. This means that they will try to carry out the unification by political means, by creating an artificial structure and trying to join the communities of the canonical Church with the help of administrative and public pressure.
The Ukrainian authorities promise the equal existence of all confessions in the country, but these are just words. Recent years have shown that Ukrainian politicians have taken the path of discrimination of the canonical Church. Already, more than 50 temples of the canonical Church in Ukraine have been illegally seized, and judicial decisions on their return to their rightful owners are not being implemented. Politicians and the media are daily fomenting hatred towards the so-called “Moscow priests” - the clergy of the canonical Ukrainian church. A package of legislative initiatives has been prepared in the Verkhovna Rada, the purpose of which is to legalize the mechanism of further seizure of the churches of our Church, strike its rights and even deprive the name. The leaders of the split openly demand to hand over to them the Kiev-Pechersk and Pochaev monasteries, which are in the use of the canonical Ukrainian church.
One may use the data of ordered polls as much as you like. But in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church there are more than 12 thousand real, not fictitious communities - this is the largest confession of Ukraine. It would be naive to believe that millions of parishioners across the country will stand and watch armed militants rob monasteries and temples from them under the guise of the police, explaining that this is a “voluntary transition.” Even the seizures of small village parishes in Ukraine were accompanied by facts of violence. The massive seizure of numerous city parishes or an attempt to take away such all-Ukrainian holy places as laurels will inevitably lead to a surge in violence, and possibly to a large-scale interfaith conflict throughout the country. Such fears confirm already now both the episcopate of the UOC and its clergy: the local believers are very determined.
VN: It is unlikely that at least one local church will be able to stand aside from the history of the UOC. In the hierarchy of Orthodox churches of Constantinople church ranks first in honor. Is there a danger that the Russian Orthodox Church, which has taken a categorical position in relation to Constantinople, will eventually become isolated?
MVI: Starting from the XI century, after the fall of Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople takes the first place in the diptychs of the Orthodox Church, that is, in the order of remembrance of the primates of local churches during the service. This primacy has always been understood as the primacy of honor, but not of the authorities, but the Patriarch of Constantinople himself - as the first among those equal to them who are autocephalous churches. It was only in the 20th century that the Patriarchs of Constantinople began to declare their special powers in the Orthodox Church, but these claims were devoid of theological and canonical grounds.
What is happening now in Ukraine is not just a territorial dispute between the two churches, as it may seem to someone. This is something more. This is a conscious and open imposition by Constantinople of their own power, in fact Papal claims. We see that the Patriarch of Constantinople no longer regards other local churches as a subject of interchurch relations. From his point of view, all decisions are made only in one place - in Phanar. In the question of the Ukrainian autocephaly Constantinople does not intend to coordinate not only with the Russian Church, but also with other churches. Even the delegation, which was authorized by Fanar to negotiate with the local churches on the Ukrainian question, did not visit the primates in order to seek their opinion on the intentions of Constantinople, but in order to inform them of the decision already taken. Representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople have repeatedly stated this.
The meeting of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople
The Russian church does not need to be afraid of isolation. If Constantinople continues its anticanonical actions, then it will place itself outside of canonical space, beyond the understanding of the church dispensation that distinguishes the Orthodox Church.
VN: Which churches have already firmly and unequivocally expressed support for the position of the Russian Orthodox Church? Will they make official statements on this issue? Is it likely that they will change their mind?
MVI: Recently, I have had conversations with many heads of Orthodox churches and I can testify that in the Orthodox world there is a common understanding that overcoming a split in Ukraine is possible only on canonical principles. The intention of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to create an autocephalous church by uniting schismatics into one structure without repentance of the sin of schism and while completely ignoring the canonical church already existing in Ukraine is incompatible with the canonical rules. It is not a way to heal the split, but its legalization. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church appealed to local churches to initiate a pan-Orthodox discussion of the church situation in Ukraine. I hope the local churches will respond to this call,
VN: How will the Russian Orthodox Church build relations with those churches that will take the side of Constantinople?
MVI: I believe that all local churches are aware that the legalization of a split, if it happens, will not give it a canonical status and will not enter into communion with the structure created from the schismatics.
VN: Was the financial side of the loss of the Ukrainian dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate evaluated?
MVI: Issues of church unity are generally wrong to associate with whatever financial calculations. In addition, it should be noted that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the Moscow Patriarchate enjoys the rights of broad self-government, including full independence in financial and economic matters. For many decades, no funds have been transferred from Ukraine to the general church budget.
Therefore, our unity has nothing to do with money, and it would be strange to think that this question would interest us even now.
VN: - Does the Russian Orthodox Church receive support from other denominations?
MVI: As for the other religious denominations of Ukraine, we can say that they have clearly expressed support for the canonical church. The Vatican does not maintain any relationship with the Ukrainian schismatics. Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church have repeatedly publicly condemned the oppression of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in particular the discriminatory bills No. 4128 and No. 4511 under consideration by the Verkhovna Rada, which provide for depriving the canonical church in Ukraine of its rights and legalizing the mechanisms of seizing its temples.
Pope Francis wrote to His Holiness Patriarch Cyril about his concern about the appearance of discriminatory bills, and in their joint declaration following the meeting in Havana in 2016, it was stressed that "Orthodox and Greek Catholics need reconciliation and finding mutually acceptable forms of coexistence."
At a meeting with the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate in May of this year, Pope Francis very clearly formulated the position of the Holy See in Ukraine, saying: “The Catholic Church will never allow its approach to provoke division. We will never allow this ... The Catholic churches should not interfere in the internal affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, including for political reasons.”
The Apostolic Nunciature in Ukraine reported on meetings of high-ranking representatives of the State Secretariat of the Holy See with the Ambassador of Ukraine to express concern, and a theme was heard during the visit to Ukraine of the Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin.
High-ranking representatives of the Kharkiv-Zaporizhia Diocese, Bishops Stanislav Shikoradyuk and Jan Sobilo, evaluated the bill No. 4128, directed against the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, as provocative and could cause a religious war in Ukraine. According to their unequivocal assessment, this draft law is raiding and “creating a corruption scheme in order for parishes to enter the Kiev Patriarchate freely”, and in fact “returning to the ‘30s of the last century”.
Archbishop of Canterbury J. Welby also expressed his concern over the situation: "We are deeply saddened by these complications ... and their potential impact on the entire Orthodox world ... we offer heartfelt prayers for their peaceful resolution."
The General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Olaf Tveit, in letters addressed to Petro Poroshenko and Andriy Parubiy, protested against the draft laws, seeing in them a violation of religious freedom in Ukraine.
Ihor Rudzik, secretary of the Ukrainian Lutheran Church, called bills to interfere in church affairs. Similarly, Yevhen Zyskind, executive director of the Ukrainian Association of Jewish Religious Organizations, said that the bill number 4128 "opens the way for raiding, the seizure of temple buildings and lands."
VN: What, in your opinion, are the most optimistic and most pessimistic scenarios of further events?
MVI: I would not want to act now as a futurist. In a recent statement, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church clearly stated its position, pointed out the consequences that would inevitably lead to the further invasion of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Ukraine and which I have already mentioned above. I believe that a pan-Orthodox discussion of the church situation in Ukraine can prevent the tragic separation of Orthodoxy.
