De Oekraïense kerkelijke kwestie in het Europees Parlement

Op dinsdag 4 december 2018 nam Zijne Eminentie Metropoliet Athenagoras van België en Exarch van Nederland en Luxemburg deel aan de conferentie “Politieke en sociale gevolgen van de onafhankelijkheid van de Orthodoxe Kerk van Oekraïne”. De conferentie werd gehouden in het Europees Parlement onder auspiciën van de Europese Volkspartij (EVP).

Zijne Excellentie bisschop Makarios van Christoupolis was oorspronkelijk aangewezen als voornaamste spreker. Verplichtingen van het laatste ogenblik verhinderden hem echter aanwezig te zijn, waarop Zijne Alheiligheid Oecumenisch Patriarch Bartholomeus Metropoliet Athenagoras aanduidde als plaatsvervanger en als lezer van de door Zijne Excellentie voorbereide voordracht.

De toespraak begon met een historische verwijzing naar de orthodoxe aanwezigheid in de regio van het hedendaagse Oekraïne met de doop van prins Vladimir en het volk van Rusland. Daarna werden de belangrijkste fases van de geschiedenis van het Aartsbisdom van Kiev tot vandaag genoemd, om uit te komen op de gebeurtenissen en het gemotiveerde verzoek van het volk, waarop het Oecumenisch Patriarchaat, in overeenstemming met de voorschriften van de canonieke traditie de orthodoxe kerk, overging tot het verlenen van onafhankelijkheid aan de Orthodoxe Kerk van Oekraïne.

De hoofdtoespraak werd gevolgd door opmerkingen en standpunten van de verschillende panelleden en een interessante uitwisseling over de sociale en culturele effecten van dit grote kerkelijke debat.

Mevrouw Sandra Kalniete, vice-voorzitter van de Europese Volkspartij voor de bilaterale betrekkingen tussen de landen van Oost-Europa was de moderator van de dag, met eveneens de deelname van de heer Jan Olbrycht, vice-voorzitter van de Europese Volkspartij voor interculturele en interreligieuze domeinen, de Zeer Eerwaarde Aartsbisschop Efstratios van Chernihiv (Oekraïne) en Dr. Antoine Arjakovsky, onderzoeksdirecteur van het Collège des Bernardins in Parijs.

Hier is de toespraak in het Engels van Zijne Excellentie Bisschop Makarios van Christoupolis:

The Reasons for which the Ecumenical Patriarchate Has Decided to Grant Autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine

ADDRESS

By His Grace Bishop Makarios of Christoupolis

at the Council of the EPP Group of the European Union in the context of the general topic:
«Political and Societal Impact

of the Independency of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine».

Brussels, December 4th, 2018

 

It is a great honor for me personally and for the Ecumenical Patriachate to participate to this very important spiritual, ecclesiastical, political and social discussion, which, I am sure, will shed light upon many aspects of the Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue. Together with my warm thanksgiving to all the organizers of this event, I would like to convey to the beloved participants the cordial and paternal wishes of His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and his congratulations for your effort and your contribution to the common good of the citizens of the European Union.

If we would like to codify the reasons why on April 22nd, 2018, after a lot of thought and discussion, the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate decided to grant autocephalous ecclesiastical status to Ukraine, we would have to examine, first and foremost, two factors: The first factor would be the history of the Metropolis of Kiev, which up to a certain point coincides with the history of the Church of Russia, and the second factor would be the examination of the way and the conditions under which the autocephaly was granted to the other recognized local Orthodox Autocephalous Churches.

As it is known, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, after the baptism of Prince Vladimir and the Kievans in 988, founded the Holy Metropolis of Kiev, which held the 60th position in the Constitution of the Church of Constantinople. When Kiev was occupied by the Mongols, in December 1240, the people of Kiev and its Bishops moved toward the Northeren areas of Great Russia. Thus, the see of the Metropolis of Kiev was transfered from Kiev, first to Vladimir and afterwards to Moscow. Metropolitan Peter (1308-1326) was the one that permanently established the see of the Metropolis of Kiev in Moscow in 1325.

