"Letter of the UOC to the Local Churches": Why it was never written

On August 10, 2023, a publication appeared on the Ukrainian website Dialog.Tut entitled “Letter from the UOC to the Local Orthodox Churches – what it could be like.” From the title it is clear that the text should be about an alleged appeal of the UOC to the Local Churches. In the preface, the authors say that the thesis about the need to send the letters to the Local Churches was one of the authorities’ demands for the UOC to prove “the severed ties with the Russian Church, which became a direct participant in the bloody aggression against Ukraine.”

Dialog.Tut believes that such a letter “is capable of overcoming the mutual alienation and suspicion that split Ukrainian society from within.”

At the same time, the letter of the Dialogians per se is not a variant of the “missive” of the UOC, but simply a brief description of the situation in which the Ukrainian Orthodox Church finds itself today, bundled with certain ideological features, which we will try to analyze.

Does the UOC believe that the Phanar granted the Tomos to “all Orthodox in Ukraine”?

“Patriarch Bartholomew made an attempt to resolve the issue of church schism in our country by granting the Tomos of autocephaly to all the Orthodox of Ukraine, without taking into account the reasons for the division at that time, in particular, the question of the dubiousness of apostolic succession with the hierarchy of the then non-canonical groups.”

The authors seem to be writing a letter on behalf of the UOC. However, the UOC has repeatedly and very clearly expressed its position on the Tomos of the Phanar. It lies in the fact that the UOC considers it interference in its internal affairs and does not recognize it in any form. Let us just recall that the Phanar “abolished” the UOC and pretends that it does not exist. We also recall that the UOC broke off Eucharistic communion with the Church of Constantinople because of its actions in Ukraine. Therefore, writing in the “Letter of the UOC” that Patriarch Bartholomew granted the Tomos to “all Orthodox” is at least not correct.

Should the canonical status of the UOC prove its support for the state?

“All the above aspects put us in front of a search for a solution that would keep our Church in the canonical field and at the same time reaffirm the support of the episcopate and clergy of the UOC for the idea of integrity and sovereignty of the Ukrainian state. We are faithful citizens of our country, we strive ... for Orthodoxy in Ukraine to develop freely and serve for the benefit of our Orthodox fellow citizens on the way to their salvation in eternity.”

This fragment is preceded by a text criticizing the "military theology" of the Russian Orthodox Church, a fair criticism. Yet why, speaking of the “canonical field”, should we immediately prove our loyalty to the state? Recall that this text is not a political manifesto, but rather a kind of the letters from the UOC to the Local Churches. Since the beginning of the invasion, the UOC has provided both the army and all those affected by the war with enormous assistance not because we strive to “reaffirm support” for the state, but because the UOC is the Church of the Ukrainian people.

Furthermore, why do the authors indicate “salvation in eternity” in relation to the UOC in the future tense? Doesn't the current status of the Church give the flock the possibility of such salvation? I think the answer is obvious.

We support the Council, but we will be patiently getting to know Dumenko better

“We express support for the decision of the Council of the UOC of May 27, 2022 on the desire to seek unity and resume dialogue in Ukrainian Orthodoxy… The path to future unification lies in patient knowledge of each other and gradual rapprochement between our Churches.”

As you know, the Council in Feofaniya set simple and specific conditions for a dialogue with the OCU, the main of which is to solve the problem with consecrations and stop the raider seizure of UOC churches by the OCU. Did Dumenko meet halfway? Have Dumenkovites indicated a reciprocal desire for dialogue? Only with a minus sign. Why then is the OCU called the “Church” by the authors? Is it possible to consider people without priesthood as part of the Body of Christ, who, on top of that, are engaged in outright banditry? By the authors’ logic, if we “get to know” each other better, and we “gradually draw closer”, then we can achieve unity, right?

We know the OCU and its representatives too well. In recent years, there has been so much violence on their part that it is possible to “know them better” only if they start killing priests and believers of our Church.

On the other hand, the path to "unity" with the Church for those who are outside its fence has long been known and clearly spelled out – repentance. There has been no other way until today. What has changed? Why did we suddenly start saying that now the path to unity with the Church lies through “gradual rapprochement”? How might this look in practice? That we “gradually” read the “Our Father” together, then “gradually” serve a prayer service, then the hours and the Liturgy? This method seems extremely fishy. The path from the schism into the Church lies through repentance, not through “gradual”, but through sincere repentance.

The OCU must change their minds, understand that the seizure of churches and violence is unacceptable for a Christian. They must give back what they have taken away, ask for forgiveness from God, and only then enter into unity with the Church. There is no other algorithm and cannot be.

But what the authors of the “letter” offer is very reminiscent of a situation where a victim of violence tries to justify the rapist by saying that he “really wanted it” and, in general, “he is a good person.” That he “raped me not out of malice”, but because “he didn’t get to know me better.” Will the rapist stop being a rapist after that? Will he repent of what he did? Hardly.

