PARSIPPANY, N.J. – A virtual Town Hall meeting, “Ukraine Autocephaly: An Issue So Critical,” was hosted on January 26 by the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The meeting was held via conference call, with listeners able to ask questions (written in advance and posed during the call as it happened), and attracted an audience from across North America and likely beyond.
Dr. Anthony J. Limberakis, national commander of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, welcomed the audience and introduced the meeting’s panelists – Metropolitan Emmanuel of France (Greek Orthodox Church), the Rev. Deacon Nicholas Denysenko, Ph.D. (Valparaiso University), Vera Shevzov, Ph.D. (Smith College) – as well as the meeting’s moderator, George Demacopoulos, Ph.D. (Fordham University).
The 90-minute meeting began at 1 p.m. and was convened to clarify facts and foster a spiritual exchange related to the signing of the Tomos of autocephaly for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on January 5 and its transfer on January 6 to Metropolitan Epifaniy, head of the newly unified OCU. Dr. Limberakis reminded the audience that this meeting was not a debate.
Public Orthodoxy, the publication of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University, published an informative article on January 24 by Dr. Limberakis explaining why the Order had taken the unprecedented step of hosting a virtual town hall meeting about autocephaly for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Below is an excerpt from the article.
“It is one of the most vexing and important questions confronting the Church in our time, and one of the least understood: the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has rocked the Church more than any event in the last millennium. Now the Order of Saint Andrew, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, is hosting a Virtual Town Meeting to bring some light and clarity to this unfortunately heated and unquestionably crucial issue.
“The New York Times (https://nytimes.com/reuters/2019/01/05/world/europe/05reuters-ukraine-church.html) reported on Saturday, [January 5,] that Russia is ‘comparing it to the Great Schism of 1054 that divided western and eastern Christianity.’ This issue has indeed been the cause of a regrettable schism, with the Moscow Patriarchate unilaterally breaking communion with Constantinople not over any matter of doctrine, but simply over the question of jurisdiction regarding the Ukrainian Church.
“Thus what was, or should have been, simply an administrative issue has become something far larger, with implications for the Orthodox Church as a whole that cannot be overstated. The questions involved in this issue include ones of authority, unity, jurisdiction, and the very nature of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian in the world today.
“Some calming and informative voices are certainly needed at this point, and the Order is supplying them, having assembled an impressive roster of speakers – one that certainly cannot be dismissed as simply a group of apologists for the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate…”
Dr. Demacopoulos, co-director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University, in his opening statement underscored three main issues he saw as part of the discussion: 1) reconciliation of Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, 2) autocephaly of the OCU within the borders of Ukraine (historical vs modern borders), and 3) Moscow’s reaction to the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s decision. These topics, he said, should clarify what the developments in Ukraine mean for world Orthodoxy.
After a brief introduction of the panelists by Dr. Demacopoulos, opening statements were offered by the panelists, who were limited to five minutes each.
Metropolitan Emmanuel, one of three exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to Ukraine, explained how the autocephaly process got rolling in April 2018, including his visit to the primates of all Orthodox Churches to discuss the autocephaly process. Ukraine, he added, has suffered 27 years of division within the Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine: Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC), and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP).
The need to act was spurred by Patriarch Filaret, former primate of the UOC-KP [Editor’s Note: Since October 2018, he holds the title Archbishop and Metropolitan of Kyiv], who had sent six appeals to the Mother Church of Constantinople, the metropolitan said, adding, “The Mother Church could not pretend it did not know what was going on in Ukraine.”
Transparent steps taken
Metropolitan Emmanuel explained the transparent steps that were taken in the lead-up to the granting of autocephaly for Ukraine, including the unity displayed by Patriarch Filaret (UOC-KP) and Metropolitan Makariy (UAOC) during the 1,030th anniversary celebration in July 2018 of the Baptism of Ukraine in 988. The metropolitan described his experience at the Unification Sobor (Council) held on December 15, 2018, that elected Metropolitan Epifaniy, said he was honored to be there with Patriarch Bartholomew, and noted that the result reached was an expression of the will of the laity, hierarchs and clergy.
