.png "English"){kind=small}
Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, gave an interview to the TV channel RT.
– What can the Moscow Patriarchate do to support the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?
–
First of all, we are praying for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, for
Ukraine and for the Ukrainian people. At every Liturgy we offer special
petitions and prayers to God that He helps our Ukrainian brothers and
sisters survive at this difficult time of persecution by the Ukrainian
political authorities. I deliberately call it persecution because what
is happening in Ukraine is evidently an intervention of the state in the
internal affairs of the Churches. It was the state which initiated the
process of granting autocephaly to two schismatic groups, unified with
the view of receiving this document from the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. It is the Ukrainian authorities which now insist that
the Ukrainian Orthodox Church should change its name. However, according
to the international norms, a Church itself should choose its name; it
is not for the state to grant the Church a particular name. Yet, this is
what is happening in Ukraine. We also note that many representatives of
the Ukrainian authorities are considering measures aimed at
transferring the property from the canonical Church to the newly created
church organization. It concerns, in particular, the two great
monasteries – the Kiev Caves Lavra and the Pochaev Lavra. Each of these
monasteries has several hundred monks. Besides, the Kiev Theological
Academy is located in the Kiev Caves Lavra. So, it is impossible to
imagine what will happen to these monks and to the students of the
Theological Academy, if these properties will be transferred to the
newly created church organization which has not many, but just a few
monks. It is not clear at all who will be living in these monasteries
and what fate awaits the monks once they are expelled from their abodes.
We hope very much that it will not happen, that, as Mr. Poroshenko said
many times, each person will be able to choose to which church to go
and that there will be no violent seizures of monasteries, churches or
other properties.
– Some Orthodox Churches, like Polish,
Serbian and Antiochian, have already voiced their stance, opposing what
the Patriarchate of Constantinople did in Ukraine. Since you deal with
the exterior relationships of the Russian Orthodox Church, can you tell
us about the stance of other Orthodox Churches around the world?
–
As of today, not a single Orthodox Church has expressed any support for
the Patriarchate of Constantinople in its actions in Ukraine. No
support was given either during the preliminary stages or during the
granting of “autocephaly,” and as far as I know, not a single letter of
congratulations was sent to this newly created organization, in spite of
the insistence of the Patriarch of Constantinople that the other
Orthodox Churches should recognize it as a newly created autocephalous
Church. We shall see how it goes in the future. It is difficult to
predict the Churches’ reaction to a letter which they will receive from
the Patriarch of Constantinople and in which he will invite them to
recognize this new church organization. But as of today, as I said,
there is no support for the actions of Constantinople. Three Orthodox
Churches officially expressed their dissatisfaction, disagreement with
and dismay at what is being done by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Each of these Churches presented it in a different way. Especially
strong was the wording of the Serbian Patriarchate and the Serbian
bishops who openly expressed their disagreement with the whole course of
actions taken by Constantinople. Very firm also is the position of the
Patriarch of Antioch and the Metropolitan of Poland.
– At
the moment the Russian Orthodox Church has nearly cut all ties with the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. Are there any conditions for the
relationships between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of
Constantinople to be back in action again?
