Letter #4, 2019: Ukraine

Acasă > Ştiri > Arhivă Ştiri

Timp stanga: 0,57s...

Ştiri şi Evenimente

Letter #4, 2019: Ukraine

[2019-01-24]

[Engleză]

The Controversy over the Orthodox Church in Ukraine

The debate over the government of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine continues.

A report (below) — out today in Moscow, Russia — says that the imminent enthronement of the new head of the autocephalous Orthodox Church, Yepifaniy Dumenko, 39 — something supported by Ukraine's secular government, but contested by the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate in Moscow as uncanonical according to Orthodox law and tradition — will not be attended by representatives from all of the other Orthodox Churches in the world, but only by the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey).

Thus, it seems that the disagreement (chiefly between Moscow, Kiev and Constantinople, but involving Orthodox leaders everywhere) over how to govern the Orthodox Christians in Ukraine is still very profound.

Of course, it has been our work at our Urbi et Orbi Foundation for almost 20 years now to try to "build bridges" between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in view of eventual closer relations and possible full reunion (concerts, pilgrimages, book translations, common projects seeking to "incarnate" the hope that what unites us is greater than what divides us).

In this context, these latest, divisive events, setting one part of the Orthodox world against another, have seemed to signal the failure of our efforts — as if all that we have struggled to achieve has been, in some way, without fruit, without any visible, enduring success.

But, as someone has told us, the darkest hour comes just before the dawn, and perhaps in the long effort for closer relations between separated Christians, the work to continue to "build bridges" is all the more important now, in this moment of deep tension.

So, we will try to carry on. And we provide this report on the attendance plans of the various Orthodox Churches, and the long background report on the history of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine by Peter Anderson, as part of an effort to educate and inform, in view of "building bridges" of understanding.

Anderson's piece is quite long, but quite clear and comprehensive and so, we think, useful in offering insight into how this whole controversy began.

Peter Anderson is an old and dear friend. He is a Roman Catholic observer of the Orthodox world who lives in Seattle, Washington (USA). He is a retired lawyer, and now spends his time studying Orthodox affairs. He is arguably one of the finest, and fairest, such observers in the world today. His article, which we publish below, also appears in print form in the January issue of Inside the Vatican magazine (to receive a copy of this interesting issue, or to become a regular subscriber, call 1-800-789-9494.)

(1) Article from Moscow about attendance of ceremony in Kiev

24 January 2019, 17:05

No Orthodox Churches except Constantinople to attend enthronement of head of new church of Ukraine — Moscow Patriarchate

Moscow, January 24, Interfax — None of the world's Orthodox Churches except for Constantinople will send a delegation to the enthronement of Yepifaniy Dumenko, the head of Ukraine's new church, the Moscow Patriarchate said.

"None of the world's local Orthodox Churches has recognized the church recently created by Ukrainian politicians and Phanar or congratulated its head. No one is going to send representatives to the 'enthronement' of its so-called head on February 3," Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, the deputy head of the Synodal Department for External Church Relations, said at a meeting in Moscow on Thursday.

Many Orthodox Churches of the world through their Synods and hierarchs have expressed "deep concern about the current invasion of politics" into church life, and such interference has also been condemned by the Vatican, he said.

The situation of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine will be the central issue at meetings between Patriarch Kirill and the leaders of local Churches to be held as part of the celebrations in Moscow of the 10th anniversary of the Local Assembly and the election of Patriarch Kirill.

Among the guests of the events will be the head of the Antioch and Serbian Orthodox Churches, the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, the Orthodox Church in America, and high-ranking representatives of other local Churches.

"The celebrations will be an opportunity to discuss issues arising not only in Ukraine, but in the global Orthodox family," he said.

(2) The comprehensive background piece by Peter Anderson (below)

Left, Peter Anderson, a retired attorney from Seattle, Washington, author of this comprehensive piece on the historical background of the decision of Constantinople to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine . Anderson was a personal friend of the late Alexi II (1929-2008), Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Russia, and Anderson has spent a lifetime following events in the Orthodox world. He writes a regular column for Inside the Vatican magazine. (To subscribe to ITV, call 1-800-789-9494)

Ukraine — Special Report

The Ukraine-Russia Crisis Tests the Authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch

By Peter Anderson

Inside the Vatican, January 2019

On December 15, 2018, a “unifying council” of bishops was held in the historic 11th century Saint-Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv, Ukraine.

The council consisted of approximately 40 bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church — Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), approximately a dozen bishops of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC), and just two bishops from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church — Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP).

The UOC-MP, which is the largest Orthodox church in Ukraine with approximately 12,500 parishes and 90 bishops, boycotted the council except for two metropolitans who defied their church and attended.

The UOC-KP and the UAOC were both considered by the Orthodox world to be “schismatic churches” as they had broken off from the Moscow Patriarchate because they insisted that the Orthodox Church in Ukraine should be completely independent of Moscow.