These new facts of the transfer of the see of the Metropolis of Kiev to Moscow, but also, simultaneously, the expansion of the Grand Dutchy of Lithouania toward the Russian territories, were crucial factors that had determinative effects upon the later configuration of the ecclesiastical eparchies. By that point, it was clear that, besides Moscow, which gradually became the powerful center of the North, gradually, other cities, too, demanded a hygemonic see, with great development and influence, in the area of the South. Naturally, these cities attempted to establish their own ecclesiastical metropolitan administrations, independent from the ecclesiastical emancipation of the Moscovite center. For this reason, already since the 14th century, there was a rivalry between North and South, which finally led to the establishment of three Metropolises: a. the Metropolis of Kiev and of all Russia with its see in Moscow, b. the Metropolis of Galicia, which included the areas north of the Karpathia, which today are shared by Poland and Ukraine, with its see in Kiev, and c. the Metropolis of Latvia or Lithouania with its see, then, in Novgorod.

Nevertheless, the complete secession of Moscow from Kiev took place after the dethronement of Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev and all Russia by Grand Prince Basil and the local Synod, with the accusation that Isidore was unionist and supporter of the decisions of the Synod of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439). After that, the local Synod of Moscow, after a lot of political pressure and ecclesiastical oscillation, elected, in 1448, Jonah as Metropolitan of Russia, without the permission and the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Constantinople, with the Ottomans outside of its walls and in order to safeguard the unity of the Church, finally blessed the Russian ecclesiastical revolt in 1452, recognizing the election of Jonah, despite the fact that this recognition did not include the granting of the right for the election of the Metropolitan by the local Synod of Moscow.

I am underlying especially this particular tragic moment in the history of the Church of Russia, because I want to emphasize that the schismatic and anti-ecclesial action of Moscow does not differ from the schismatic action of the former Metropolitan of Kiev Filaret. Despite the fact that the motives were completely different, the action of the persons was exactly the same: secession from the canonical Church. However, what really matters is to study how the canonical Church reacted to these two secessive actions. In the first case, the local Synod of Moscow uncanonically elected Jonah and the Ecumenical Patriarchate forgave the uncanonical election, showing long-suffering and love, in order to seafeguard the unity of the Church. In the second case, Metropolitan Filaret secessed himself from the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Russian Patriarchate automatically deposed and anathematized him. The consequences, of course, from these acts are known to all of us. If Constantinople deposed then Jonah and anathematized the local Synod, today we would have a huge schism in the Orthodox Church. And if Moscow had then attempted to address the issue in a more unificatory way, perhaps we wouldn’t have an additional schism in Ukraine today.

A watershed moment for the Metropolis of Kiev was the subsequent elevation of the Metropolis of Kiev to Patriarchate. Patriarch Jeremiah II Tranos of Constantinople (1572-1594) received immense pressure from the Czar of Russia Theodore (1584-1598), even to the point of imprisonment, in order to grant the Patriarchal dignity to Moscow, which he finally accorded to Moscow, rendering Metropolitan Job as the first Patriarch of Moscow. For this event two Synods took place. The first happened immediately after the return of Patriarch Jeremiah to Constantinople, in 1590, in which the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem and many other Hierarchs took part. This Endymousa Synod ratified the decisions of Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah and drafted an official Patriarchal and Synodal Chrysobull (Tomos) for the elevation of Moscow to Patriarchate. The main points that were underlined in the Patriarchal Chrysobull are: first, that the Metropolitan of Moscow “in the future will be honored and called together with us the Patriarchs and will have the order in the prayers after the Patriarch of Jerusalem,” and second, the ecclesiastical authority and head of the new Patriarch is defined: “so that he [i.e. the Patriarch of Moscow] may have as head and authority the Apostolic Throne of the City of Constantine, as the rest of the Patriarchs also have.”

The second Endymouse Synod took place at the Pammakaristos Church in Constantinople, in 1593. Despite the fact that some historians present as basic reason for the convocation of this Synod the absence of the Patriarch of Alexandria from the previous act of 1590, the reality is that there is also another reason for the convocation of the 1593 Synod. The Czar and the Patriarch of Russia were displeased by the position that was granted to the Patriarch of Moscow in the order of the Dyptichs of the Orthodox Church. For this reason, they were asking the insertion of the name of the Patriarch of Moscow immediately after the name of the Patriarch of Alexandria and before the names of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem. Obviously, the Synod did not follow the uncanonical and antiecclesiastical desires of Moscow. The Synod reiterated the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which had defined the territories of the Patriarchates, sending, thus, a message to the already lurking expansionism of the nascent Church of Russia. Furthermore, in accordance with the patterns of the Ecumenical Councils, the territory of the newly-established Patriarchate was determined. According to the acts of the Synod, which were sent to the Patriarch of Moscow, the new ecclesiastical jurisdiction included “the whole of Russia and the Hyperborea parts,” i.e. the Metropolis of Kiev was not jurisdictionally granted to the nascent Patriarchate.