– I should
remind you that it is not the first time in history when the Moscow
Patriarchate is not in communion with the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. There was a similar occasion in the mid-15th century
when the Patriarch of Constantinople signed a union with Rome. Back then
the bishops in Moscow elected their metropolitan without
Constantinople’s consent, not because they did not want to receive such
consent, but because there was no Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople
at the time. There was a Uniate Patriarch, and the Russian Church did
not accept Uniatism. Later on, of course, other Patriarchs disagreed
with the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and then it
returned to Orthodoxy. But there were years, during which the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, by being united with Rome, was not in
communion with the other Churches, including the Russian Orthodox
Church, subordinate to Constantinople at the time. Many people are
asking how we are going to survive without communion with
Constantinople. I should remind you that for almost ten centuries we
have been surviving without communion with Rome, and from the point of
view of the Church of Rome, the Church in the proper sense is the one
eucharistically united with Rome, and we are not. They recognize our
sacraments, our priesthood, but still their official documents state
that we are lacking one of the essential marks of the Church, that is,
communion with Rome. Now the Patriarchate of Constantinople in its
papist aspirations decided to employ the same rhetoric, saying that the
Orthodox Church is the one in communion with Constantinople. But what
happens if the Patriarch of Constantinople himself is in schism or in
heresy or if he acts contrary to the will of the other Orthodox
Churches? We are in a situation when we cannot be in the Eucharistic
communion with Constantinople and nobody knows how long it will
continue, maybe again for ten centuries, like it is with the Church of
Rome. Maybe it will be a shorter period. It will depend on
Constantinople. They have done what they have done, and it is difficult
to imagine that they will reverse their actions, so it is equally
difficult to imagine that we will restore communion with Constantinople.
–
Now, unfortunately, when we are talking about Constantinople, we are
talking about the new religious entity in Ukraine as well. In September,
if I may quote you, you said that it is too early to compare the
situation in Ukraine to the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe. That was
when all Jews had to wear a yellow Star of David on their clothing. A
few months have passed already, and we are hearing more and more threats
against representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate. The comparison that
you made in September, is it more relevant now?
– This
comparison is obviously more relevant now, because the Ukrainian state
insists that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church should adopt a new name which
must include the name of Russia as the “aggressor country,” as they
say. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not the Russian Church. It
consists of the Ukrainians who were born in Ukraine, who are citizens of
Ukraine and who are in no way citizens or agents of Russia. The only
link that exists between the Ukrainian Church and the Moscow
Patriarchate is the liturgical commemoration of the Patriarch. There is
no other link. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate
is a self-governing Church, which means that there is no administrative,
financial or any other dependence on Moscow – there is only this
spiritual link inherited from history, which helps us be and feel
ourselves as one Church. The Russian Orthodox Church originated in Kiev,
not in Moscow, not in St. Petersburg. Kiev is our baptismal font. We
respect political borders, but we also expect political leaders to
respect self-consciousness of the faithful in Russia, in Ukraine, in
Byelorussia, in Moldova, and in other states in which the Russian
Orthodox Church has its presence. Recently we have often heard from
representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople that it recognizes
the Moscow Patriarchate in the borders in which it existed at the end
of the 16th century, when the Eastern Patriarchs recognized the
Patriarch of Moscow as the fifth among them. They say that what happened
afterwards was an unlawful expansion of the Russian Orthodox Church. It
is very strange to hear these arguments, for they imply that the
missionary work of the Russian Orthodox Church in the territories that
were gradually added to the Russian Empire was something unlawful. They
imply that the Russian Orthodox Church should have remained within the
limits of the Moscow principalities, and that all new lands added to the
Russian Empire should not have been an area of missionary activities of
the Church. We cannot accept such arguments. We find them foolish and
believe that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is very, very wrong in
these deliberations.
– Orthodox Churches around the world
have equal status, but Constantinople has always been the so-called
first among equals. You said in your earlier interviews that this is no
longer true. So, is there anybody who is playing this role now, or
anybody who is to become the first among equals?
– In the
diptych, which we currently use, the first is the Patriarch of
Alexandria. I repeat that it is not the first time when the Patriarch of
Alexandria de facto occupies the first place. There was the
Third Ecumenical Council which condemned the heretical Patriarch of
Constantinople, Nestorius, and it was the Patriarch of Alexandria,
Cyril, who played a leading role in denouncing Nestorius, convincing the
bishops gathered together from all over the world that the teaching
proclaimed by Patriarch Nestorius was a heretical one. So now in our
diptych the Patriarch of Alexandria occupies the first place, but the
first place in an Orthodox diptych is not something like the primacy of
the Pope in the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church has a
unified structure, and the Pope is considered the head of the Church.
