On the delicate diplomacy of OCU and on Putin who "excommunicated himself"

"Bishops' Council" of the OCU in the Refectory Church of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra

On May 10, 2024, at the "synod" of the OCU, the agenda for the upcoming "bishops' council" was announced. The statement indicated that the structure of Epifaniy Dumenko would approve the "conciliar condemnation of the heretical doctrine of the 'Russian world' and its main propagandists." And, frankly, we were interested to see how and in what form this would happen. Because so far, despite loud statements from Dumenko's minions about the ideology of the "Russian world" being heresy, we have seen nothing specific regarding this assertion.

What exactly is its heretical nature? How much does this ideology diverge from the teachings of the Church? And who are its main propagandists of it? These questions were supposed to be answered by the "bishops' council" of the OCU, which took place on May 11, 2024, in the Refectory Church of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra.

Unfortunately, however, a whole series of decisions made at this "council" are purely demagogic and populist in nature and did not answer any of the questions posed. Moreover, it created the impression that the OCU is playing some kind of double game: for the Ukrainian authorities and its believers, they express themselves firmly and uncompromisingly, and for everyone else – diplomatically and very subtly, carefully choosing expressions and always on alert in order "not to let anything slip". Why do we think so? Read in the article.

"Condemnation" of the ideology of the "Russian world"

Let's start with the fact that the "council" of the OCU "once again confirmed that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine rejects and condemns the doctrine of the 'Russian world' as based on heretical principles of ethnophyletism, Manichaeism, and Gnosticism."

Note that the "council" of the OCU did not call the ideology of the "Russian world" heresy, but only indicated that this ideology is "based" on "heretical principles". Further down, in the resolutions of the "council", it is said that the ideology of the "Russian world" is a "false teaching". At the same time, surely the believers of the OCU would like more precise and stringent formulations. The "condemnation" of the ideology of the "Russian world" is so vague and non-specific that one can only guess at the exact meaning that the "bishops" of the OCU attribute to the terms used above.

For example, ethnophyletism, condemned at the Constantinople Council of 1872, is "tribal division, that is, tribal differences, national strife, and discord in the Church of Christ." This definition fully applies to the organization of Dumenko, whose supporters not only live with the idea of "their" Church but also do everything to create discord and strife in the Church of Christ.

Manichaeism, in turn, was a synthesis of numerous religious traditions of the East (Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.), reinterpreted under the influence of Gnosticism. At the same time, Gnosticism itself is not a homogeneous doctrine but a collection of religious ideas and systems that emerged in the late 1st century AD among Jewish and early Christian sects.

Therefore, by stating that the ideology of the "Russian world" is based on the heresies of ethnophyletism, Manichaeism, and Gnosticism, the "council" of the OCU did not bother to specify what exactly ideas from the mentioned heresies underlie the "Russian world". It would be very desirable to see theological justification for such statements rather than another demagogic move.

The OCU also does not specify what constitutes ethnophyletism in the ideology of the "Russian world".

Not surprisingly, because then they would have to consider where to place ideologies such as pan-Hellenism or Pax Americana. And for this, it is necessary to analyze all these ideologies, understand how they differ from each other, then compare them with the Gospel and the teachings of the Church Fathers, conduct a serious theological analysis of the statements of representatives of the ROC regarding the ideology of the "Russian world", and only then – to render their own judgment, accusing it of heresy.

So serious intellectual work is needed, for which the representatives of the OCU have neither the resources nor the desire. Therefore, the "condemnation" of the ideology of the "Russian world" was limited to general phrases and did not provide any answers to any questions.

Letter to Patriarch Bartholomew

At the "council" of the OCU, a draft letter to Patriarch Bartholomew and the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was also adopted "requesting to address Kirill Gundyaev with a demand to publicly renounce the false teaching of the 'Russian world', condemn and revoke the decisions of the so-called 'World Russian People's Council,' which contain elements of this false teaching."

It should be noted that the "bishops" of the OCU, speaking of the head of the ROC, simply write – Kirill Gundyaev, without calling him a patriarch. Let's not mention that according to the dogmas of the Church, whether to consider someone a patriarch or not can only be resolved after a conciliar decision to remove him from the patriarchal dignity. Let's now ask how the supporters of Dumenko called the head of the ROC in the letter to Patriarch Bartholomew? We guess that there is no Gundyaev there, but there is Patriarch Kirill – as required by protocol. So why say two different things? Because the OCU is playing a double game, and they feed their internal, domestic users with something different from what they present externally, wanting to remain white and fluffy in the eyes of world Orthodoxy. But such a position is simply called hypocrisy.

