A session of the Holy Synod: Results and Comments

A session of the Holy Synod of the UOC. Photo: UOJ

From the press release published on the website of the UOC Information and Education Department, it follows that the Holy Synod considered the issues of the Church's survival under persecution and made decisions on the current life of the Church. At first glance, the Synod did not announce anything new, but in fact some formulations quite clearly define the Church’s stance today.

So, here’s a brief commentary on the main topics of the Synod’s session.

Topic №1: Informing the international community

A quote from the press release: "At the session of the Holy Synod, the issue of the current state of observance of the rights to freedom of religion of the believers and religious organizations of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was considered. In connection with their violation, the Synod decided to inform Local Orthodox Churches, foreign countries, and international human rights organizations about this situation."

It may seem commonplace and nothing new. Persecution has been going on for years, and naturally, the UOC informs evryone it can about what is happening in Ukraine regarding freedom of religion. However, it's not that simple. The fact is that the decision of the Synod was made against the background of very tough actions of the Ukrainian authorities against journalists and resources covering the situation of the UOC.

On 12 March 2024, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) arrested several employees of the Union of Orthodox Journalists, charging them with state treason and threatening them with life imprisonment. They are currently held in the pre-trial detention centre in very harsh conditions, and the appellate court recently refused to change their detention measure. Shortly before these arrests, the SBU, without any legal basis, court decisions, or even NSDC sanctions, ordered the blocking of the UOJ internet resource. The same fate befell all other resources informing people about what is happening to the UOC.

In other words, the authorities are telling the clergy, the faithful and all those who dare to stand up for the UOC: "Shut up, or it will be worse".

In this regard, it is appropriate to recall how the de facto leader of the ROC, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), acted in similar circumstances. In 1930, when thousands of priests were arrested and humdreds of churches were destroyed, the Soviet and foreign mass media published an interview in which the following answer was given to the question: "Is there really persecution of religion in the USSR, and in what forms does it manifest itself?": "There has never been and there is no persecution of religion in the USSR. <...> The latest decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the RSFSR Council of People's Commissars on religious associations of 8 April 1929 absolutely excludes even the slightest appearance of any persecution of religion". In fact, this interview was written by Stalin, Molotov and Yaroslavsky, who was responsible for the destruction of the Church, but Metropolitan Sergius nevertheless agreed to its publication under his own name. This act was dictated by the fear that repressions against the Church would intensify even more. The Metropolitan hoped that this blatant lie would help to avert or at least reduce them.

His hope failed: the authorities continued to destroy the Church with redoubled vigour, with 1937 and 1938 ahead.

With today's decision, the Holy Synod of the UOC stated that it is not going to repeat the mistake of Metropolitan Sergius, it is not going to lie about the absence of persecution, but on the contrary, it will report the truth by all available means. This is a very important message to both the Ukrainian authorities and the believers of the UOC: the Church does not surrender, and attempts to silence the persecution against it will not succeed.

Topic № 2: Self-Identification of the UOC

A quote from the press release: "The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is self-governing and independent Church of Christ, which pastorally covers the territory of the Ukrainian state. It was also emphasized that since 1990, the UOC's management center has been located in Kyiv."

These words mean that the UOC still considers itself the only canonical church structure on the territory of Ukraine. It does not recognize the OCU, does not consider it a negotiating partner in interfaith unity talks and refuses to accept the concept of parallel jurisdictions in Ukraine. This is a very important position given the recent discussions about the need to somehow initiate a negotiating process.

Recall that at the Council of Feofania held on 27 May 2022, the UOC put forward three conditions for negotiations:

• cessation of church seizures and violence against UOC believers;
• recognition of the fact that the OCU is not autocephalous (see the Tomos);
• resolution of the issue of non-canonical ordinations of "bishops" of the OCU.

The OCU rejected these demands, calling them ultimatums. Now voices are being heard about the need to forget these three conditions and proceed to negotiations without any preconditions. The wording of the decisions of today's Synod makes it clear that the position of the UOCU has not changed and it still considers itself the only canonical Church in Ukraine.

