On May 19-22 of this year the delegation of the Patriarchate
of Constantinople stayed on
a visit in Ukraine at the invitation of the President of Ukraine Victor
Yushchenko; it consisted of Metropolitan of All France Emmanuel, Secretary
General of the Holy Synod archimandrite Elpidophor (Lambriniadis) and a priest Basil Papathanassiou.
At the request of the editorial staff
His Grace Alexander (Drabynko), Bishop of
Pereyaslav-Khmelnytskyi, Vicar of the Kyiv Metropolis and Secretary to the
Primate of the UOC commented on the results of the visit.
- Vladyka, what is your view of the results of visit to Ukraine made by the delegation of the Constantinople
Patriarchate with Metropolitan of France at the head?
- De jure the delegation arrived at the invitation of the President
of Ukraine, but de facto the
receiving party was the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Naturally, if the visit, its programme and the invitation were arranged in
consultation with the hierarchy of the UOC it would be more effective. Nevertheless we believe that this visit will
enable Constantinople to realize more clearly all the complexity of the church
situation in Ukraine
and to make respective conclusions.
Since in the course of their visit the Greek party had an opportunity to
communicate with the episcopacy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Kyiv and
Lviv, and to become personally certain how different is the quality of
ecclesiastic life in the canonical church from the one in schism. If the UOC had more relation to the
arrangement of the visit we might suggest to visit some more regions of Ukraine and to
talk not only to the hierarchy but to the voice of God - to the faithful people.
- It is said that first Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas
planned to be on the delegation, but later it turned out that Metropolitan of France
Emmanuel was at the head of the
delegation. To your opinion what does
it testify to?
- It is difficult to
comment on the unofficial information. It is more logical to address your
question to the representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But if
the information you refer to is correct it might mean that Constantinople
tried to solve certain diplomatic tasks revising the composition of the
delegation.
- To your
mind, what was the aim of this visit?
- We have a complicated
church situation in Ukraine
now. Along with the canonical hierarchy there are two non-canonical schismatic
church groupings that constantly appeal to Constantinople
asking this ancient church to become a kind of mediator in the controversy
between the Ukrainian self-appointed churches and the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church. It is obvious that the
Patriarchate of Constantinople was interested to look at the situation
personally. We think that the Greek
party could make independent unbiased conclusions on the true situation of
those who seceded from the church unity, their integrity and their influence
upon the social conscience.
- According to the information of the electronic media the delegation of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople met the
representatives of the UOC-KP and of the UAOC. In what way can these meetings
be regarded?
- Any thing or situation
can be seen from different angles. From the point of view of the principles of
church diplomacy it was not an accurate behaviour. Moreover, it is a certain challenge to the
canonical Church. Imagine reaction
of the Greek party if the delegation Russian Orthodox Church met the representatives of the schismatic
groupings of the Greek old-stylers in the canonical territory of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. I'm sure that Constantinople
would immediately declare that the Russian Orthodox Church interferes in
the internal affairs of the Patriarchate
of Constantinople.
Nevertheless, one can find certain positive aspects of these meetings. First,
it should be noted that two meetings took place. Since the UOC-KP and the UOAC
are in the state of confrontation the delegation of Constantinople
met separately with the UOC-KP and the UAOC leaders. In other words, the representatives of Constantinople saw for themselves that there was no unity
in the autocephalous camp. Moreover, it
is reported that the UAOC representatives declared to
the Greek party that this church grouping would never join any unified church, if its former leader Metropolitan Philaret were at its head.
Secondly, communicating with the representatives of the canonical Ukrainian
Orthodox Church and those of the schismatic groupings, the Greek delegation
might have made respective conclusions as for the human resources. The clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church compare
favourably with the members of the schismatic churches, made
up of the renegades, by the level of education, theological thought and
canonical discipline. Who is a renegade?
It's a clergyman who did not find his place in the canonical church. Some of them failed to make a career: having
necessary ambition they lacked education and other relevant qualities. Some of
them made unethical deeds and went to the "new churches" to avoid canonical
responsibility. Some of them got into schisms due to immaturity of their
ecclesiological consciousness... How can
one create an effective ecclesiastic organism with such human resource? Anarchism is one of the manifestations of
egotism. How can one organize
ecclesiastic life on basis of an assembly of egotisms? How can one match with
the interests of many when each of them thinks only of oneself and is guided by
the logics of egotism?
Besides, the Constantinople party had their
personal interest in communication with our brothers who had seceded from the
church unity, it is the question of jurisdictional subordination of the
Ukrainian Diaspora. It is well-known that the UOC-KP and
the UAOC had their own structures abroad, and in the USA
in particular. However, the Patriarchate of Constantinople believes that the Orthodox diaspora must be exclusively under the jurisdiction of Constantinople (though this position of Constantinople the orthodox fullness does not share). Thus,
no doubt that in the course of meeting with the former metropolitan Philaret
and the representatives of the UAOC the question of reassignment of the Ukrainian
Diaspora was touched upon.
- However, there is a risk that the very fact of such meeting may be
considered by the schismatics as a step towards legalization of the
self-proclaimed "Kyivan Patriarchate", isn't there?
- Modern PR
technologies allow for various interpretations of an event. However, any recognition of the "Kyivan
Patriarchate" by Constantinople is out of the
question. It was more than once emphasized.