Metropolitan Epifaniy was enthroned on February 3 in Kyiv, as the OCU appeals for recognition by world Orthodoxy. “We are hopeful that more will join the faithful and that all the other bishops of autocephalous Churches will recognize the autocephalous status of the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine,” Metropolitan Emmanuel added.
The Rev. Deacon Denysenko, the Emil and Elfriede Jochum Professor and Chair in Theology, cited four issues he saw as central to the discussion: origins of Ukrainian autocephaly, the dispute between Moscow and Constantinople, the timing of autocephaly, and the crisis of representation in the court of the Church. The Rev. Denysenko cited the history of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Patriarch Filaret since 1992, and spoke of the Ukrainianization movement in Ukraine (1917-1921), during which church services were either held in Slavonic or, increasingly, in Ukrainian. He noted the role of language in national identity formation in Ukraine and how it has become a generational issue. The dispute between Moscow, Constantinople and Ukraine, he said, has deep-rooted origins and questioned why this matter has come to a head now.
The canonical status of the UOC-MP, he said, had contributed to its steady growth in Ukraine since 1989, in the final days of the atheist Soviet Union. Since the Revolution of Dignity in 2013-2014, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbas, there has been a shift toward the UOC-KP and the situation has reached a point of “no return” for autocephaly, he said. Today, the divergent courses of the OCU and the UOC-MP have exposed political divisions in Ukraine. Overcoming canonical issues has been the first major step, but one yet to be realized is unity of all Orthodox Christians of Ukraine, he added.
Dr. Shevzov, professor of religion, Russian, East European and Eurasian studies, noted the diversity of the OCU in relation to the east-west divide of Ukraine’s historical experiences from the Soviet legacy to post-Soviet Ukraine. The Orthodox divisions in Ukraine, she said, cannot be resolved by simply asking people to “get over it.” It also involves overcoming Russification or, as she put it, “Stalin’s policies toward the nationalities issue” in the creation of the atheist Soviet person “Homo Sovieticus,” as well as the separation of national and spiritual identities, and divisions in collective historical memory in Ukraine. The Soviet Union was an “experiment in secularization,” she added, but that euphemism does not explain the extent of its impact.
The role of the diaspora communities for post-Soviet countries cannot be overstated, as these communities maintained national identity for these Orthodox groups.
Ukraine, she continued, is a “firing range or proving ground” in the struggle for autocephaly, and it serves as an example to others who would follow its course.
During the response portion of the meeting, panelists were invited to comment on opening statements made by other panelists.
Dr. Shevzov questioned the timing of Ukraine’s autocephaly, as well as the acceptance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s decision to recognize as canonical the status of Patriarch Filaret.
Metropolitan Emmanuel responded that, through patience and effort for unity, Patriarch Filaret’s anathema was overturned and the judgment was justified. He underscored Patriarch Filaret’s multiple appeals to Constantinople as the Mother Church could not remain deaf to these appeals. The break from Moscow was seen as a way to heal schisms within Ukraine and to heal related wounds by accepting Filaret as canonical. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, he added, did not recognize Filaret’s title of patriarch, or a Patriarchate in Kyiv, but as metropolitan of Kyiv. The decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was to give the Tomos of autocephaly not to the so-called “schismatics” Filaret or Makariy, but to a new leader of a new unified Church organization in Ukraine.
The Rev. Denysenko commented that the central dispute needed to be viewed more broadly as power moves in a historical context, citing the Ukrainianization renaissance of the 1920s, Ukraine’s Orthodox under the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Poland in 1924, the role of Filaret as part of the UOC-MP and the UOC-KP, and the absence of a neutral party in the power struggle via the courts of the Church. There is more room for discussion on these matters, he said.
Dr. Demacopoulos noted suggestions of convening a Pan-Orthodox Synod to resolve these issues, as was held in 2016 in Crete. Future councils, he said, would be a welcome development and are expected to address these issues under the structure of Synodality.