On the other hand, the UOC-MP, which contends that the Moscow Patriarchate has granted it a considerable amount of autonomy as a practical matter, has refused to sever its relationship with Moscow.

Neither the UOC-KP nor the UAOC has been recognized by the rest of the Orthodox world as being canonical.

In contrast, all have recognized as canonical the UOC-MP, which as a result enjoys a full Eucharist relationship with all of the world’s 14 Local Orthodox Churches.

At the December 15 council in Kyiv, the bishops dissolved both the UOC-KP and the UAOC.

They created a new “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU), which is intended to encompass all of the Orthodox believers in Ukraine.

The UOC-KP had previously been headed by “Patriarch” Filaret (Denisenko), and the UOAC had been headed by Metropolitan Makary (Maletych).

At the council, both of these bishops stepped down from their positions as primates of their respective churches.

Instead, a new primate was elected to head the just-established OCU. The new head is 39-year-old Metropolitan Epifany, a bishop of the former UOC-KP.

It was also announced at the council that the new head, Metropolitan Epifany, would travel to Istanbul and on January 6, 2019, celebrate the Divine Liturgy with Ecumenical Patriarchate Bartholomew and receive from the Ecumenical Patriarch a very important formal written document, called a tomos, which would grant autocephaly to the new OCU.

Autocephaly would mean that the OCU would be a completely independent Local Orthodox Church.

It would elect its own primate, without the approval of any higher Church authority.

It would join the exclusive “club,” now consisting of the following 14 autocephalous “Local Orthodox Churches”: Constantinople (usually referred to as the Ecumenical Patriarchate), Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, and Czech Lands and Slovakia.

The “unifying council” was really the creation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, headed by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

It occurred only because the Ecumenical Patriarchate had decided that it would grant autocephaly to the church of Ukraine.

The council to form such a church was convened by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who sent letters of invitation to all of the bishops of the UOC-KP, UAOC, and UOC-MP.

The presiding bishop at the council was Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, one of the most important prelates of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Much of the organizing work was done by two “exarchs” of the Ecumenical Patriarchate — a bishop from the Ukrainian church in the United States and a bishop from the Ukrainian church in Canada.

Because the UOC-KP and the UOAC were unable to agree upon the terms of a constitutional charter which would govern the operations of the new church, a draft charter was created by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The critical question now presented to the Orthodox world is whether the Ecumenical Patriarchate really has the authority to do all of this.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate obviously believes that it has.

However, will the other Local Orthodox Churches agree?

Certainly, Moscow does not.

For example, Metropolitan Hilarion, who is responsible for relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the other Local Orthodox Churches, recently stated: “There is no other authority over a Local Orthodox Church other than the authority of God himself, the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

According to the Moscow Patriarchate, the Ecumenical Patriarch is attempting to make himself a pope over all of the Orthodox churches, a form of ecclesiology which is completely foreign to true Orthodoxy.

The Moscow Patriarchate, which is by far the largest of the Local Orthodox Churches, bristles at the thought that the Ecumenical Patriarchate can have any authority over it or over any of the other Local Orthodox Churches.

This article describes and discusses the specific decisions made by the Ecumenical Patriarchate with respect to Ukraine. These decisions were announced at the Phanar (the headquarters of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul) on October 11, 2018, following a session of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate. The article will also explore some of the justifications used by the Ecumenical Patriarchate for its decisions.

The Decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on October 11, 2018

On October 11, 2018, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople issued an announcement1 summarizing the results of its session which had concluded that day.

The terms of the announcement, which related to Ukraine, sent shock waves throughout the Orthodox world.

Four days later, the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate, meeting in Minsk, Belarus, on October 15 responded by severing Eucharistic communion with the hierarchy, clergy, and laity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

This meant that it was now impossible for bishops or priests of the Moscow Patriarchate to concelebrate with bishops or priests of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and that it was also impossible for the faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate to receive sacraments administered by members of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate furthermore issued a statement which accused the Patriarchate of Constantinople of adopting “a new false teaching” that would make the Patriarch of Constantinople “the first without equals” (as opposed to “the first among equals”) and that would give him “universal jurisdiction” over all of the Orthodox churches.

What were the actions taken by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople that evoked such a severe reaction from the Moscow Patriarchate?

There were three actions: (1) the revocation of discipline previously imposed on schismatics in Ukraine by the Moscow Patriarchate; (2) the placement of the entire nation of Ukraine under the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate; and (3) the assertion of the intention to create an autocephalous Orthodox church for Ukraine.

Revoking Discipline Imposed by the Moscow Patriarchate

In its October session, the Patriarch of Constantinople granted the appeals of the heads of the two schismatic Orthodox churches in Ukraine and removed the discipline imposed on them by the Moscow Patriarchate.

The announcement stated that these two schismatic leaders “have been canonically reinstated to their hierarchical or priestly rank, and their faithful have been restored to communion with the Church.”

