.png "English"){kind=small}
by Fr. Bohdan Hladio
“No earthly joy exists unmingled with sorrow” —St. John of Damascus
We are all no doubt aware of the controversy surrounding the recent
proclamation of autocephaly for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine by the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. As a Ukrainian Orthodox priest, I cannot
help but see how St. John’s words are an apt description of the
situation of the Orthodox Church in general and myself personally.
I recently traveled to Ukraine, visited friends in previously
“non-canonical” churches and monasteries, and was able to serve the
Liturgy with them. This brought much joy to us all. For most Orthodox
Ukrainians the recognition of the Church in Ukraine as worthy of
autocephaly is the correction of an historical injustice, the righting
of an ecclesial wrong.
Yet I have friends within various Orthodox churches here in North
America who see this proclamation of autocephaly as a source of sorrow.
And I have trouble understanding why.
When talk first began about the possibility of recognizing the
Orthodox Church in Ukraine as autocephalous, contrary voices were raised
saying that to do so would be to “legalize the schism.” In one sense
you almost want to ask, “What are you supposed to do with a schism?” Can
we be happy when millions of Orthodox Christians are out of communion
with world Orthodoxy? If schism is bad for the Church, it obviously
needs to be healed. But how?
“They must repent!” The position taken by the Moscow Patriarchate
Church in Ukraine was that all those belonging to “non-canonical” groups
had to repent and return to the “canonical” Church, following which
contentious issues like liturgical language, church polity, etc. could
be addressed. This approach was clearly unfruitful, and over the past
twenty-nine years the few attempts made by the Moscow Patriarchate to
seek reconciliation were half-hearted at best.
It must be emphasized that the schism which until recently existed in
Ukraine was not dogmatic in nature. The faith, liturgy, discipline and
practice were exactly the same in the “schismatic” as in the “canonical”
Churches. The schism was based, rather, upon politics and culture.
Neither the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church nor the Kyivan
Patriarchate Church wished to be out of communion with world Orthodoxy,
but felt that in good conscience they could not submit to the
jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Such schisms are nothing new. Two recent examples are that of ROCOR
(the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) and the “Free Serbian”
diocese in North America.
In 2007 ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate established Eucharistic
Communion. Those familiar with the history of these two Churches know
how vehemently antagonistic their relationship had been since the
1920’s. Though I am not aware of any official pronouncements by ROCOR
declaring that the Moscow Patriarchate was without grace, many members
of ROCOR – allegedly even its primate, Metropolitan Philaret of blessed
memory – certainly believed the MP (as well as the OCA) was “graceless.”
Yet when it came time for reconciliation there were no
re-consecrations, re-ordinations, or re-baptisms. Just the signing of
documents and concelebration.
Another useful example is that of the of “Serbian-American” schism.
In 1963, the hierarch of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese in the USA, Bishop
Dionisije, was deposed by the Bishop’s Sabor in Belgrade. He ignored
this censure (which he claimed was of political provenance) and
organized the “Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada.” The
schism lasted almost 30 years. The Serbian Patriarchate claimed that
this schismatic body was without grace, and their mysteries were not valid,
an exact parallel to the situation in Ukraine from 1989 to 2018. Yet
when it came time for reconciliation the schism was again healed by
concelebration—no re-consecrations, re-ordinations, etc. I recently
learned that in 1992, when the schism was healed, Patriarch Pavle served
a requiem at Bishop Dionisije’s grave.
Consequently, calls for akribeia (rigor) in healing the
schism in Ukraine, and the castigation of Patriarch Bartholomew and the
Patriarchate of Constantinople for healing the schism by oeconomia (leniency)
seem manifestly unjust. When Serbs and Russians (and those who accept
their legitimacy) who were reconciled by leniency, without public
manifestations of repentance, re-consecration, etc., demand rigor
towards the Orthodox Ukrainians who were in the exact same situation,
their words are, to put it mildly, disingenuous and uncharitable.
The same can be said of calls for a conciliar resolution to this
problem. Patriarch Bartholomew went to great lengths to facilitate the
participation of all the local Churches in the Holy and Great Council in
2016. One of the issues which was originally to have been addressed was
the process for recognizing and proclaiming autocephaly. When leaders
of Churches who refused to participate in the in Holy and Great Council
on Crete now call for a council to be convened to discuss the matter of
Ukrainian autocephaly one can only wonder at their motives.
Regarding Ukraine, there is one fundamental question which needs to
be answered: Given the canonical, administrative, and political
realities of how the Orthodox Church is organized and functions in the
world today, what good reason can there be for denying autocephaly to
the Church in Ukraine? No matter whose “canonical territory” Ukraine
might have been, given the current administrative and organizational
realities within the Orthodox Church, it seems patently absurd that the
Church in Ukraine should not be autocephalous when the Churches in such
countries as Poland or the Czech lands and Slovakia are.
The proclamation of autocephaly for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine
has exposed very real fissures within the structure of the Orthodox
Church: the question of canonical territory; the reality of multiple
jurisdictions in one state or territorial unit; the lack of a clear,
universally accepted process and procedure for the recognition and
proclamation of autocephaly; how primacy is understood and practiced;
the refusal of certain local Churches to attend conciliar gatherings;
etc.
Let us not add fat to the fire by promoting a double standard—by
demanding of the formerly out-of-communion Orthodox Ukrainians the
public repentance which was not required of our Serbian and Russian
brothers and sisters in Christ.
Fr. Bohdan Hladio is a priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, currently serving in Oshawa, Ontario. Besides his pastoral work he has served on many diocesan boards and committees, and has authored one book as well as numerous articles. He is currently completing a Master’s degree at the Orthodox School of Theology, Trinity College, in Toronto.
Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in this essay are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Orthodox Christian Studies Center.
