Metropolitan of the new Orthodox Church in Ukraine and Metropolitan of Kiev Epiphanius (Domenko)
On December 15, 2018, a church council was held in Kiev chaired by
Emmanuel, the Metropolitan of France (Ecumenical Patriarchate), which
brought together bishops from three church jurisdictions – the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate (UOC-KP), the Ukrainian Autonomous
Orthodox Church (UAOC) and Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow
Patriarchate (UOC-MP). All bishops from the first two jurisdictions
(churches) joined the council, while the third one was presented only by
two bishops – Vinnytsky Metropolitan Simeon and Pereyaslav-Khmelnytsky
and Vishnevsky Metropolitan Alexander (Drabinko), although 11 bishops
from around hundred bishops from Moscow Patriarchate declared
participation. The Council elected Metropolitan Epiphanius (Domenko) as
the chief of the new Orthodox Church in Ukraine and Metropolitan of
Kiev, who was before the Metropolitan bishop of Pereyaslav-Khmellnutsky.
He is 39 years old, born in the village of Vovkove, Odessa oblast,
graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy at the Athens National
University in Greece. He was ordained a bishop in 2009 and later
appointed rector of a theological academy. He is well known in Ukraine
for his active charity work in front areas and humanitarian aid for the
army in the difficult initial moments of the conflict with Russia.
It is worth to note that no information was allowed to leak out of
the council meetings. Furthermore, the election of Metropolitan
Epiphanius was not predetermined. More favouritized were the well known
Metropolitan Simeon of the UOC-MP and Metropolitan Michael from the
UOC-KP. We could only guess why the Council of the Bishops chose
Epiphanius. His young age, although being under the age of the
traditionally accepted age for a chief of an Orthodox Church, is an
important mark for him for staying aside from the bishops’ dependency
from the former Soviet security services. Undoubtedly, his educational
qualification in Greece has also have an impact, further to the good
image he has gained among the local population. On the basis of the
outcomes of the council and statements of Canon the Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew is going to hand on January 6, 2019 a tomos of autocephaly
to the new chief of the local church during his peaceful visit to
Constantinople. The Canon dictates that the first visit of the chief of a
local Orthodox church should be to the chief of the Church of
Constantinople, where he is to introduce himself and receive a document
of his authorities from the hands of His all-holiness Ecumenical
Patriarch. Epiphanius has already received an invitation from Patriarch
Bartholomew immediately after his election.
However, the lack of presence of a large number of bishops of the
UOC-MP at this unification council has undermined its authority without,
at the same time, negating it. The Russian Synod has threatened its
bishops in Ukraine shortly before the Council with excommunication if
they plan participation in the Council. And the excommunication happened
on December 17, 2018, with the two representatives attending the
council. The influence of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and Russian
Federation among Ukrainian bishops is indisputably still big enough to
deter them from uniting with the rest bishops, despite the desire of
many of the religious believers in the country. Rejecting the Council in
Kiev and the decision taken by the ROC two months ago to discontinue
its Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate has weakened
the position of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). This has deprived its
clergy and laymen of the opportunity to visit and participate in church
services not only in Constantinople, but also in Mount Athos. Further
to that the Greek-speaking churches have declared full support to the
Ecumenical Patriarchate resulting in restraint of the influence of the
ROC also to the Holy Lands. A curious fact is that after the decision of
the ROC its clergy turned out to be much more isolated compared to the
clergy of the new Orthodox Kiev church.
As far as the title of the new head is concerned, he is titled
“Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine”, and the title of the local
church – ” Orthodox Church in Ukraine “. Both titles are theologically
correct and any nationalistic associations are avoided. However, the
media in the Russian Federation, but also in Bulgaria have taken on the
ridiculous attitude over the church for not being “a patriarchate”.
First, it has to be clear that in the Slavic tradition, the title
“Metropolitan” is a higher position than Archbishop (contrary to the
Greek tradition), while the title “Bishop” stands below of Archbishop.
Thus, the title “Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine” is equal to
“Archbishop” in the Greek tradition (which is also the titling of the
BOC). Concerning Patriarch, it is a very special title and hard to
obtain – it requires most active church activities, assignment and
education, and, for certain, historical contributions. In addition to
the ancient five patriarchies of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem – another four have been proclaimed since the
Middle Ages and their titles rank with these of the ancient archbishops.
As for the Roman church, a new Roman catholic church was split and
established in 1054.
In fact, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has restored the ancient title
of the Kiev Metropolitan Church, and on January 6, 2019 the church
independence is pending to be declared. Nevertheless, the issue of the
ROC dioceses on the territory of Ukraine remains. According to the
Orthodox canon, on this territory a church different from the local
Orthodox church of Ukraine should not operate, but according to the
secular legislation dictated by the Western world – in the face of the
EU and the USA – a support, on which Ukraine particularly relies on for
its stabilization – the government in Kiev cannot prohibit their
functioning. In order to continue to operate in Ukraine, the ROC have to
rely on the European Court for Human Rights, an institution otherwise
constantly under attack and rejection by the Russian federation. Almost
two decades ago, the great pride of the ROC – a document called the
“Social Concept of the ROC” – implicitly denied the human rights and the
public rhetoric of its prominent head Patriarch Cyril after his
election has always explicitly denied the existence of universal human
rights, while the liberal Western values have been declared “satanic”.
Furthermore, the ROC has also to rely on Ukraine’s negotiations with the
EU, when the rights of all minority communities, including those who
insist to remain within the ROC will be, undoubtedly, put to discussion.
Strange, but true, the ROC will rely on Ukraine’s accession to the EU
in order to remain with its dioceses on Ukrainian territory.
Hereinafter, after receiving the tomos of autocephaly in Kiev, the
question who else will recognize the new church still remains. For sure,
the Greek-speaking churches and the Romanian one will immediately enter
into communion with the bishop of Kiev. Churches, more dependent on
ROCs will not do that so quickly. By canon, however, they are not
obliged to pronounce explicitly their recognition of this church, since
it has received a tomos from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and, in
practice, it does not need further recognition or confirmation of its
existence by other churches. Thus, the synods of churches close to the
ROC will not be put in awkward position to vote decisions that would
confront them with any of the other sides.
The long-lasting consequences of these events will directly affect
Moscow’s claim to play the role of “the centre of Orthodoxy.” This
thesis definitely is no longer relevant outside the Russian Federation,
and the bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine will have to
rely on the European Commission and the US Department of State and its
Bureau for Human and Religious freedom to maintain his positions in this
country.