INTERVIEW: Patriarch Filaret on Ukrainian Orthodoxy (PART I) (07/19/98)

INTERVIEW: Patriarch Filaret on Ukrainian Orthodoxy

by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau

KYIV - Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko) was appointed the third patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus'-Ukraine by the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate in October 1995 after the sudden death of Patriarch Volodymyr Romaniuk in July. Until then Patriarch Filaret had been assistant to the patriarch.

In the spring of 1992, Filaret, then a metropolitan, had sought autocephaly from Moscow for Ukraine's Orthodox - a request that was rejected. His continued advocacy of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church led to his excommunication by the Russian Orthodox Church in June 1992.

The following interview includes the controversy that has arisen from the UOC-KP's recent acceptance of Ukrainian Orthodox parishes in the United States after they announced their withdrawal from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.

PART I

Q: Your Holiness, please explain the decision taken by the Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate on May 29, 1998, to accept Ukrainian Orthodox parishes in the United States.

A: Our decision was tied to an issue involving a few parishes in the United States who found themselves outside of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America (UOC-U.S.A.) and turned to us. They were part of the UOC-U.S.A. but then left it. ...We were faced with a decision whether to accept or reject their membership in our Church.

For us it was a difficult question because we realized that it could influence our relations with the leadership of the UOC-U.S.A. ...We want our diaspora to maintain its unity internally and in its relations with Ukraine.

However, [the three parishes] had already left the UOC-U.S.A. and even had begun to blame us to an extent because we were not accepting them. They said that they had continuously supported the Kyiv Patriarchate and had fought for Ukraine, for an autocephalous Church. Now that such a Church exists, one for which they had fought their whole lives, this Church was not ready to accept them, they claimed.

We decided that morally we could not reject them once they found themselves outside the boundaries of a Church.

This, however, does not mean that we will be interfering in the matters [of the UOC-U.S.A.]. We maintain today that only the hierarchy and spiritual leadership of that Church can change the situation that has developed in the United States.

It is not simply that these parishes do not want to subordinate themselves to Constantinople. They want to be under Kyiv because Patriarch Mstyslav, who led the Church in the United States also became the Kyiv patriarch.

Since he was the patriarch of Kyiv they became part of that Church. Today they do not want to split from the Kyiv Patriarchate and subordinate themselves to a different patriarch, the patriarch of Constantinople. This is the main issue.

A second issue is that many priests were not allowed to serve divine liturgy because of their views. That only added fuel to the fire.

Q: Did the parishes make their request together or separately?

A: Separately. At first they gave notice that they were leaving the UOC-U.S.A. After they had officially left that body, they turned to us.

Q: How do you view what is occurring today in the UOC-U.S.A.?

A: Last year I canceled plans to visit the United States, so that they would not blame us for inflaming the situation. I did this to avoid any suggestions that I wanted to intrude. Our position is not simply neutral, it is to maintain good relations with the UOC-U.S.A.

However, from another point of view, we will not abandon those Ukrainians who find themselves outside that Church. I spoke of this earlier when our misunderstandings began. But under no circumstances will we interfere.

We will do all in our power to maintain good relations. That is why I propose that we meet with the leadership of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A., with Metropolitan Constantine or Archbishop Antony, here in Kyiv. With this in mind, I sent an invitation to Archbishop Antony to come to Kyiv to meet and discuss these problems, but we have not yet received a reply.

If he cannot come to Kyiv to resolve these questions, I am ready to travel to America to resolve these issues, so that there are no misunderstandings between us, so that we can continue to work for the glory of the Ukrainian Church.

Q: Then what is the state of relations today between the UOC-KP and the UOC-U.S.A.?

A: Up to the time when the hierarchy [of the UOC-U.S.A.] came under the patriarch of Constantinople we celebrated [divine liturgy] together. We were in eucharistic union.

Archbishop Antony would come to Kyiv and celebrate divine liturgy with us. After the death of Patriarch Mstyslav, it was even proposed that he become the patriarch of Ukraine. In 1993 he was here at the Sobor as a candidate. But he declined the nomination for election as patriarch after he realized that the situation in Ukraine was fairly serious.

After [the UOC-U.S.A.] subordinated itself to the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, our eucharistic union was halted because the Patriarchate of Constantinople banned concelebration. This caused bewilderment among our hierarchy and the spiritual leadership of the diaspora. While Patriarch Mstyslav was alive we concelebrated, but after Patriarch Mstyslav's death and their subordination [to Constantinople], we became non-canonical and all contact ceased.

They have forgotten that they were in the same situation in which our Church finds itself today. Until their subordination to the ecumenical patriarch they also did not have eucharistic union with other Churches. Now they have it, but have broken those ties with us. This causes us consternation.

Q: Maybe this is a question better asked of the UOC-U.S.A. Was it aware that by accepting the jurisdiction of Constantinople it would have to break all ties with the UOC-KP?

A: Patriarch Bartholomew wrote of this in a letter to the Moscow patriarch in which he expressed himself in this way:

(Quotes from a document) "Those accepted under our omophorion have the obligation to formally declare that they will not strive for autocephaly for the Ukrainian Church or use even in part the methods of the autocephalists who operate using all possible methods.

