INTERVIEW: Patriarch Dymytrii on developments in the UAOC

by Roman Woronowycz

October 14, 1998, marked five years since the installation of Volodymyr Yarema as Patriarch Dymytrii of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The years of his reign have been turbulent ones for the UAOC, marked by the defection of several bishops to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate, along with parishes and Church property, and the bankruptcy of the Christian Bank, a financial institution closely linked to the UAOC.

Patriarch Dymytrii was born in 1915 in what is today the Krosnienske Voievodstvo of western Poland. He belonged to the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church until it was banned by the Soviet regime in 1946, and completed seminary studies at a Greek-Catholic seminary before being drafted into the Soviet Army during World War II. In 1947, with no legally existing Greek-Catholic Church, he opted to join the Russian Orthodox Church to work to "defend the traditions of the Ukrainian Church against Russification," according to a biographical sketch released by the UAOC. He was ordained a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1947.

He served in various parishes in western Ukraine until 1989, when he led his parish out of the Russian Church and into the reborn Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church headed by Metropolitan Mstyslav Skrypnyk. He was an initiator of the June 1990 Sobor at which Metropolitan Mstyslav was named patriarch of the UAOC.

With the death of Patriarch Mstyslav in 1993 and the defection of many bishops to the UOC-KP, Patriarch Dymytrii was first appointed bishop of the UAOC and then declared UAOC patriarch of Kyiv and all Ukraine following a UAOC Sobor.

In the following edited interview, Patriarch Dymytrii comments on rumors of union with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate, and about relations with the other major confessions in Ukraine.

Q: Your Holiness, Patriarch Filaret of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate told us earlier this year that the process of unification of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has begun, that there have been talks with you and with other representatives of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Could you please comment?

A: It is difficult to say that the process has begun. Mr. [Mykola] Kravets [director of the Foundation for Spiritual Union of Ukraine] came to me and said that a fund for the unification of the Churches is being established. I agreed to take part as a founding member. Right away a problem developed because they did not want to give us the statutes [of incorporation].

Second, we have not had any contact with Patriarch Filaret, only with Mr. Kravets. [Also], I cannot make any decisions on my own because we are synodally run. If the synod rules, then I cannot make decisions independently.

After our initial discussions, [Mr. Kravets] brought me a ready plan [for unification]; specifically how it would take place. I did not agree to such a plan. First of all, I told him, I had not spoken to my people about such a plan. Second, I told him, "You have developed a plan that clearly would put the Church under Filaret."

Our Church would not have any voice there because a Sobor for voting is entailed, and Filaret assigned 26 or so of his own bishops [to that Sobor]. We have not been in a hurry to consecrate bishops - we want good bishops - so we have few bishops.

Now, we all well know how Filaret calls a Sobor, that his advantage is built-in. I can never agree to this. Also, we have synodal rule, and so I must first get agreement from others.

But that is not all, I had not yet turned to my people when they (UOC-KP) had already announced that I had not simply agreed, but that unification was already taking place. It was a call to rebellion and, predictably, people were upset. They asked, "How could you do this, how could you sign such a thing?"

Naturally, I halted the process. When I was presented with a ready memorandum, I said that I cannot sign the document. [Mr. Kravets] said, "You are upsetting everything." To which I replied that as I had understood there would be discussions, negotiations, ideas presented from both sides, but you have given us one side of the situation and expect us to agree. This I cannot sign.

He was very unhappy. I then suggested that I would sign, but that I would have to add my own words first. He agreed.

I wrote in the following: "Everything must proceed according to canonical principles." And it ended with that.

Later, he visited Archbishop Ihor, who is the director of the chancery here, and Archbishop Ihor explained to him that we cannot do it [in the way proposed by the UOC-KP]. Our people do not agree with doing it in that way. Our people want it done in a different way.

First we need to improve relations among the bishops; we need to bring the parishes closer together; we need to think about publishing books together; about a common effort in religious education; about how our common religious celebrations will look; in one word, about moving closer.

It looks to me, however, that what concerns Patriarch Filaret most is how to get us in; and to then do by force with each one of us as he pleases. We are well-acquainted with his system.

Q: You have also said that a question that must be decided is whether the leader of the Kyiv Patriarchate was canonically elected.

A: At the Sobor of June 25, 1992, or rather before it began, Filaret came up to me and asked, "Father Volodymyr, why have you come out against me?" I answered that I am supporting the purity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. He replied, "I know, you wrote me of that."