The next historic event that has to be taken into consideration is the liberation of Kiev and the broader area, in 1654, and the political union of Little Russia with Moscow. Since then the issue of the ecclesiastical union between Moscow and Kiev has been intensely raised by actors of both the political and the ecclesiastical leadership. At this point, we have to underline that all the actions and pressures toward this ecclesiastical union came unilaterally from Moscow and not from the side of Kiev. For this reason, in the conscience of the Kievan people the idea of the subordination of the Metropolis of Kiev to the Patriarchate of Moscow was never adopted.

Over thirty years after the liberation of Little Russia – Kiev (1685), Patriarch Joachim of Moscow (1674-1690) encroached on the territory of the Metropolis of Kiev, which was canonically under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and elected bishop Gideon as Metropolitan of Kiev. With this action, the Patriarch of Moscow violated the Divine and Sacred Canons and especially canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which does not allow a bishop to occupy the diocese of another bishop. In a similar manner to a coup d’etat, the ecclesiastical regime of the Metropolis of Kiev, which had been in effect since 988, was unilateraly altered, in violation of the Divine and Sacred Canons, to the benefit of the Patriarchate of Moscow and to the detriment of the Church of Constantinople. Obviously, the Kievan people, clergy and Hierarchy did not accept this uncanonical election of Gideon by the Russian Church. For this reason, in order to heal the uncanonical character of this action, both the Russian Patriarchate and the Czarist government recruited the ambassador Nikita Alexiev.

The Russian diplomat went to Adrianoupolis, where he met with Ecumenical Patriarch Dionysius IV and Patriach Dositheus of Jerusalem, who was residing there, with the purpose of securing the approval of the election of Gideon and the final subjection of the Metropolis of Kiev to the Patriarchate of Moscow. Within this difficult historical context, the documents of 1686 were produced, during the tenure of Patriarch Dionysius. Nevertheless, these documents do not cede the Metropolis of Kiev to the Patriarchate of Moscow, as our Russian brothers claim today, but they only grant to the Patriarch of Moscow the permission to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev. In particular, in the epistle of Patriarch Dionysius to the Czar it is noted that «our modesty’s beloved and precious brother and concelebrant [the Patriarch of Moscow], is able after permission to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev, in accordance with the ecclesiastical order.»

Furthermore, it shouldn’t escape our attention that a fundamental ecclesiastical condition is prescribed in these texts. This condition strengthens the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Metropolis of Kiev. The texts prescribe that the Metropolitan of Kiev should commemorate in the Divine Liturgy first the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Today, an ecclesiastical problem exists, because this condition was not followed and, as a result, an ecclesiastical transgression is being committed. Since the time of Dionysius there is no other official document or a Patriarchal and Synodal Act that cedes the Metropolis of Kiev to the Patriarchate of Moscow. This fact should be absolutely clear.

The next significant historic event took place in 1917, when the system of governence in Russia changed and the tendency of ecclesiastical independence from Moscow immediately reemerged in Ukraine. The majority of the Christians in Ukraine earnestly desired autocephaly, but through the canononical way, i.e. through the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The state, through the promiment military leader Pavlo Skoropadskyi (1873-1945), already supported the idea of autocephaly, while since 1919 an Autocephalous Church in Ukraine was established by law, even though everybody knew that the Autocephaly was hard to be realized and recognized by the Clergy-laity Congress, as long as Patriacth Tikhon of Moscow controlled Ukraine through the Russian Bishops.

