On October 11th last year the Ecumenical Patriarchate
overturned its decision to temporarily transfer to Moscow the right to
ordain the popularly elected metropolitan of Kyiv on the basis of the
unfulfilled conditions on the part of ROC, as well as due to the change
in the global socio-political situation. Thus, the Ecumenical
Patriarchate brought back under its omophorion the Metropolis of Kyiv.
For the last 300 years Moscow had ruled the Kyiv Metropolis, eradicating
all local Ukrainian traditions, gradually limiting the rights of the
Metropolis. With its decision, the Ecumenical Throne declared the
removal of the anathema on Metropolitan Filaret (Ukrainian Orthodox
Church – Kyiv Patriarchate, UOC-KP) proclaimed by Moscow, and
accordingly recognized the canonicity of his ordinances and of the
ordinances of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC). At the
same time, the Primate of the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP)
Onufriy was invited to join the restored Kyiv Metropolis and nominate
his candidacy for the post of Primate of the UAOC. However, he did not
attend the local council.
On December 15, 2018, the Unification Council took place at the
Cathedral of Saint Sofia, where, after sending personal invitations to
each of the Ukrainian bishops, a decision was made to unite the three
Orthodox jurisdictions of Ukraine. The council was chaired by an Exarch
specially designated by the Ecumenical Throne; it was the Metropolitan
of France Emanuel (Adamakis). Thus, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – the
Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (both
of which decided to dissolve on the eve of the council) became part of
the Kyiv Metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. At the same
time, the third branch – the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow
Patriarchate) – was represented by only two bishops who did not
constitute a majority. At this gathering, the charter proposed by the
Constantinople canonists was adopted and the Primate of the new
metropolis was elected – the Metropolitan of Kyiv Epiphanius (Dumenko),
who was considered to be a protégé of the Patriarch of the UOC-KP
Filaret. The latter received the title of “honorary patriarch” at the
council.
On January 5th, 2019, Patriarch Bartholomew of
Constantinople signed the tomos for the Autocephaly of the Metropolis of
Kyiv, and on the following day handed the tomos to Metropolitan
Epiphanius as Primate of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. From that point
on, the KP was included in the diptych (list of recognized local
churches) of Constantinople.
In restoring the Metropolis of Kyiv and granting autocephaly to it,
Constantinople was guided both by the unanimous desire of the Ukrainian
bishopric (expressed in 1991 and 1992) and the call of the state
structures – the President and parliament (2018), but also by the
territorial Principle of the Orthodox Church: Independent State –
Autocephalous Church.
Although the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as the
mother-church of all the Orthodox and of the Kyiv Metropolis is final
and does not require any further approval or consent from other Orthodox
churches, the Moscow Patriarchate strongly opposed the actions of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, calling them “an attack on its canonical
territory.” It should be noted that Moscow has always had an
unceremonious approach to foreign canonical territories, absorbing, for
example, the Georgian Patriarchate (1810), a number of metropolis of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g. Gothic (1786), Bessarabian (1813),
and Estonian ( 1940), the Metropolis of Bukovina of the Romanian
Orthodox Church (1944), the Eastern Dioceses of the Polish Autocephalous
Orthodox Church (1939) simply by territorial principle: since these
dioceses are part of a state with a capital in Moscow, they should obey
the Moscow church. Now that principle was turned against it [1]
However, in pursuing Kremlin’s imperial policy and thus enjoying its
support, the Moscow Patriarchate succeeded in insinuating the need for
further “approval” of the decision of the Ecumenical Throne not only by
other local churches, but also by the Bishopric of the Orthodox Church
of Ukraine (OCU). The latter, however, is humanly understandable: for a
quarter of a century, Moscow has labelled supporters of Ukraine’s
ecclesiastical independence as “graceless schismatics,” so that they now
crave to be recognized as soon as possible by the entire World
Orthodoxy, in a document, namely in the decisions of the Synods of all
other local churches.
First and involuntary step – New schism initiated by Filaret
In mid-May, the “Honorary Patriarch” Filaret declared a breach of
verbal agreements guaranteeing him an active participation in the
management of the OCU, and on June 20th he held a Local
Council of the UOC-KP, in which, in addition to Filaret himself, two
other bishops from Russia participated thus excluding themselves from
the OCU. However, since Filaret was personally anathemized by Moscow in
1997, representatives of many local churches called him a “major
obstacle to the recognition” of the UOC-KP and subsequently of the OCU
of which he was part. In addition, his extremely authoritarian style of
governance also pushed away both laymen and clergy. Now this toxic
individual has withdrawn from the OCU on his own decision.
