FR. BOHDAN HLADIO, ''Ukrainian Autocephaly: Reflections from the Diaspora'', in
The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukraine Autocephaly, Evagelos Sotiropoulos, Editor, May 2019, ORDER OF SAINT ANDREW THE APOSTLE, ARCHONS OF THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE, pp. 35-41.
In April 2018, the Ecumenical Patriarchate began theprocess which culminated in the Orthodox Church in Ukraine(OCU) receiving a tomos of autocephaly in January of this year.The reaction of Orthodox Ukrainians in the diaspora to this eventcan be summed up in two words: someone cares!For centuries Ukraine was a stateless nation, its peopleliving on the territories of the Russian or Austro-Hungarianempires, Polish commonwealth, or the Kingdom of Romania.
Though Ukraine achieved “Republic” status within the Soviet Union, it was in fact still treated as a colonial territory by thepolitical leaders in Moscow. Both Russian imperial as well as Soviet historiography regarded Ukraine, its people, its language and its culture as part of a “great Russian” nation, with no realidentity of its own.
Though Kyivan Rus’ was Christianized by the Church of Constantinople in the 10th century, due to Mongol and Tatarincursions, as well as the political ascendency of Muscovy in the14th and 15th, centuries the centre of Church and political lifemoved north to Muscovy, though Kyiv remained a Metropolitansee under Constantinople. The decision by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to transfer responsibility forconsecrating the Metropolitan of Kyiv to the Church of Moscow in1686, though made for practical reasons, became a great source ofvexation and resentment for Orthodox Ukrainians.Over the centuries the hopes of Ukrainians to regain bothpolitical as well as ecclesiastical independence intensified. Thoughthe attempts by the Moscow Patriarchate, beginning in 1917, tosuppress Ukrainian aspirations for its own autocephalousOrthodox Church were unsuccessful, the Churches which didexist, both in Ukraine as well as in the diaspora, bore for decadesthe cross of isolation. Following the reception of the UkrainianOrthodox Churches of Canada and the United States into the bosom of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (in 1990 and 1995,respectively), a normal and healthy interaction between thesechurches and world Orthodoxy began.The Ukrainian Orthodox Churches which arose in Ukraineduring the dissolution of the Soviet Union (UkrainianAutocephalous Orthodox Church in 1989 and the UkrainianOrthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate in 1992) were not seekingisolation, but rather recognition, from world Orthodoxy,specifically from the Ecumenical Patriarchate.As a Ukrainian Orthodox priest of the EcumenicalPatriarchate I felt the discomfort of the schism more than most.Visiting Ukraine was very challenging. No matter which Church Ivisited, it could be (and often was) perceived as an act of politicsrather than piety. The Moscow Patriarchate Churches in Ukraineserve (with rare exceptions) in Church Slavonic with the Russian(rather than Ukrainian) pronunciation. Unless a person has studiedthis language, it is relatively unintelligible to Ukrainian or Russianspeakers, similar to the intelligibility of biblical or liturgical Greekfor most speakers of modern Greek. While visiting Ukraine in 2006,I attended a Divine Liturgy at the Kyiv Caves monastery served in Slavonic; that same evening I went to St. Michael’s Cathedral (then of the Kyivan Patriarchate, currently the Metropolitan Cathedral ofthe OCU) where the Akathist was served in Ukrainian. Thecontrast was stark: at the Monastery of the Caves I felt as if I was in Russia (even the signage was in Russian), whereas at St. Michael’s Cathedral I felt at home in Ukraine.For Ukrainian Orthodox Christians in the diaspora the bestowal of autocephaly means three things:
acknowledgment, justice, and respect.It acknowledges that Ukraine exists, as a state with aparticular culture, language, tradition, history, and Church.It is an act of justice, the correction of an historical andecclesiastical anomaly. Why should Ukraine, with its more-than-millennial history as an Orthodox nation, not have anautocephalous Orthodox Church as other traditionally Orthodoxcountries, nations and lands do? The repeal of the 1686 agreement between Constantinople and Moscow by the EcumenicalPatriarchate was regarded by Ukrainians as an especiallymeaningful act of redress.Finally, respect: Orthodox Ukrainians, notwithstandingtheir deep piety, millennial history, and martyric sacrifices, havegenerally felt denigrated. The unfortunate result of the irregularconsecrations