Russia’s rejection of dialogue
Metropolitan Emmanuel underscored Russia’s rejection of Synodality, with its boycott of the Pan-Orthodox Synod in Crete in 2016, where an answer to the Ukrainian question was delivered. There is no interest from Moscow for a sincere dialogue, he said, whereas world Orthodoxy is open to dialogue. The question of Ukraine’s autocephaly was answered in 2016, and Synodality is needed to encourage ongoing dialogue and work, he said.
Dr. Shevzov said her research shows a degree of confusion on the ground in Ukraine about the Ecumenical Patriarchate no longer recognizing the autonomous status of UOC-MP and Metropolitan Onufriy. She argued that there was a lack of transparency and a sense of rushing the recognition efforts by Constantinople.
The Rev. Denysenko echoed the need for Synodality and called for a Synaxis of hierarchs of world Orthodoxy to discuss these matters further. In 2008, during the 1,020th anniversary of the Baptism of Ukraine, he said, President Viktor Yushchenko appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in seeking autocephaly for Ukraine. At the time, UOC-MP Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) claimed that dialogue had collapsed and prevented a Synodal solution. The Rev. Denysenko argued that a sustaining dialogue must be maintained in Ukraine, as well as throughout world Orthodoxy.
The panelists then fielded questions from audience members via telephone. The first caller, identified as Matthew, asked about the text of the Tomos of autocephaly, and clarification on the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s and the OCU’s role in the diaspora versus in Ukraine – specifically former Kyiv Patriarchate churches in the diaspora, and how they have come under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In Ukraine, for example, each parish can elect to join the new OCU or maintain its current status under Moscow.
Churches in the diaspora
UOC-KP and UAOC churches in the diaspora, according to the Tomos, fall directly under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Metropolitan Emmanuel commented that in Crete the participants attempted to resolve this through the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the U.S.A. and the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of Canada under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Metropolitan Emmanuel stated: “…What was put in the Tomos was also the question that was discussed with the different bishops in Ukraine. So the Ecumenical Patriarchate is not at this moment trying to do something new, but what has been in the canons of the Church in dealing with the diaspora. And it was very clear we are not doing a revolution but we were just applying the canons. If we apply the canons, that we all know, so I don’t think we need to accuse the Ecumenical Patriarchate of misconduct.”
Spiro Makariy of North Carolina asked the panelists to comment on the role of external factors in the decision for autocephaly, in light of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its ongoing fighting in eastern Ukraine, possible U.S./NATO pressure, and how the decision on autocephaly for Ukraine reflects the transparency of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Metropolitan Emmanuel responded that “we all know what is going on [in Ukraine],” despite disinformation campaigns by outside actors. “The annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine,” and the fact that “if we didn’t have all of these victims, autocephaly would be easier.”
It was also important for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the Mother Church, to act now, not later, as the timing was significant, he added. This was not an action out of external pressure, “but someone had to do something. If not now, when?”
“Ukraine’s situation has almost the same circumstances as other autocephalous Orthodox Churches,” he underscored, in that each autocephalous Orthodox Church has gone through the process of gaining a Tomos of autocephaly from the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The Rev. Denysenko stressed the role that President Petro Poroshenko had played in the process, including his meetings with Patriarch Bartholomew and his presence at the Unification Council meeting on December 15, 2018. There is a challenge in post-Tomos Ukraine to refute the international perception of politicized religion in Ukraine. The political plurality Ukraine enjoys is a plus, he added, but there is no legacy of separation of Church and State in Ukraine, where world Orthodoxy can play a role in maintaining separation. Political pressure in Ukraine, he added, is coming from both sides, supporting autocephaly versus maintaining the status quo.
Dr. Shevzov attempted to posit a 2015 opinion poll as fact, citing Pew Research polls that showed the majority in Ukraine (17 percent) viewed Moscow as the Mother Church, as opposed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate (7 percent).