Second step, independent – Creating the Romanian Vicariate
As there is an Orthodox Ukrainian Vicariate in Romania that enjoys
autonomy rights and is reporting directly to head of the Romanian
Orthodox Church, the Synod of the OCU at its meeting on July 27, 2019
decided to create a symmetrical structure – the Orthodox Romanian
Vicariate which also has autonomy and is reporting directly to the
Metropolitan of Kyiv – the Primate of the OCU. In the drafting of the
Vicariate Statute “brotherly cooperation with the Romanian Orthodox
Church” was stated (https://www.pomisna.info/uk/vsi-novyny/zhurnaly-zasidannya-svyashhennogo-synodu-vid-27-lypnya-2019-r/).
This step is a response to concerns about the fate of the 127
Romanian-speaking parishes in Northern Bukovina expressed by the Synod
of the Romanian Orthodox Church in a statement (https://basilica.ro/noi-hotarari-ale-sfantului-sinod-al-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-februarie-2019/)
from February 21st this year. It is possible that regulating the status
of these parishes will facilitate the recognition of OCU by Bucharest.
Third step, joint- service with a Bishop of the Church of Greece
On the day of the Baptism of Kievan Rus – July 28, Kyiv Metropolitan
Epiphanius with Metropolitan Ioannis of Langada, as a representative of
the Orthodox Church of Greece, concelebrated the Anniversary with a
service. Moreover, on the eve of this event in Greece, the bishop of the
OCU Germanos celebrated the Divine Liturgy with Bishop Germanos of the
Autocephalous Church of Ukraine.
It is interesting to note that the Langada Eparchy is located in the
so-called “new lands” of Greece and because of their special status
falls under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but they
also comply with the decisions of the Synod of the Church of Greece
(Archbishopric of Athens).
Previously, Moscow interpreted this double subordination in its favour – when representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate celebrated liturgies with the bishops of the “new lands” (https://cerkvarium.org/ru/novosti/pomestnye-tserkvi/vazhno-mitropolit-moskovskogo-patriarkhata-sosluzhil-s-predstavitelyami-konstantinopolya), subordination to Athens was emphasized, but now the interpretation has changed in the opposite direction – the “new lands” comply only with Constantinople (https://iz.ru/904456/andrei-serebrich/sviazannye-odnoi-tcerkoviu) – an obvious inconsistency.
Also, the Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece (Archbishopric of
Athens) is only convened once a year for a regular session – in October,
when it will declare its official position on the OCU. However, the
facts of concelebrating tell us what decision the Synod will take. In
church diplomacy concelebrating is considered factual recognition. And
in fact, before two weeks, at its extraordinary meeting the Athens Synod
acknowledged the canonicity of the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew. This is correct from a canonical point of view, since only
the Ecumenical Patriarchate can grant autocephaly, the Synod of Athens
cannot do it and can only ascertain the canonicity of what has been
done, recommending in the next stage the Primate of the archbishopric
Jeronymus to concelebrate in a Liturgy of the highest level with the
Primate of the OCU and fill in his diptychs with his name.
So, during the two summer months, the OCU made three important steps
towards its optional but desirable Orthodox recognition: it was cleared
of the toxic element, fulfilled the wishes of the Synod of the Romanian
Orthodox Church, and served liturgy with the representative of a
particularly influential Orthodox church – the Archbishopric of Athens.
In addition, the author has inside information on the willingness of
bishops of some other local churches to engage with the OCU before their
Synods express an official position. All of this inspires confidence
that by the end of the year, Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kyiv will be
cited not only in the Liturgy not only by Patriarch Bartholomew, but
also by several other Primates of local Orthodox churches.
[1] A
similar role played the feud between Bulgarians and Greeks, instigated
by Russian diplomacy after the Crimean War, and the organization of the
Exarchy in 1870 as a pro-Russian structure, as Russian diplomacy thought
that after a possible conflict with the Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria and
its neighboring territories will also be part of the Russian Empire. The
situation with the brief conflict between Romanians and the Ecumenical
Patriarchate at the end of the 19th century, after the Russian-Turkish
War of 1877-78 is similar.