Orthodoxy in Ukraine will be united, but the OCU will be there?

“Recognition by the Orthodox world of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, in our opinion, directly depends on how it will build its relations with our Church.”

This phrase immediately follows the previous one, about the "future association" with the OCU. It turns out that in the "Letter to the Local Churches", the UOC expresses, as it were, confidence that "Ukrainian Orthodoxy will be united", and immediately reports that the recognition of the OCU will depend on its relationship with the UOC. That is, it suggests a format for the coexistence of two confessions in the country.

And already in the next sentence, the thesis about “unity” is repeated again: “Wisdom and patience are needed to work out a way to establish a new Ukrainian Church, in which all the Orthodox believers of our country would eventually unite.”

In this context, the authors raise the issue of autocephaly, but write that neither the "Greek" nor the "Moscow" options are acceptable in Ukraine.

Iron logic: If you call a killer a "nice guy", he won't kill you?

“We believe that in the current difficult situation, the Ukrainian state will be able to find the best way to maintain a high level of ecclesiasticism of our God-loving people and will not succumb to the temptations of a forceful solution of the ecclesiastical issue.”

Against the background of imprisonments of UOC hierarchs, the actual raider seizure of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, explicitly lawless "transfers" of our churches to the OCU, this phrase looks, to put it mildly, untruthful and disingenuous. The authorities not only succumbed to the temptation but have long been implementing the scenario of the forceful destruction of the UOC, which Dialog.Tut is well aware of.

At this point, it is appropriate to return to the preface of the letter, to the phrase written after mentioning the authorities’ demands for a complete break with the Russian Orthodox Church: “We are convinced that an honest testimony of what we believe in and how we think can overcome the mutual alienation and suspicion that are now splitting Ukrainian society from within”.

Let's imagine for a moment that the hierarchy of the UOC took this text from Dialog.Tut and sent it to the Local Churches. What, can we seriously believe that the repression of the UOC by the authorities and the OCU will stop? That "mutual alienation and suspicion" will disappear? We know the answer. What is the purpose of this letter then?

Why was the letter written?

This is not a variant of the autocephaly "missive". Its text is rather a subjective view of the church situation in Ukraine. But is it possible to assume that the Local Churches do not know about it? In this day and age, when any information is widely available, this is very unlikely.

The thought runs through the entire text that it is necessary to break off communion with the Russian Orthodox Church and unite with the OCU. Like, this will prove our loyalty to the authorities, and we "will live happily ever after."

But for what reasons should the UOC “break” communion with the ROC? Because the Russians supported "SMO"? Yes, it's very bad. But is this a reason to change the status of the Church? After all, “rupture” is possible only if the Russian Church backslides into schism or heresy.

Then this break should involve: a) convening a meeting of the Primates of the Local Churches; b) a conciliar condemnation of the heresy into which the ROC has fallen; c) church reception of the decision.

Did someone convene such a conference or a council? No.

The unity of the Church is a Eucharistic, rather than an administrative category, and it manifests itself through the joint celebration of the Liturgy, rather than an agreement on some political issues.

Then what – shall we declare our own autocephaly and wait for how it all ends? It was this position that, after the missile attack on Odessa, was voiced in its entirety by the banned cleric Andriy Pinchuk, who suggested "first break with the MP" and then "think tomorrow what to do next." Such a position can be understood, but only as an emotional outburst due to the destroyed Transfiguration Cathedral.

However, if the main argument for breaking up is the rejection of the one who uses force, why should we break off communion with Moscow and unite with Dumenko?

The OCU supports the destruction of our churches (Lviv), beats believers, breaks down the doors to our shrines with crowbars and sledgehammers, and, in fact, fights against the UOC. Why is it necessary to break with the ROC and negotiate with the OCU in the spirit of “love and mutual understanding”? Where is the logic here?

There is an expression – "we are for everything good against everything bad." To advocate for ecclesiastical and national "unity" is a very "good" and beautiful position. It is especially “beautiful” that it completely coincides with the vision of power. However, this is the position of the "iceberg", where many "uncomfortable" questions are hidden under water. Both in matters of relations with the ROC and the OCU.

The late Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) compared the UOC and OCU (then they were the UOC-KP with the UAOC) with oil and water, which cannot be mechanically mixed. They simply do not physically connect – one of them must change its properties. Basically, nothing has changed since then.

We, too, are hurt by what is happening to the Church. And we are also trying to find ways to solve the situation in which the UOC found itself. But at the same time, we are sure that any proposals for overcoming the crisis should be dictated not by emotions and the desire to “hype” on the topic, but by serious and hard work at the theological and ecclesiological level.

Surely, this task is much more difficult than writing the alleged “letters”, the whole point of which is to immediately “break” with Moscow and unite with the OCU. Still, there is no other way than hard work. Otherwise, the iceberg may roll over at some point to bury all of us under letters waters.