of the Kyiv Autocephalous Sobor of October 1921was a legacy of suspicion towards the Ukrainian Church which haspersisted to this day. We can now, with gratitude to God, take ourplace as brothers and sisters in Christ with all the Orthodoxpeoples of the world.When visiting Ukraine during Soviet times, one thing people always said was, “We don’t want luxuries, we don’t want people to give us anything, we just want to be able to work and have a normal life.” This attitude is, I think, exactly the way members of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine see life after thetomos.While Ukrainian autocephaly has brought joy to many,three troubling realities need to be acknowledged.First, we must note the failure, to date, of other localchurches to recognize Ukrainian autocephaly. Though hopefully atemporary phenomenon, it hinders the growth and development ofthe OCU when such help and direction could do the greatestamount of good. The early years of life are always the mostformative. (What has been especially vexing for Ukrainians is thefact that certain hierarchs of the Church of Poland have been very critical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s actions in Ukraine, yet the
Church in Poland received autocephaly in 1924 from theEcumenical Patriarchate based on the fact that part of the territoryof the Polish state had been within the borders of the KyivanMetropolia.)Second, the polemical stance taken by certain localchurches, hierarchs, clergy, and individuals towards the OCUcannot bear good fruit. Ukrainians have had considerable practice in developing a “fortress” mentality. When the general attitude is“everyone is against us” it is much more difficult to cultivateconstructive, healthy relationships with “strangers” (ξένοι,чужі). As has been noted, isolation has been a bane for UkrainianOrthodox Churches both in the homeland as well as in thediaspora for decades.The third and final point, and perhaps the mostproblematical one, is the failure of the Moscow PatriarchateChurch in Ukraine to accept the autocephaly of the OCU. On theone hand, it is not surprising, as over 300 years of colonialdomination by the Russian and Soviet Empires cannot help buthave left their mark, both politically and ecclesiastically. On theother hand, however, it is a tragedy that all the time, energy, and resources which will continue to be invested in polemical agitationagainst the OCU, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and EcumenicalPatriarch Bartholomew will not be used for Orthodoxevangelization, Christian education, or charitable endeavors.The position of the Moscow Patriarchate regarding thetomos is understandable. Of course, the Russian Federation doesnot want to lose its influence in Ukraine; and, following theRussian invasion of the Donbas and its annexation of Crimea, theonly instrument of influence left there is the Moscow PatriarchateChurch.Nevertheless, two things should be remembered.First, there is a war ongoing, which is tragic. The leadershipof an ostensibly Orthodox nation has been waging a war against aneighboring Orthodox nation for almost five years. While inUkraine, I met people who have lost family members due to thisegregious breach of international law, and soldiers who have beenpermanently maimed defending their country. The questiontherefore arises: why would reasonable Ukrainians wish to belongto a Church closely allied to the government of a country killing itscitizens?Second, as emphasized by His All-Holiness, Bartholomew,the Moscow Patriarchate Church in Ukraine has not had anysuccess whatsoever in healing a schism that lasted for almost 30years. At some point, when tens of millions of people are inschism for decades for non-dogmatic reasons, someone needs to dosomething. I am confident that I can speak for the tens of millionsof Ukrainians, both in Ukraine as well as in the diaspora, when I say: “Thank God Patriarch Bartholomew took this bold andcourageous step! Thank God the Ecumenical Patriarchate cares!”
What does autocephaly mean for Ukrainians? Dignity. Justice. Equality. Respect. The spurious and unchristian attacks against “schismatics” (which are, in fact, an attack against the grace and authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) and the withholdingof recognition of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine by other localChurches are an affront–sometimes a very hypocritical anddisingenuous affront–to the Orthodox people of Ukraine.Such a state of affairs cannot help but reflect poorly uponthose who disagree with the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s decision,and upon the Orthodox Church as a whole