Let's also ask why the "bishops" of the OCU did not directly address the head of the ROC?

There are two answers here:

The OCU, not being an independent structure and having only an illusory "autocephaly", cannot make such decisions "over the head" of Patriarch Bartholomew.

The "bishops" of the OCU do not want to negotiate or address the head of the ROC because they believe that this may raise unnecessary questions within Ukraine. But if he is not a patriarch for them, then what questions could arise?

So, in this case, it is likely a matter of observing subordination.

"Putin excommunicated himself"

Another decision of the OCU "council" states that, "taking into account the special gravity, publicity, and obstinate impenitence of the crimes against God, the Church of Christ, and humanity committed by layman Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin of the ROC, the Bishops' Synod of the OCU testified that this person, by his crimes and persistent and conscious impenitence in public sins, has excommunicated himself from the Church."

Again, the formulation is too vague in this case. In a sense, it resembles the excommunication imposed by the ROC on Leo Tolstoy. In that formulation, too, there is no talk of anathema; it only states the fact that Tolstoy himself does not consider himself a child of the Church. Compare this passage from the ROC's decision on the writer: "Count Tolstoy... consciously and intentionally estranged himself from any communion with the Orthodox Church." That is, he excommunicated himself, and the Church only testified to it. Why were such formulations chosen? To avoid scandal. Count Tolstoy was a well-known figure, popular, and enjoyed significant support both among the intelligentsia and among the ruling circles of the Russian Empire. Therefore, the Synod of the ROC at that time simply did not want to quarrel with them and chose more cautious words at its meeting in February 1901 than were originally proposed.

In our opinion, the OCU "council" acted similarly. The question is: with whom do the supporters of Dumenko not want to quarrel in this case? Why did they, instead of the expected anathema for Putin, simply say that he excommunicated himself from the Church?

On the other hand, we remember well how the dismissed Secretary of the NSDC Danilov demanded that the UOC anathematize Putin. And not only him. Therefore, it was expected that the OCU should do what the UOC has not done so far. However, the "bishops" of the OCU did not dare to take this step. Formally, the refusal to anathematize Putin by the supporters of Dumenko may be explained in the text of the decision: "Vladimir Vladimirovich is a layman of the ROC," and therefore, it is the Russian Church that should excommunicate him from the Church. Then what claims could there be for the UOC? After all, just like for the OCU, Putin is not a parishioner of the UOC.

Furthermore, representatives of Epifaniy's structure positioned themselves as "witnesses" to Putin's crimes, without even formally specifying these crimes. Unlike, for example, the condemnation of Count Tolstoy, which was clearly spelled out by the ROC.

The absence of the "corpus delicti" in the synodal decision bespeaks only one thing: in reality, the OCU did not excommunicate Putin from the Church, but simply applied old-fashioned diplomacy towards him.

In other words, the decision of the Dumenko-led "synod" regarding the head of the Russian Federation is another example of vague demagoguery and populism, offering nothing tangible and specific.

Ban on the UOC

And finally, the very reason why the "bishops" of the OCU gathered – the ban on the UOC. In its decision, the Dumenko followers "supported the efforts of the Ukrainian state to protect the religious community and society as a whole from hostile foreign influence and the need for legislative prohibition of religious organizations in Ukraine being subordinate to religious associations with a center in the aggressor state."

This, in our opinion, was the main goal of the entire event conducted by Epifaniy.

The Ukrainian authorities anticipate to ban the UOC by the end of May (we can even assume that it will happen on May 20-21). The arrests of our Church's bishops, the detention of Orthodox journalists, a powerful PR campaign, and visits by representatives of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches abroad serve as stepping stones for this ban. The statement of the OCU in this sense is another "asset" in the authorities' arsenal to justify the decimation of the UOC. The authorities of the USSR acted on the same principle in their time. Basically, "yes, we are closing churches and monasteries, but only because the people demand it – after all, we have democracy." The same thing is happening now in Ukraine.

And if representatives of the OCU think that they are really making decisions in the Ukrainian state or have any weight in the eyes of the authorities, it is not the case. Because in reality, Dumenko and his henchmen are at best playing the role of extras, at worst – the role of Judas. Frankly, they can only be pitied.

Because by constantly trying to please Ukrainian authorities and overseas "friends", the OCU has completely forgotten about Christ.

Read also