How is the UOC breaking historical stereotypes?

Photo: UOJ

The past six years mark the time of the creation and promotion of the OCU project, which was intended to establish a unified national Orthodox Church in Ukraine. When the creators of the OCU began their active efforts, they surely anticipated quick success. Patriarch Bartholomew, along with other Phanariots, the then-President P. Poroshenko and representatives of the U.S. State Department believed they could resolve the Ukrainian church issue swiftly. The Phanar would recognize Filaret and other schismatics as legitimate clergy, and all Local Churches would agree on this. Patriarch Bartholomew would then reintegrate the Kyiv Metropolis into the Ecumenical Patriarchate with a mere signature, facing no opposition (excluding the ROC). He would order all Ukrainian Orthodox denominations to unite, and they would comply, especially with P. Poroshenko pushing from his side.

Each project participant had their own goals: Patriarch Bartholomew sought to assert his primacy in Orthodoxy, the State Department believed this would facilitate Ukraine's independence from Russia, and P. Poroshenko desired reelection and the establishment of a state Church owing its existence to him. Their calculations seemed rational.

If the OCU project had succeeded, Patriarch Bartholomew would have showcased his control over Divine grace and historical authority. From 1992 to 2018, for 26 years, all Local Orthodox Churches recognised that Filaret's sacraments were invalid, including all “ordinations”. Suddenly, with the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch on 10 October 2018, Divine grace returns to 1992 and begins to work retroactively. Who else could perform such a miracle but His All-Holiness? The authority of the Phanar's head would have been greatly strengthened had this occurred.

U.S. State Department officials and American establishment representatives believed that severing the UOC from the Moscow Patriarchate would ease Ukraine's escape from Russian influence. Historical precedents abound. Since Old Testament times, when the kingdom of Israel separated from Judah, its rulers set up an altar on Mount Gerizim to prevent Israelites from worshiping in Jerusalem. Romanian, Serbian and Bulgarian Churches declared autocephaly upon liberation from Ottoman rule to escape the influence of the Constantinople Patriarchate, which was part of the Ottoman administrative structure. Ukraine was expected to follow a similar path.

P. Poroshenko, deeply unpopular with the Ukrainian people before the 2019 elections, reasonably planned to present the creation of a unified Ukrainian Autocephalous Church as a major achievement. This was undeniably a historic event.

However, the UOC suddenly declared that Christ's Church does not exist to fulfill such ambitions. The UOC asserted that the Church is not a campaign tool or a key to the presidential office. It cannot be exploited for personal gain. The Church is not a statehood attribute, a pillar of independence, or a national unifier. Furthermore, the Church cannot condone the cynical recognition of “ordinations” retroactively. As for getting away from the ROC, administratively, this was achieved in 1990 when the UOC became self-governing. It handled all matters independently. Moreover, the narrative that an independent state requires a national Church smacks of ethnophyletism, where national interests surpass ecclesiastical ones. Lastly, the autocephaly path proposed by Patriarch Bartholomew and P. Poroshenko was so blatantly uncanonical that accepting it would mean separating from Christ's Church.

In summary, the UOC prioritized religious arguments over political ones and was misunderstood by all OCU project participants. The Phanar could not grasp how one could refuse the powers that be when they strongly desire something. Unfortunately, the history of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is full of precedents where church hierarchs served secular authorities' interests rather than preaching the Gospel. Anointing emperors, granting divorces and remarriages, endorsing successive monarchs who overthrew predecessors, and deposing unliked patriarchs were common. Returning a patriarch who paid the Turkish sultan for a "berat" and exiling the current one for the same reason was standard practice.

This is neither a joke nor slander against the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Open history books and verify. One of the greatest Church Fathers, St. John Chrysostom, was deposed and exiled twice by an episcopal council at the emperor's behest. In 403, the bishops even sentenced him to death. In 963, Byzantine Emperor Romanos II, allegedly poisoned by his wife Theophano, had his power usurped by general Nikephoros Phokas, who, according to some sources, was Theophano’s lover. Nikephoros was anointed emperor by the Patriarch, and Theophano became his wife. Six years later, she had a new lover, Nikephoros' nephew John Tzimiskes, who murdered Nikephoros with her help. John was also anointed emperor by the Patriarch.