The first leader was “Patriarch” Filaret (Denisenko), the primate of the UOC-KP, which claims approximately 6,000 parishes in Ukraine.

The second leader was Metropolitan Makary (Maletych), the primate of the UAOC, which claims approximately 1,000 parishes.

Filaret had once been a leading figure in the Moscow Patriarchate. In 1966 he had become the archbishop and two years later the metropolitan of Kyiv. When Russian Patriarch Pimen died in May 1990, Filaret was chosen as the locum tenens and was one of three candidates in the election for a new patriarch of the entire Russian Orthodox Church.

However, in a surprising result, Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad was elected instead.

Perhaps as a consolation, Patriarch Alexy in October 1990 enthroned Filaret as “Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus-Ukraine,” and substantial independence in self-government was granted to the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

In August 1991 Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union.

Four months later a church council in Kyiv declared that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was autocephalous (completely independent) and asked Filaret to be its primate.

This was followed by a letter, signed by Filaret and the Ukrainian bishops, which requested the consent of the Moscow Patriarchate to autocephaly for Ukraine.

Obviously alarmed by this attempt to leave the Moscow Patriarchate, the Patriarchate acted promptly by organizing a new bishops’ council in Kharkiv on May 27-28, 1992.

This council of 18 Ukrainian bishops elected Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) as the new Metropolitan of Kyiv and removed and suspended Filaret.

The council formed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (UOC-MP), which has remained a part of the Moscow Patriarchate to this day.

Continuing the attack against the autocephaly movement in Ukraine, a bishops’ council of the Moscow Patriarchate on June 11, 1992, removed Filaret from the priesthood, reducing him to the status of a simple monk.

The council also declared that any ordinations that he performed since his suspension on May 27 were invalid.

Thereafter, Filaret was active in organizing another council, held on June 25, 1992, which formed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church — Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP).

The UOC-KP proclaimed its complete independence from Moscow and considered itself to be autocephalous. In 1995, Filaret was elected “patriarch” of the UOC-KP.

In 1997, the bishops’ council of the Moscow Patriarchate took the final step of “anathematizing” Filaret. This meant not only that Filaret himself was excommunicated, but that everyone who had communion in prayer with him were subject to excommunication.

The rest of the Orthodox world agreed with Moscow that the UOC-KP was a schismatic church.

All of the world’s 14 Local Orthodox Churches were in accord that the only true canonical Orthodox church in Ukraine was the UOC-MP.

The UOC-KP also faced a major problem with the validity of its ordinations.

Filaret was the individual who ordained all of the bishops of the new UOC-KP. If Filaret had in fact lost his priesthood and his status as a bishop in June 1992, the ordination of the bishops of the UOC-KP, occurring after that date, would not be valid. This would in turn mean that the ordination of priests by these UOC-KP bishops would not be valid. If the priestly ordinations were not valid, the sacraments by them, such as the Eucharist and confessions, would not be valid.

The smaller Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church (UAOC) has a complex and confusing history.

It had its origins in a movement for Ukrainian autocephaly that began after the fall of the Tsarist empire in 1917. During the communist era, it existed only in the West.

In 1989 it was reestablished in Ukraine. It chose as its first head, Bishop Ioann (Bodnarchuk), who was thereafter banned from ministry by the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Since 2015 the head of the UAOC has been Metropolitan Makary (Maletych). Although the heads of the UAOC have not been subject to anathemas such as Filaret, substantial problems exist as to the validity of the UAOC’s episcopal ordinations.

The action taken by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in October 2018 was intended to regularize all of these situations.

This action was also a necessary predicate in fulfilling the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s plan to establish a new autocephalous church in Ukraine.

Indeed, it was not possible to hold a council of bishops to establish a new unified Orthodox church in Ukraine unless the participating bishops were in fact canonical bishops.

In regularizing the situations, the Holy Synod used broad and sweeping language in its October announcement.

It first stated that the Holy Synod has accepted and reviewed “the petitions of appeal of Filaret Denisenko, Makariy Maletych and their followers, who found themselves in schism not for dogmatic reasons, in accordance with the canonical prerogatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive such petitions by hierarchs and other clergy from all of the Autocephalous Churches.”

The use of the phrase “and their followers” would include all of the bishops, priests, and faithful of the UOC-KP and UAOC.

With respect to all of these individuals, the announcement states: “Thus, the above-mentioned have been canonically reinstated to their hierarchical or priestly rank, and their faithful have been restored to communion with the Church.”

Since the issuance of the announcement, scholars, such as Bishop Kyrillos of Abydos (a theology professor at the University of Athens), have described the canonical and historic basis for the assertion that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to receive petitions from bishops and clergy of other autocephalous churches.

Sursa: www.InsideTheVatican.com

Contor Accesări: 1546, Ultimul acces: 2026-06-01 08:29:36

Timp total: 0,63s...

[]:1