The failure of all efforts for autocephaly in the past century is attributed exclusively to the Patriarchate of Moscow. Even more so, not only none of these effiorts succeeded, but also the schisms that were created in the past century were primarily the consequence of the intolence of the Russian Church not to allow ecclesiastical independence in Ukraine. I wouldn’t like to make any further comments about the historical events of the previous century, which are familiar to us, because they are closer to us from a chronological point of view. I just note that up until recently three ecclesiastical jurisdictions existed in Ukraine. One is under the Patriarchate of Moscow, as the Autonomous Church of Ukraine, whose Primate is Metropolitan Onufriy. Another one was under the leadership of the self-proclaimed Patriarch Filaret, as Patriarchate of Ukraine, and the third under the leadership of the self-proclaimed Archbishop Makariy, as the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine. On October 11th, 2018, the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, after constant petitions of appeal by Filaret and Makariy, restored the two leaders of the schismatic groups back to canonicity, recognizing their episcopal dignity, but not their rank and title. This means that Filaret is no longer the Patriarch of Kiev, but the former Metropolitan of Kiev, and Makariy is not the Archbishop of Lviv, but the former Archbishop of Lviv. The positive outcome of this decision of the Mother Church is that the two ecclesiastical jurisdictions of Filaret and Makariy were united under the spiritual guidance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the preparations for the convocation of the Clergy-laity Congress have alredy started. This Congress will elect the person who will lead the new Autocephalous Church of Ukraine.

At this point and given the Patriarchate of Moscow’s presentation of the granting of Autocephaly as the result of political interventions and not as an ecclesiastical necessity, we will start the second part of this address and we will examine the way and conditions under which the other Autocephalous Churches around the world received their Tomos of independence.

Already during the first millenium, the territories of the five ancient Patriarchates (Elder Rome, New Rome – Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) and of the Church of Cyprus were determined by the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. During the following years, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in accordance with the Sacred Canons (among which, Chalcedon 9, 17 and 28; Trullo 36; Hagia Sophia 1) took special care, granting Tomos of autochephaly to all the newly-established Churches, either with the title of Archdiocese or with the title of Patriarchate. In particular, upon petition of the Czar the self-proclained autocephalous Metropolis of Moscow was elevated to the rank of Patriarchate (1589), upon petition of the Greek Government and Hierarchy Autocephalous status was granted to the Church of Greece in 1850, later on, upon petition of the ruler of Serbia Autocephaly was granted to the Church of Serbia in 1879, followed by the granting of Autocephaly to Romania after petition by the Metropolitan of Hungrovlachia and the king in 1885, to Poland in 1924, to Albania in 1937, to Bulgaria in 1945, to Georgia in 1990 and, last, to the Czech Lands in 1998.

At this point I would like to emphasize that most autocephalies were granted with state intervention, or to put it differently, no Church received autocephalous status without the active involvement or support of the State. History teaches that if in an Orthodox country the King or the Ruler or even the President of the country desires the ecclesiastical independence of his territory then, sooner or later, this will happen and it is very difficult for somebody to thwart such a process. The most characteristic example of blunt political intervention to the granting of autocephalous ecclesiastical status in the history of the Orthodox Church is the one of the Patriarchate of Moscow. For this reason, the Russian Church is the last that can employ the intervention of the State as an argument for the reversal of an ecclesiastical decision. We shouldn’t forget that without the intense Czarist intervention, Moscow wouldn’t be a Patriarchate today.

Nevertheless, besides the historical facts, today everybody knows that no other Church has the special and tight embracement that the Moscow Patriarchate has with the Russian Government. And this, of course, is not mentioned here in a spirit of denunciation or rejection. However, when there is such a well-known and public relationship, it is worth asking how our Russian brothers dare to talk today about political interventions and to criticize the stance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which, for many years, receives the petitions of the Ukrainian State for ecclesiastical independence.

Therefore, in the case of Ukraine, there is the political will and intervention of the leadership of the Ukrainian state. However, we should know that, on the one hand, political intervention is not something unknown in the history of the granting of autocephaly to the newly-established Patriarchates. On the other hand, the will of the state is not the main and sole motive on which the Ecumenical Patriarchate is based in order to grand ecclesiastical independence to Ukraine.

Despite what is said and written from time to time, the Ukrainian autocephaly is not a political issue for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but more a moral, ecclesiastical, and spiritual issue. Since the beginning of the 14th century, when the see of the Metropolis of Kiev was transfered to Moscow, the Kievans have been unceasingly and intensely trying to gain their independence from the ecclesiastical manipulation of the Moscovite center. Nevertheless, the intolerence of the Patriarchate of Moscow and the interventions of Rulers and Czars contributed to the establishment, merger, and reestablishment of ecclesiastical eparchies, uncanonical elections of Bishops, as well as schisms, which torment the pious Ukrainian people till today.