The recognition requires presence of a relatively adequate church structure. In the course of negotiations with the Russian
Orthodox Church Constantinople more than once pointed out that it fully agreed
to the opinion of absence of the apostolic succession in ordinations taking
place at the UOC-KP and UAOC. Thus, to
recognize such an institution as the self-proclaimed ‘Kyivan Patriarchate' Constantinople needs to recognize the UOC-KP or UAOC as
ecclesiastic structures with apostolic succession. But it is impossible, since
the analysis of circumstances under which these ordinations were performed
testify to the fact that they cannot be recognized even from the point of view
of oikonomia.
Recognition of the self-proclaimed "Kyivan Patriarchate" does not serve the
interests of Constantinople. Today Constantinople is more interested in Estonian version, i.e. in subjection of the
non-canonical church groupings in Ukraine. However this task is
idealistic, since it won't solve the main problem of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy - its unity. The idea of the united Ukrainian
Church, fostered by our president, on
whose initiative Constantinople was involved
into solving the Ukrainian church problem, will be done with forever. The main motivation of the flock of the UOC-KP
and of the UAOC is creation of the fully autonomous or autocephalous church. Besides, even if schismatics will get
unlawfully under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, they would never
become a less anarchist structure, so, sooner or later Constantinople may expect self-proclamation of the new
"Ukrainian autocephaly" on basis of the former clergymen of this
Patriarchate.
A schism can be healed. But for this end a free good will of both sides - a
doctor and a patient is needed. The
remedy is in the fold of the Catholic Orthodox Church, the canonical Ukrainian
Orthodox Church being its manifestation in Ukraine. However, for healing the schism consent
of a patient is required. It is
necessary to understand - the Ukrainian Orthodox Church insists on penitence of
schismatics not for the sake of public recognition of their defeat. Penitence is not crawling upon one's knees
and pleading for forgiveness, as somebody might suggest. The Church is ruled by the pastoral logic, not
the political one. Penitence is not a
formality, it is a testimony that a person who performed it had changed its way
of being, i.e. had conquered his egocentricity. Therefore until our sisters and
brothers remaining beyond the church unity come to the conclusion that they
lack integrity, until they turn to the universal orthodoxy with a request for
healing them, it in no use to try establishing any church structures on their
basis.
- Don't you suggest a possibility that the schismatic can do penance before Constantinople?
- Imagine a scene:
somebody lifted his hand against the mother and therefore was rejected by the
whole family. The time passed and this person got tired of living alone and
asked forgiveness for his deed before the uncle. Tell me please, will the family accept such
penance and accept its former member back? The penance is not a political or a diplomatic
formality, it is a mystery. Profanation of the mystery will not bring necessary
result: changing the way of living from egoistic one to churchly. Thus, even if illusive geopolitical
strategies will shade ecclesiastic conscience of Constantinople,
and it will agree to the version of penance mentioned nothing will change as a
result. The dissent between the canonical UOC and the non-canonical church
groupings in Ukraine
will remain as sharp and dramatic. Besides, Constantinople will integrate into its composition an uncontrolled
church grouping, and thus will ‘undermine' its canonical territory. This
example may be followed by the American church, whose clergy seeks autocephaly.
The
autocephalous movement will not so easily refuse an idea of full independence. If
the UAOC joins the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the "UAOC-2" will emerge
next day. If the UOC-KP joins the Patriarchate of Constantinople, UOC-KP-2 will emerge. And so on, infinitely, until the schismatics come to the conclusion that
churchliness, Eucharistic communion and observation of the holy canons within
the Catholic Church is prior to the problem of canonical status. So you cannot separate from the
Church in order to make it give the separated part a new status. The schism
is not healed mechanically. The radical change of ecclesiastic consciousness is
required, a change of mind. And here the main problem lies.
- Do you think the representatives of Constantinople
became sure of it?
- The Ukrainian
Orthodox Church, notwithstanding with the obstacles caused by schism is
developing dynamically, it has the strongest missionary potential in Ukraine,
the best theological schools and publications, in other words, it lives a full
life. Any non-biased onlooker can make
sure of it. Speaking of the alternative
orthodoxy in Ukraine,
it has serious problems. Critical lack
of personnel, absence of normal theological education, low quality of
publishing activity, absence of regular missionary and social activities - and
you can make conclusions by yourselves.
- Are you
satisfied with the state of relations between Constantinople
and Kyiv?
- The Ukrainian
Orthodox Church is grateful to Constantinople
for the testimony of truth it has brought to our country and the entire church
world since 1992. And in particular for
the fact that it testifies that it recognizes only one canonical Ukrainian
Orthodox Church with Metropolitan Volodymyr at the head. "We came to you to
testify that His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew recognizes only you as a
lawful Kyiv bishop. These were the first words of the Greek delegation. And we
are grateful for this testimony of the Constantinople Patriarchate,
understanding it as fulfillment of the greatest task of fostering the Orthodox
unity, which this ancient church executes today.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople now exists in very complicated historical
circumstances. Practically this is the question of confessing the Orthodox faith in the Islamic
country. In Turkey
the fundamentalist movement becomes more and more influential, trying to force
the Patriarchate of
Constantinople out of the country and to transfer
its see to one of the European countries.
We are aware of the situation and understand that some of the steps of
Constantinople are intended not to interfere with the interests of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but to demonstrate the international community and
the Turkish authorities that Patriarch Bartholomew in not only a Primate of a
small church, uniting the Greek diaspora, but the international church
leader. Therefore in our dialogue with Constantinople we act from the spirit of brotherly love. There are real problems in our relations but there
is love and desire to understand each other.
We hope that all the problems will find constructive solution and all
the small misunderstandings will be covered but mutual love.
The interview
was conducted by Alexander Andrushchenko
| |
|