Since 1453, under Ottoman rule, the Constantinople Patriarchate turned into a structural subdivision of the Turkish state apparatus, thoroughly corrupt and obedient to secular authorities. "Bishops entangled in dark affairs and political intrigues fell prey to ambition and greed. Each new patriarch requested a 'berat' from the sultan to serve his position, and he had to pay a high price for this document. The patriarch covered his expenses through the bishops, who paid for their appointments as heads of dioceses; they, in turn, extorted from parish priests, and the priests from the laity. ... The same person sometimes became patriarch 5–6 times, and several former patriarchs usually lived in exile, stubbornly waiting for a chance to return to the throne," wrote the contemporary historian and theologian Kallistos Ware, a bishop of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Such examples are far from rare.

Of course, such terrible things didn't only happen in the Constantinople Patriarchate. Something similar also happened in other Local Churches, albeit on a much smaller scale. But the Phanar also stained itself by neglecting not only moral norms and canons but also doctrinal dogmas. This happened twice in history (the Lyons and Florence Unions) when the Constantinople Patriarchate tried to sell Orthodoxy to the Roman Pope in exchange for military assistance to the Byzantine Empire. The church populace opposed these attempts, leading to their failure. However, the narrative that if the mighty of this world want something badly, church rules can be disregarded, deeply ingrained in the Phanariots' mindset (not just theirs, of course). With this historical baggage or, as it's called now, background, the Constantinople hierarchs approached the resolution of the Ukrainian church issue.

But here, as they say, the scythe hit the stone. Instead of obediently fulfilling the desires of Constantinople, Bankova and the State Department, the UOC loudly declared that the teachings of Christ and canonical rules are more important for the Church. This not only provoked the anger of all OCU project participants but also genuine bewilderment over such behaviour. Why not comply when such powerful forces in the world want it to happen? Especially when it promises significant worldly benefits. And if Filaret Denysenko's followers and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church lack canonical ordination, Patriarch Bartholomew would take care of it, write a paper declaring everything in order, and move forward! It's that simple!

It can be assumed that Patriarch Bartholomew, sending letters in late 2018 to UOC bishops inviting them to the so-called unification council on 15 December 2018 was confident that all or the majority would respond. Imagine his surprise when his letters were returned unopened. Politically, it was sheer madness to reject clear benefits and subject oneself to the wrath of the mighty. If the entire UOC episcopate had attended the 'unification council', it would have overwhelmed the UOC-KP and UAOC with its numerical superiority. Metropolitan Onuphry would have headed this union, and other hierarchs would also have benefited. Moreover, there would have been no persecution, criminal cases, church seizures or other lawlessness happening now. Instead, there would have been complete favor from the authorities. City mayors, deputies and other officials, now clamoring to ban the UOC, would obediently participate in processions, hold candles before cameras and invite hierarchs to official events.

In this scenario, recognition of such a union by other Local Churches would have been much smoother since all UOC hierarchs have valid canonical ordination. Everywhere you look—advantages, fitting the frequent servility of hierarchs to authorities since Christianity became a state religion. Therefore, all OCU project participants were genuinely puzzled, not understanding what the UOC was guided by in defying the will of the powers that be.

At first, everyone thought the UOC was so attached to the Moscow Patriarchate that it dreamed of reunification of our countries. But the war disproved this. The UOC not only supported Ukraine's sovereignty on the first day of the war and called on the people to defend our country, but it also clearly distanced itself from the Moscow Patriarchate's position, stating its disagreement. The UOC provided the most significant assistance among all religious organisations in Ukraine to Ukrainian soldiers fighting on the front and to refugees who lost their homes and subsistence. Prayers for authorities and the military are held in all Ukrainian churches. Most parishes and monasteries send vehicles, protective gear and other necessary equipment to the front. So why not unite with the OCU now? Especially after the UOC declared its full autonomy and independence at the Council in Feofaniya on 27 May 2022, causing many in the ROC to consider Ukrainian hierarchs traitors, with some hotheads even threatening them in case of Ukraine's occupation. Now, the UOC is out of the ROC and doesn't unite with the OCU either? Why?

Because the UOC strives to remain the Church of Christ, not a bureau of religious services for the state and its citizens; because the UOC considers the grace of episcopal ordinations something real, not a conceptual notion in the minds of Constantinople hierarchs; because at this stage of history, the Church must refuse to obey the powerful to avoid becoming a museum exhibit, a relic of the Middle Ages. Today, relying on widespread religiosity like a few hundred years ago is impossible, as most people are not religious at all. Today, the Church must either return to its original mission ("...go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit..." (Mt. 28:19)) or become a historical decoration, interesting only to antique enthusiasts. But to return the Church to its original mission, those negative historical stereotypes, so familiar to secular authorities and many church hierarchs, must be broken. For now, the UOC is engaged in this. Whether the hierarchs, clergy, and church people will have the faith and courage to stand firm and not break—time will show.

Read also