He knew well from my letter, which he should have received by February 1989, and in which I wrote that with perebudova we can now begin talking about reorganization, about the problems with the Greek- Catholics in Halychyna, with Orthodox autocephaly. We could no longer say that we have no problems. We must begin the rehabilitation process as the state had already begun. He, as the exarch, must begin the rehabilitation process using new language, not the language of the state as had been done until then in the Soviet Union.

He never replied to that letter. But then he mentioned that he read that letter and replied to it. I know that at a meeting of bishops in Lviv, of his bishops, when he was asked what he thought of my letter, he replied, "There is no need to divide the nation."

At the Sobor I asked him another thing. I said, "You are gathering a Sobor, but the patriarch (Mstyslav) is not in attendance. We have 12 bishops in the Church besides the patriarch, but only five are present. The bishops should have the blessing of the patriarch, but they do not.

What you have is several bishops, yourself and some priests. The rest are laymen. The Sobor has not been called according to canon law. It is, therefore, not a Sobor.

He replied that the Sobor had to be called to protect Church property. In reality he was not protecting Church property, just the opposite, he took our churches, and keeps them today. He had only his single Cathedral of St. Volodymyr.

I asked him one more thing: "You stuck with the Russian Church to the very end; you did not look for any way out. The Russian Church had the right to do with you as it saw fit because you belonged to it. It excommunicated you. So, under whose jurisdiction are you today?"

Q: But in the last months, as you yourself just said, you were ready for discussions on unifying your Church with the same Patriarch Filaret.

A: I told Mr. Kravets that the figure of Filaret as patriarch is not acceptable because no one will recognize him. Because he was removed by the Moscow patriarch, and there exists canon law on this, no other patriarch will recognize him. He cannot recognize himself. If he still had "san" (authority) he could declare autocephaly, but he declared his authority [over the Kyiv Patriarchate] without it. For us he is not acceptable.

Then there was a discussion with a Mr. [Mykola] Plaviuk [former president of the World Congress of Free Ukrainians and former head of the Ukrainian National Republic-in-exile] who asked me to convince the patriarch (Mstyslav) to bless the decision of the Sobor (in 1993).

Our patriarch said, "You did something here without me, did not inform me. Now you put me before a fait accompli and want me to approve it. I must first review the situation. I have to contact America and Constantinople. Meanwhile, you should lie patiently, lower than the grass and quieter than the water. You should do nothing, consecrate no one, so as not to worsen the situation.

The next day [Filaret] was already consecrating bishops. When Patriarch Mstyslav heard this he said that he would no longer have anything to do with him.

So Moscow's patriarch took his authority, the Constantinople patriarch said it would review his situation but told him to cease his activities. He did not listen to those holy bishops, and he did not listen to our holy bishop, Patriarch Mstyslav.

You see, the only thing on [Filaret's] mind is power - not the truth, or canon law, or the Church.

Q: You also said earlier that you had a discussion with Metropolitan Volodymyr Sabodan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate, in which he suggested to you that he might support an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but that powers he represents would never allow for that. What did Metropolitan Volodymyr tell you, and why do you think that he would look positively on an independent, united Ukrainian Orthodox Church?

A: Yes, I did say that. First of all, he was very positively disposed to Patriarch Mstyslav. He would greet him as a bishop and bow, and even kiss his hand. Secondly, he is very friendly with me.

We were at a conference with the president, and he took me by the arm as we were exiting down the stairs. I said, "Vladyko, Ukraine has all the canonical foundations to declare a 'pomisna' Ukrainian Church."

He replied, "Do you think it is that easy to do?" I said that for me to do it with my people would not be difficult, but I have a small Church. For him, with his larger Church, it would be easier. "It is large, but so what?" is how he answered me.

Q: Is there any official contact or relations with the Moscow Patriarchate?

A: No, there are none with the Moscow Patriarchate. We left the Church, informed them of that via telegram, and that was the end of it.

Q: What is your view on what occurred within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A., specifically its subordination to Constantinople, and secondly, what are your relations with it today?

A: We have no contact with it. [This interview was conducted before Patriarch Dymytrii's visit to the U.S. - ed.] The last contact was with Archbishop Antony, who asked me when he last traveled here, how I would look upon them going to Constantinople to seek liturgical union with it. I told him that Patriarch Mstyslav had visited Constantinople in the spring of 1992 to make that attempt. The Constantinople patriarch said that at the next synod the issue would be discussed. As a matter of fact, Archbishop Antony was a witness, he was part of that delegation. There even was an official photograph taken with the [Constantinople] patriarch.