Metropolitan Emmanuel was quick to correct Dr. Shevzov, and he reminded all of the historic role that Constantinople played in the baptism of Kyiv-Rus’ in 988, as Moscow did not exist at the time.
A question came from Cornie Jones of South Carolina, who asked Metropolitan Emmanuel for commentary on the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s decision to move forward with autocephaly for Ukraine despite the rejection by Metropolitan Onufriy (UOC-MP), and for an explanation of any steps taken to verify the Orthodox nature of the UOC-KP or the UAOC.
Metropolitan Emmanuel explained that the UOC-MP was invited to participate in the Unification Council, but Metropolitan Onufriy (UOC-MP) did not accept the invitation and declined to meet with any of the exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Unification Council’s decision represented the will of the people of Ukraine, including the majority voice of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s Parliament, which voted in favor of the autocephaly process.
Millions of Ukraine’s Orthodox have been divided since Ukraine’s renewed independence in 1991, Metropolitan Emmanuel pointed out and then rhetorically asked, “Why leave it divided?”
“Is it not the task of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to deal with the wounds of the Church? We did not interfere by force, or force anybody. We know very well there were bishops [from the UOC-MP] who wanted to come to the Unification Council, but they were forced not to participate. The decision to unite,” he said, “reflected the free choice of the people of Ukraine.”
The Rev. Denysenko cited a June 23, 2018, meeting at the Phanar in Istanbul between a delegation of four bishops (that did not include Metropolitan Onufriy) from the UOC-MP and Patriarch Bartholomew, Metropolitans Emmanuel, John of Pergamon and Bartholomew of Smyrna. There was a video of this meeting posted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in maintaining transparency in the autocephaly discussions and the process as a whole. He reminded his interlocutors, citing the work of the late Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) (UOC-MP) with the UAOC, that this ongoing dialogue between the Orthodox Churches of Ukraine must remain inclusive to heal divisions.
Dr. Shevzov questioned how Metropolitan Onufriy, who was the canonical representative of Ukraine, was invited to be included in any councils in these ongoing discussions on his own canonical territory with non-canonical Church leaders. She cited a need for mediation.
A historical mistake
Metropolitan Emmanuel attempted to explain the events as they transpired, including the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate under Moscow in 1686, in a decision that was deemed a historical mistake and was revoked by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He reiterated that Metropolitan Onufriy rejected the invitation to participate in the Unification Council.
Dr. Shevzov expressed surprise that there was no statute of limitations in the canons on this kind of dispute, and that, via a Unification Council, a new Church structure is created in the formation of the OCU.
Dr. Demacopoulos moved on to the next caller, as the discussion between Metropolitan Emmanuel and Dr. Shevzov had reached an impasse.
The final caller of the event was Gregory Mallick of Hawaii, who asked if the panelists could offer commentary on reports that priests and bishops in Ukraine were being removed by Moscow hierarchy because they would not reveal confessions of Ukrainian laity who were fighting in the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, and if this had influenced the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s decision.
None of the panelists were willing to comment, claiming lack of knowledge about the facts surrounding the matter.
Dr. Demacopoulos concluded the discussion, saying that this was hopefully the first of many such meetings hosted by the Order of St. Andrew as part of ongoing discussions about autocephaly for Ukraine’s Orthodox.
Dr. Limberakis thanked all of the panelists and callers for a “most candid, insightful, diverse and lively discussion,” as well as Dr. Demcopoulos for moderating this “poignant and ground-breaking event” and “promoting dialogue, good will and speaking the truth in love.”
Archbishop Daniel of the UOC-U.S.A., who was previously listed as a late addition to the scheduled panelists, was unable to attend due to his busy schedule.
The host of the virtual town hall meeting, the Order of St. Andrew, is the U.S.-based association of the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and includes more than 700 lay members selected based on their service to the Orthodox Church who work to secure religious freedom for the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
A recording of the virtual town hall meeting can be accessed via the archons.org website, or by visiting the associated link to Soundcloud, https://soundcloud.com/user-751833796/virtual-town-hall-meeting-on-ukraine-autocephaly.