According to the Orthodox ecclesiology, to the Orthodox teaching about
the Church, Jesus Christ Himself is the Head of the Church. And
administratively the Orthodox Church is a confederation (using the
language of civil society and a comparison with a political structure)
of independent Churches which are not subordinate to each other, even if
by protocol they occupy certain places. It is, for example, like
countries in the United Nations. They are listed in a certain order, but
it does not mean that one country is subordinate to another one. In the
same way, the Orthodox world has never known subordination of one
Church to another Church. Now the Patriarchate of Constantinople wants
to create such subordination, and the newly established organization in
Ukraine is an “autocephalous church” (I say it in inverted commas),
designed in accordance with the desires of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. It is not a truly independent Church, because the tomos
granted to it lays down many conditions on which it receives this
so-called “autocephaly.” One of the conditions is that it should
recognize the Patriarch of Constantinople as their head. Another
condition is that any bishop and any clergyman, even priest or deacon,
from this so-called “church of Ukraine” can appeal to the Patriarch of
Constantinople, if he disagrees with his own bishop or with his own
church authorities, and it is the Patriarch of Constantinople who will
resolve such matters. Besides, this “church” is deprived of the right to
establish parishes in the Diaspora. In practice it will mean that the
Ukrainians who are living in the Diaspora, and there are many of them in
Italy, Spain, Portugal and other European countries, as well as in the
USA, will go to parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, as they do now.
Even if they wanted to go to the Ukrainian parishes, there is no such
possibility for this newly created church organization.
–
There is a new religious entity in Ukraine at the moment. Does it have a
future, in your opinion, and what kind of future awaits this new
religious entity? Can we talk about long term, short term or we cannot
predict anything at this point?
– I do not think I should
predict what will happen in the future. I only deeply regret that the
Patriarchate of Constantinople took this position. It is clear to me
that it is a revenge for non-participation of the Russian Orthodox
Church in the Council of Crete which was convoked by the Patriarch of
Constantinople and in which we did not take part because of
non-participation of several other Churches. For some reasons the
Patriarch of Constantinople believes that the Russian Orthodox Church
prompted these other Churches, namely the Churches of Antioch, Bulgaria
and Georgia, not to attend the Council. In reality, it was the other way
round. These Churches decided against participating, and it was only
after they had announced it that our Church took a decision not to
attend the Council. But as I said, the Patriarch of Constantinople was
convinced by someone that the Russian Orthodox Church had plotted
against Constantinople, and what we see now is a revenge. I think they
will reap what they sow.
– Patriarch Bartholomew, like you
said earlier, is trying to divide the Russian Orthodox Church. Do you
think it is coming out of vengeance or something like that?
–
This is what I say, and this is what many people in the Orthodox
Churches which I visited say. Even many of the Primates told me that
Patriarch Bartholomew was deeply offended by the Russian Orthodox Church
and that he believed that the Russian Orthodox Church had organized the
plot. In fact, Patriarch Bartholomew himself told me about a year ago,
when I visited him, that in his opinion it was the Russian Orthodox
Church which instigated this non-participation of the other Churches in
the Council of Crete. I was unable to convince him otherwise.
– It is like his eyes and ears are closed, right?
–
Yes, and he turns a deaf ear to many voices and many warnings coming
from the other Local Orthodox Churches. We know that several Churches
openly voiced their disagreement with his actions, and in private
conversations representatives of several Churches advised him against
going along this path. Regrettably, he did not listen either to
Patriarch Kirill who visited him personally on the 31st of August, or to the other Primates.
–
It became evident with the recent events that the authority of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople has been diminished, no matter what is
happening. What repercussions will that diminished authority have for
the rest of the Orthodox world?
– The division which
existed in Ukraine now exists in the rest of the Orthodox world as well.
We shall see how the Orthodox Churches will respond to the
establishment of this new church organization. I very much hope that
they will not recognize it. In the event that some of the Churches
recognize this newly created organization, the division will be likely
to deepen. We do hope that it will not happen and that the Orthodox
Churches will stand in solidarity with each other, as they did before.