At the time [Archbishop Antony] was going again to seek such liturgical union, I told him that I would be pleased if such a union took place, but I explained to him that Patriarch Mstyslav had attempted it already.

As to the idea that they would come under complete jurisdiction [of Constantinople], we had no such discussions. Since [union] took place we have had no contacts whatsoever. That visit occurred in 1993, maybe 1994.

Q: What is the current situation in the UAOC today; the number of parishes, churches, your financial situation?

A: Financially, we are very weak. For example, we can't afford the cost of renovation of this building, which we were finally given after a lengthy court battle. Another example, we have trouble paying our workers. But we have hope.

As for our numbers, we have six bishops, including myself. Two more are being prepared. We aren't going to expand the numbers until we have a need for that. As for parishes, it is difficult to pin down the exact number we hold. In Ivano-Frankivsk we have about 100 parishes - this is after Filaret took half of them.

In Ukraine, we have the Cherkasy Eparchy, where today we are almost the largest, nearly larger than the Russian Church. We are expanding there. We are preparing to appoint a bishop there. Currently, 14 parishes exist and new ones are organizing. There are also two parishes in the Kirovohrad Oblast that belong to the Cherkasy Eparchy.

Q: In the last few years, how many parishes have left the UAOC for Patriarch Filaret's UOC-KP?

A: Parishes have not been leaving voluntarily, they are being forced to go to Filaret. I would say at least half, perhaps more.

We once had 1,500 parishes, now I would say we have about 700.

[Archbishop Ihor interjects here: I believe it is currently closer to 500. But after the split in 1992 we were left with one-tenth (of 1,500). Today people are returning en masse.]

Q: Your Holiness, you said that parishes were forced to leave your Church.

A: The actions were spurred by the president, the KGB [sic], the OMON [special forces], the militia, all the directors of collective farms and the heads of village councils. They all were involved, as well as Verkhovna Rada national deputies who were aligned with the president.

Q: You are saying that government officials forced people to leave your Church?

A: In reality they organized the [June 1992] Sobor. Their voices were heard - not ours. That Sobor was not a spiritual sobor but a political one.

Q: Although you say that the situation is improving, the fact remains that the existence of the UAOC is at a critical juncture. What are you, as head of the Church, doing to improve the state of the Church?

A: We had a Church whose hierarchy belonged to the state nomenklatura - communistic and atheistic. We have tried to keep a great distance from that nomenklatura. Filaret, along with [former] President [Leonid] Kravchuk formed a second, ostensibly Ukrainian, but still nomenklaturical Church.

People of the Soviet Union learned to believe that you must fear, and do as the leadership says. Many priests became accustomed to doing as they were told, because if you did not listen, you were exiled. This is why many moved to Filaret. But today they are returning. And they are returning precisely because we are not associated with Filaret.

Q: Has the matter of the bankruptcy of the Christian Bank, which was so closely tied to the UAOC, finally been resolved?

A: Today the bank does not exist. Its director loaned money from other banks and then fled to Moscow with the money. It was a planned action to force bankruptcy.

The director's surname was Lubun, I forget his first name, and the assistant director was Oleh Zastavsky. We kept the premises that once belonged to the bank until a bishop, Ivan Boichuk, took the premises with him when he went [over to Filaret].

Q: Do you have any relations with the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and Bishop Lubomyr Husar?

A: We talk, but where as I open up to him completely, I notice that he does not reciprocate. It seems he keeps much to himself.

Another thing, I don't understand why he keeps contact with [Patriarch Filaret] knowing that he does not have "san." Bishop Husar told me: "All the same, he has a lot of people and a lot of churches. The only problem with him is that he is non-yielding."

Q: What is your prognosis, how will the UAOC look in the year 2000, and then five years from now?

A: It is tough for me to answer that question because we are the most persecuted Church. We are persecuted by the Greek-Catholics - they are attempting to take our churches - and the Moscow Church, and Filaret. We are under attack from three strong sides.

However, people keep returning to us, nonetheless. They realize that we are a true Church, a Christian Church, not some party affiliation, or one that cares only about fame and fortune.

We have hope that things will improve.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, January 31, 1999, No. 5, Vol. LXVII

| Home Page |