All these reaffirm that the ecclesiastical issue of Ukraine is not new but a longstanding one, making imperative the need of intervention by the Mother Church. Since Russia is unable—as primarily responsible for the current painful situation—to solve the problem that persists for the last thirty years, the Mother Church, in accordance with the authority that is given to it by the sacred Canons (Chalcedon 9, 17, and 28), has the duty and the responsibility to take care of the various Churches and to contribute to unity, to the restoration of canonicity, and to the healing of schisms and divisions.

Therefore, the most important factor that led the Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant Autocephaly to Ukraine is the healing of schisms and the ecclesiastical restoration of unity. As it is already mentioned, up until now two schismatic factions existed in Ukraine, both of them products of the intolerance of the Russian Church. The Ecumenical Patriarchate tried and managed to unite these two factions and to include in the canonical Church a whole people of approximately 20.000.000 faithful, who were abruptly placed outside the Church, because they didn’t accept being under the supervision of the Russian Patriarchate.

It is very important what Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew mentioned in his homily during the day of the feast of St Bartholomew, on June 11th, 2018, in the Phanar: «The existence of a schism is not an argument for the abandonment—with a clear conscience—of an entire nation outside the ecclesiastical truth and canonicity, denying our duty before God and history, but rather it is an incentive for finding salvific and unitary solutions. When the Mother Church examines the ways of salvation for our brothers in Ukraine and Skopje, it fulfills its apostolic duty. It is our duty and responsibility to bring all nations back to the truth and canonicity of the Church. Because, whatever the Ecumenical Patriarchate has, it has for the benefit of the whole world and offers it to all nations without exception».

Within this climate we have to also take into consideration the recent socio-political changes, which created new facts. Besides the independence of the country and the creation of the new state of the Ukrainian Republic in 1991, after the embattled situation that was created in Crimea in 2014, the preconditions for the presence of Russians in Ukraine have become more and more difficult. The shattering political events, through which completely different geopolitical circumstances were created, made the presence and interference of the Patriarchate of Moscow undesirable and, if nothing else, harmful for the interests of the Ukrainian state and the unity of the Ukrainian people. Therefore, it is fully understandable that the greatest part of the Ukrainian people desires its ecclesiastical emancipation from a Church that cooperates or even serves the interests of a hostile state to Ukraine.

After the previous analysis, we could codify the following concluding statements:

1. The Metropolis of Kiev was founded as Metropolis by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and was never ceded to the Patriarchate of Moscow. There is no official document that proves such a subjection or conferral from the side of the Church of Constantinople. The well-known letters of Ecumenical Patriarch Dionyius IV grant to the Patriarch of Moscow only the canonical permission to perform the ordination of the Metropolitan of Kiev, prescribing as a basic condition the commemoration of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

2. The Fourth Ecumenical Council determined the order and the territoties of the ancient Patriarchates and of the Church of Cyprus. The subsequent newly-established and recognized Autocephalous Churches that today exist in the system of the Orthodox Churches (Moscow, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Athens, Poland, Albania, and Czach Lands) received their Tomos of Autocephaly from the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

3. All the newly-established Orthodox Churches received the status of ecclesiastical independence most of the times through state intervention. The most characteristic case is the emergence of the Patriarchate of Moscow, which clearly happened through the direct pressure from the Czarist authority.

4. It is clear that for the ecclesiastical independence of Ukraine there is the political will and intervention, but there are also the political conditions, primarily after the creation of a separate Ukrainian state in 1991, as these conditions are defined by St Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople: «the ecclesiastical, and especially the jurisdictional rights about dioceses, it has been customary to be changed in accordance with political establishments and administrations.»

5. Ecclesiastical independence is not granted to Ukraine, because the Ecumenical Patriarchate is based solely upon the political conditions and the geophysical changes. The healing of the long-standing schisms among the Orthodox faithful in Ukraine and the unity of the Ukrainian people are the fundamental ecclesiastical, canonical, and spiritual reasons, for which the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate—being responsonsible for all the Orthodox Christians—decided to grant autocephalous ecclesiastical status to Ukraine, considering this solution as the most effective and appropriate from a canonical and ecclesiological point of view.