Why the Rada should ban the OCU along with the UOC

On October 19, 2023, the Verkhovna Rada passed in the first reading the government bill No. 8371, which is intended to ban all religious organizations in Ukraine affiliated in any way with the aggressor state. We all understand that this bill targets, first and foremost, the UOC. Various committees and experts have already expressed their opinion that our Church is canonically connected to the ROC and therefore should be banned. But what is a canonical relationship, and does it not apply to other Churches? And if it does, can, based on bill No. 8371, other Churches like the Orthodox Church of Ukraine be prohibited? Yes, it sounds unexpected, but let's look into it.

To break canonical ties?

In a comment on the bill, Deputy Chair of the Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy, Eugenia Kravchuk, explained that "if religious expertise establishes ties with the Russian aggressor, the Russian Church, then it enables the State Service for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience to issue a prescription to that religious organization, which is governed by the aggressor state, to break such ties."

"If this does not happen," Kravchuk continued, "then legal proceedings begin – only a court can have the final say on the question of cancelling the registration and legal activities of a particular religious denomination."

She asserts that "within the UOC itself, there are many priests who are dissatisfied with the fact that the connection with the ROC has not been broken – they write letters to the leadership of the Kyiv Metropolis and request the severance of this connection. And we must give them the opportunity to sever it."

The UOC has repeatedly emphasized that canonical or eucharistic ties do not imply administrative subordination; these are entirely different categories. However, Ukrainian experts and officials persistently fail to acknowledge this distinction.

For example, Liudmila Filipovich, a member of the expert group and a religious studies specialist, stated in a recent interview that "within the framework of church law, canonical ties are legal relations, not an illusion." She believes that "according to this law, the Church has lived since the year 325".

In other words, for Filipovich and other "experts" and politicians, any canonical ties represent "legal relations". But what might be implied by this, and what is the actual situation?

Legal relations and canons

From a secular perspective, "legal relations are volitional social relations arising on the basis of norms of law, the participants of which have subjective rights and legal obligations" (definition from Wikipedia). These relationships can occur between individuals, legal entities and the state. In other words, a specific legal relationship exists between the religious organisation "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" and the state of Ukraine, involving rights and obligations. The state has three branches of power: executive, legislative and judicial. Through these branches of power, the state not only exercises control over the fulfilment of all obligations and the protection of rights but also uses the force of coercion when this is not happening. In other words, the state can employ its repressive apparatus in cases where any legal subject refuses to recognise the laws of the country.

Indeed, something similar was happening in the Byzantine Empire from the year 325 onwards. For example, the decrees of Church Councils, which largely constituted the Code of Canon Law, were signed by emperors and gained the force of state laws. Failure to comply with the Church's decrees could result in imprisonment and state sanctions. However, two questions arise here:

1. Was the life of the Church regulated in any way before the year 325?
2. How was the life of the Church regulated after the fall of the Byzantine Empire in the 15th century?

Of course, both before the year 325 and after the 15th century, the Church's operation was based on certain rules governing its internal life. However, the external life of the Church was largely dependent on the state, and canons could play a role or no role at all. Once again, canons are rules for the internal life of the Church.

What are canonical ties?

There is no mention of how relations between the Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox Churches should be regulated in any canon. When the canons were created, neither Ukraine nor Russia existed. Canons, rather, point to certain common norms, and their interpretation greatly depends on the situation. For example, canons prohibit one Church from intruding into the jurisdiction of another. Therefore, from the perspective of the ROC, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, by granting autocephaly to the OCU, violated this canon. From the perspective of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it did not, because they regarded Ukraine as their territory.

Now, let's return to Filipovich once more. She claims that "within the framework of church law, canonical ties are legal relations, not an illusion". But what are "canonical ties"? They are connections that arise as a result of a certain agreement of a mystical nature rather than a legal one.

The decisions of the Apostolic Council say this as follows: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us " (Acts 15:28). In other words, canonical church law has two sources: the Holy Spirit and the collective wisdom of the Church. Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote that when the apostles said, "It pleases the Holy Spirit," they indicated that although the resolutions of the Council in Jerusalem were written by people, "by the action of the Holy Spirit, they become law for the universe, and this law was accepted by those who were with Barnabas and Paul, and they made it valid throughout the world".

This means that the canons of the Orthodox Church are binding for all Local Churches. This means that there is a canonical relationship between all the Orthodox Churches (which together constitute the one Church of Christ).

That is, if the UOC recognises the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and the ROC recognises the same, then there are canonical ties between them. Is this right? According to Filipovich's logic, yes, it is. But if so, she should recognise not only the crucial role of the Holy Spirit in the formation and validity of the canon law of the Church, but she must also acknowledge that

all Orthodox Churches have canonical ties both with the ROC and among themselves. This includes the OCU, which considers itself Orthodox.

OCU should be banned

If we use the logic of Ukrainian officials, then the OCU should be banned. Let's consider the reasons.

Firstly, the OCU acknowledges the same canons as the ROC, which means, in the words of Ukrainian MP Eugenia Kravchuk, it has "canonical ties" with the "Russian Church" and, through it, with the "Russian aggressor".

Secondly, the OCU has not declared a break in canonical and eucharistic ties with the ROC in any of its acts. There has been no mention of this at any "council" or "synod." On the contrary, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which granted autocephaly to the OCU and de facto oversees Metropolitan Epifaniy, constantly emphasizes that it refuses to sever ties with the ROC. Here is Patriarch Bartholomew’s opinion voiced just over a month ago: "It is unacceptable for the Eucharist to become a tool of pressure on one another... A break in Eucharistic communion by the ROC is inexplicable."

That is, the chief of the OCU, to whom, according to the Tomos, he must turn "for the resolution of significant ecclesiastical, dogmatic, and canonical issues", categorically refuses to make a complete break with the ROC. Epifaniy himself doesn't do it either.

Thirdly, the OCU not only failed to announce a break with the ROC, but until recently, Dumenko has commemorated Patriarch Kirill. He explained his position by referring to the Ecumenical Patriarchate: "We do not pray for Patriarch Kirill. We should commemorate him as one of the heads of the Local Orthodox Church. Patriarch Bartholomew does this, and for us, the Mother Church is an example." Yes, he no longer commemorates the head of the ROC now, but he does it solely on personal initiative because there has been no decision by the OCU to cease commemorating Patriarch Kirill at the "liturgy". Meanwhile, the UOC did make such a decision at the Council in Feofaniia. The difference, as they say, is evident. Therefore, the OCU continues to maintain a canonical relationship with the ROC, and thus, it can be banned. Otherwise, let it prove that there are no such ties.

For an external observer, these words might sound absurd, but they are no more absurd than the phrasing of bill No. 8371 and the arguments of MPs and officials who promoted it.

Today, it can be asserted that any Orthodox Church that operates or will operate on the territory of Ukraine could fall under the influence of this bill. The issue is not just that it is poorly drafted or that Ukrainian politicians are trying to address something they don't understand. The problem is that they are simply against Orthodoxy in general. Sooner or later, their war against religion will also affect the OCU, and we won't have to wait long for that.