"From another point of view, it is no longer possible for them to cooperate or maintain relations with the schismatic Ukrainian groups that do not belong to the community of the Ukrainian Church without doing damage to themselves; if they truly accept this as a principle of relations in the canonical community of Orthodox Churches with other non-canonical [entities], without saying it goes that not upholding this would mean their withdrawal from the Church community."

These are the words of the ecumenical patriarch in a letter to the Moscow patriarch, in which he clearly states that the UOC-U.S.A. accepts an agreement that it will not strive for the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church, that it will not maintain relations with us.

We found out about this later. Ukrainian Americans discovered this letter [Protocol 937].

The UOC-U.S.A. has halted relations with us, has stopped concelebrating the divine liturgy with us. But, they do raise the question of an autocephalous Ukrainian Church before the ecumenical patriarch. It is an objective effort, and we cannot blame them for lack of effort. When Patriarch Bartholomew was in the United States and Canada those questions were raised.

Q: The diaspora Churches claim that they joined Constantinople for two main reasons: first, to get worldwide recognition and legitimacy, and, second, to get support for a legitimately recognized independent Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Please comment.

A: Truly, they were not in eucharistic union with the Orthodox community. Now they find themselves with this eucharistic union, but at what cost?

At the cost of subordination to the ecumenical patriarch. With their entry into the eucharistic union they promised that they will not work for recognition for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as an autocephalous Church.

From one point of view they seem to be declaring [that they will work for recognition]. We know from the press that they did turn to the ecumenical patriarch, but these declarations have remained simply declarations.

The ecumenical patriarch when he was in Odesa, however, made another declaration that damaged our situation greatly because in it he said that he recognized only the Moscow Patriarchate.

It turned out this way: instead of recognizing the Kyiv Patriarchate after the union [of the UOC-U.S.A. with Constantinople], the ecumenical patriarch did the opposite after the union.

Instead of helping, the patriarch did damage. He is being blamed for twice selling-out Ukraine: in 1686 the Kyiv Metropolia was handed over [by Constantinople] to the Moscow Patriarchate. But in 1990 Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios, in a letter to Moscow Patriarch Pimen, said that Constantinople recognizes the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate according to the boundaries of 1593, that is with the exclusion of the Kyiv Metropolia, minus Ukraine.

So we have a situation where one patriarch says he recognizes one set of boundaries, and then [a few years later] another one states that he recognizes another. In Ukraine this has caused great indignation.

Q: In your opinion, why was the UOC-KP not invited to Odesa to meet with Patriarch Bartholomew?

A: The two patriarchs met to resolve their own matter. That matter was the Estonian Orthodox Church and involved the break in eucharistic union between Moscow and Constantinople after the union of the Estonian Orthodox Church [with Constantinople].

The patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow began searching for a way out of this problem. They found a solution, but to do so they came to Ukraine.

So what did the ecumenical patriarch achieve on the territory of Ukraine? He made peace with the Moscow patriarch, but at what cost? At the cost that the ecumenical patriarch announced that he recognizes only the Moscow patriarch in Ukraine.

So the two patriarchs made peace at the expense of Ukrainians, and not in any old place, or on the territory of Russia, but on the territory of Ukraine.

Q: Today, are there any relations between Patriarch Bartholomew and yourself?

A: There are no relations. I met with the ecumenical patriarch in 1992, at which time he said that Ukraine has the right to its "pomisna" (particular) autocephalous Church inasmuch as it has become a state. However, there were obstacles because the Ukrainian Church is divided, so he said that we should unite and then he would recognize us.

But everything is being done so that union does not take place. From one side, one says unite and we will recognize you, but Moscow does all in its power so that union does not take place. And if union does not take place, neither will recognition.

The process of unification has begun in Ukraine, but the Moscow bishops in Ukraine are doing everything not to allow for recognition of the Kyiv Patriarchate by the other "pomisni" Orthodox Churches.

Q: So, then, how do you look at the Moscow Patriarchate which more than once has called your Church non-canonical?

A: The point here is that we toss aside as ridiculous all the declarations that the Kyiv Patriarchate is non-canonical. Our Church maintains the Orthodox faith, is ruled by Orthodox canons, but is not recognized today.

However, other national Churches have not been recognized. The Russian Church was not recognized for 141 years, but it existed all the same as a Church. The Bulgarian Church was not recognized for 70 years, the Romanian Church for 34 years, the Serbian Church for 28 years, the Greek Church for 18 to 20 years.

The Ukrainian Church is not the first to go through this. The process of recognition is a fairly protracted process, but we exist as a Church because we maintain the Orthodox ecclesiologies of the Church that all Orthodox Churches profess.

Specifically what are Orthodox ecclesiologies? Where there is a bishop and where the Eucharist takes place, a Church exists. We have an episcopate, the Eucharist is celebrated, that means we are a Church. And if we are a Church, we can only be canonical. There cannot be a non-canonical Church because if Christ is present among us and there is a Eucharist, then we are a Church and there is salvation.

Another matter is recognition, and I have told you about the problems concerning that. Whatever our relations with the Moscow Patriarchate, there is opposition [on their part]. We want to unite into a single Church in Ukraine. Moscow does much to interfere in this effort.

CONCLUSION