The Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Autocephaly

The relationship Between Russia and Ukraine has always been complicated. These complications have unfortunately had an effect on Orthodoxy within Ukraine. The Orthodox church in Ukraine is canonically under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate. There are two other Ukrainian “Orthodox” churches but these have never enjoyed recognition by any churches outside themselves. That is until now. Bartholomew, patriarch of Constantinople has begun the process of granting autocphaly to one of these churches, the Ukrainian Orthodox church of the Kyivan Patriarchate. This is an unprecedented act in the history of the Orthodox church and more than likely will cause schism. If that happens some commentators have stated this will be comparable to the events of 1054 wherein the Catholic and Orthodox churches separated from each other.

The church of the Kyivan Patriarch is a schismatic church. Its origins are rooted in Ukrainian nationalism and opposition to Russia. Now, in many ways it is understandable why Ukrainians would desire a separate church. Russia and Ukraine have had poor relations in the past, and there are reasons for Ukrainians to be weary and distrusting of Russia. But religion and religious tradition must come before all including nationalism. As it stands, the Ukrainian church of the Moscow Patriarchate was already granted independence in self government by Patriarch Alexei in 1990. So in all but title the Ukrainian church under Moscow was independent. It is important for the Russian church to hold on to Ukraine because it as well as Belarus with Russia are seen as the inheritors of Kievan Rus and the spiritual decedents of Saint Vladimir. They are religiously and ethnically bound by their common origin in Kiev.

The church of the Kyivan Patriarchate has been used as a political tool by Ukraine’s current government. President Poroshenko seems to care little for religion other than as a political tool and an institution to promote nationalism and anti-Russian sentiments. The president has close ties to the United States and is attempting to bring Ukraine into the European Union and NATO. It’s ironic to see a Ukrainian nationalist advocate for his country to become an EU member when nationalistic EU member states like Poland and Hungary are facing such hardship from that union.

The church itself is currently headed by Patriarch Filaret, who is a problematic figure to say the least. Filaret was once a bishop and head of the Ukrainian church under Moscow during the Soviet Union and shortly after its collapse. He was a staunch supporter of the Moscow Patriarchate and spoke out against the independent churches. Alas in the 1990s it came out that he had ties to the KGB and advocated their policies domestically and abroad. He even worked to suppress Christians who wished to publicly express their faith as the Soviet Union started to liberalize. He desired to became the patriarch of Moscow and thought that his cozy relationship with Soviet authorities would result in this. Alas under perestroika the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union distanced themselves from the church and permitted the bishops to vote freely for a new Moscow patriarch. He accepted their decision and went back to his previous position as head of the Ukrainian church but was later asked to leave when his past dealings were revealed. He offered his resignation but later revoked it when the Ukrainian Patriarchate was formed and became a leading bishop and later patriarch.

In more recent times Filaret has become the lap dog to the Ukrainian government. Supporting them and their war against separatists in the east. He is staunchly nationalistic and it is evident that his nationalism takes precedence over his theology, or rather his nationalism is his theology. Again nationalism is good and healthy and Ukraine’s situation is unique and difficult but this is unacceptable. I would support a genuine movement of believing Christians in Ukraine who moved to have an independent church so long as it was within the bounds of Orthodox tradition and cannon. The Ukrainian church of the Kyivan Patriarchate is clearly not this.

Now the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is seeking to recognize this schismatic church. This is unprecedented and violates cannon law. In Orthodoxy each church is governed independently and one is not permitted to interfere with the practice or governance of the other. Major issues of theology or governance are settled by councils. Constantinople is seen as the mother church because many churches were founded by it, alas when those churches matured and were granted autocephaly Constantinople’s authority over them ceased. The Orthodox church unlike Catholicism has no temporal head, instead Jesus Christ is our Head. Bartholomew has been a very poor patriarch. He has promoted modernism and ecumenism. He has not stood for Christian truth but sought to build ties with Muslims and Jews. Under his authority he called a pan-Orthodox council at Crete which turned out to be a farce with numerous churches refusing to come (including Moscow in response to American clergy not being invited). The council saw Bartholomew act more as a Pope rather than a patriarch and was denounced.

So for Bartholomew to interfere in the Ukrainian matter seems to further show he is trying to elevate himself over local patriarchs. This could be for his own desire for power or because of his precarious position and dependence on the United States for protection. After all the Americans have made very public their support for the Ukrainian schismatics (as a way to attack Russia). The Patriarch of Constantinople is in a very unfortunate position. He is a Turkish citizen and the church operates under Turkish authority. If it wasn’t for American pressure the Church of Constantinople would not exist. As it stands Bartholomew may be its last Patriarch as the seminary that trained him has been closed by the Turkish government and there appears to be no viable successor. Most likely the Turks would put in a false patriarch fully loyal to them. So I am sympathetic to Patriarch Bartholomew but that still does not permit him to act as he has in regards to the Ukrainian issue. If Moscow does sever ties with Constantinople it could see a new schism in Christianity one on par with 1054. I pray this doesn’t happen but if it does I hope the remaining Orthodox churches side against Constantinople so that Bartholomew may reconsider his actions and position.