Here, it is necessary to make a small remark and mention that the words "covers the territory of the Ukrainian state" do not mean that the UOC exists exclusively within these borders. The UOC can establish communities in countries that are not part of the canonical territory of any Local Church, and actively does so for the pastoral care of millions of Ukrainians who find themselves abroad.

Also noteworthy is the assertion that the UOC is independent and self-governing, and its administrative center has been in Kyiv not since 2022 when the Council of the UOC in Feofania made amendments to the UOC Statute, indicating complete autonomy and independence, but since 1990 when the Ukrainian Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church was transformed into the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and then-Metropolitan of Kyiv Filaret Denysenko received the corresponding Letter from Patriarch Alexy II (more details in the article "Passions for the Letter of Patriarch Alexy II").

This means that the UOC insists that since 1990, it has had autonomy and independence in the sense understood by the state. This independence is administrative, personnel-related, economic, and financial. The sphere of sacred and eucharistic unity cannot be the subject of discussion between the Church and the state, as the state has no competence in these matters.

No statements, decisions, declarations of autocephaly, etc. on the part of the UOC can add anything to the autonomy and independence that the UOC has enjoyed since 1990.

The wording contained in the decisions of the Synod of 10 April 2024 may indicate that the UOC does not intend to succumb to those who urge it to once again, in more forceful terms, declare its independence from the ROC, proclaim autocephaly or take any similar actions.

Topic № 3: Persecution of the сlergy and believers of the UOC is unlawful

A quote from the press release: "... bishops, priests, and laypeople of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are subjected to criminal persecution on spurious grounds. Churches and other property are being seized, and religious communities are being illegally re-registered in favor of the newly created Orthodox Church of Ukraine. As of today, about one and a half thousand churches have already been taken over. Local self-government bodies make illegal decisions to prohibit the use of property by religious organisations of our Church."

Again, let's compare this with an interview of Metropolitan Sergius Stragorodsky in 1930.

Question: "Is it true that clergy and believers are subjected to repression for their religious beliefs, arrested, exiled, etc.?"

Answer: "The repressions carried out by the Soviet government against believers and clergymen are applied to them not for their religious beliefs but in the general order, as to other citizens, for various anti-government acts."

Question: "Is it true that atheists are closing churches, and how do believers feel about it?"

Answer: "Yes, indeed, some churches are being closed. But this closure is not initiated by the authorities but at the request of the population..."

The Holy Synod of the UOC has taken a directly opposite stance. It openly states that persecutions are unlawful, and the seizures of churches occur against the will of the parishioners. This means that the UOC intends to resist lawlessness and call things by their names rather than adoptc a conciliatory position.

The only thing lacking in the Synod's Statement is a mention of Orthodox journalists who are imprisoned for raising their voices in defence of the UOC.

Topic № 4: anti-Church bill 8371

The Synod believes that this bill is aimed "not only at the liquidation of the UOC, which is the largest religious association in our country, but also at the violation of the fundamental right to freedom of religion, guaranteed by the state to every citizen." The Synod declares that the bill incites religious hatred and intolerance and urges MPs not to vote in favour of it.

Perhaps, it would be worth adding a warning to these words: "Voting for this bill is incompatible with being in the bosom of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." Maybe, someone would give it a thought...

Topic № 5: current church affairs

Also the Holy Synod:

• opened two monasteries, a monastery in the Kharkiv Eparchy, which is now under almost continuous missile and bombing attacks, and a convent in the Mukachevo Eparchy;
• approved abbots for two existing monasteries;
• elected two vicar bishops, for Kyiv and Odesa eparchies;
• established a regent and catechetical theological school in Dnipro;
• approved the liturgical texts in honour of the newly glorified saints.

All this very clearly shows that the Church lives and develops in spite of all persecutions and oppressions. Special attention should be paid to the establishment of new monasteries and the increase in the number of monastic tonsures, which has been observed recently. If even in hard times of persecution there are people willing to devote their whole life to God and His Church, then it will undoubtedly stand firm and have a future.

Read also