Ukrainian Orthodox news

[Peter_J]

**Ukrainian Orthodox (UOC-MP) Respond to UOC-KP **

18.07.2008, [12:13] // UOC-MP //

Kyiv— Members of the Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), which met on 16 July 2008 in the residence of the UOC-MP head in the Kyivan Monastery of the Caves, listened to the “Address of the Synod and Episcopate of the UOC-KP [Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate] to the hierarchs, clergy, and faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (part of the Moscow Patriarchate)” of 14 December 2007 and passed a decision to send a response to explain the position of the UOC-MP.

The address of the Synod of the UOC-MP regarding the schism of Ukrainian Orthodoxy states: “this is one of the greatest and most painful tragedies of the Orthodox church on Ukrainian lands, so, being aware of the need as soon as possible to overcome church divisions in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [UOC-MP] is ready for constructive dialogue and cooperation with all interested parties, including representatives of those religious groups which today are not in union with universal Orthodoxy.”

The hierarchy of the UOC-MP is convinced that such dialogue “should occur in accordance with the canonical norms that exist in the universal Orthodox church.”

“Our insistence on maintaining canonical norms in overcoming the schism is conditioned not by a rigorist approach to our brothers and sisters who remain beyond the borders of the canonical church, but by an awareness that ignoring these norms will create pre-conditions for an even greater fragmentation of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, inasmuch as in the consciousness of many it will wipe out the line between those that we allow and those that we do not allow in Christ’s church. In other words, on the way to overcoming the schism we are ready to retreat from strict dogmatism and to go with ‘ecclesiastical economy,’ with the single condition that such ‘economy’ will not lead to the degradation of ecclesiastical-canonical awareness, which will have still more catastrophic consequences for the church,” reads the address to the hierarchs of the UOC-KP.

The UOC-MP also emphasizes that it cannot “accept the thesis that the declaration of the state independence of Ukraine in itself absolutely foresees the independence of the Ukrainian church. The UOC-MP does not argue with the values of the state independence of Ukraine, however it does not see the canonical autonomy of the church as one of the necessary attributes of such independence.”

“The canonical status of the church should be viewed in the context of ecclesiological and not political expedience. This status has to be acknowledged not by government-political leaders but by the church itself, its episcopate, clergy, and faithful,” reads the address of the UOC-MP hierarchy.

The UOC-MP underlines that for a church to receive autocephalous status the following conditions are necessary: 1) the unanimous thought of the episcopate, clergy, and faithful of the local church regarding the need to declare autocephaly; 2) agreement about the new status of the local church on the part of the fullness of the Orthodox church, including from the kyriarchal [overseeing] church.

The UOC-MP emphasizes that “such a unanimous position regarding the question of autocephaly in the Orthodox church in Ukraine does not exist, inasmuch as a significant part of the church considers the canonical status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [UOC-MP] today such that, on the one hand, it gives it wide canonical rights, which in fact are identical to the rights of an autocephalous church, and on the other hand preserves the spiritual and prayerful connection with the Rus[sian] Orthodox Church.”

Regarding the position of universal Orthodoxy, it, in the words of the members of the Synod of the UOC-MP, “not only does not have a unanimous thought about the expedience of granting autocephalous status to the Ukrainian church, but, up to the present, it has not worked out agreed-upon procedures for granting autocephaly. In this way, an artificial and accelerated process of making the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [UOC-MP] autocephalous today seems to us unjustified and such that can lead to new church divisions.”

The UOC-MP also does not agree with the proposition of uniting into one church with those who would then together wait for the canonical recognition of such a church.

”The so-called Kyivan Patriarchate [UOC-KP] was announced by activists of the Ukrainian autocephalous movement already in June 1990, that is, 18 years ago. Since this time, self-announced, without the agreement of the sobor [assembly] of the Ukrainian church itself and universal Orthodoxy, the ‘patriarchate’ has not been acknowledged by any canonical national Orthodox church. So we stand opposed to any new non-canonical attempts to make the Ukrainian church autocephalous which will not be based on agreements of the sobor of the episcopate, clergy, and faithful of our church and will not have the agreement of the fullness of universal Orthodoxy (including the Moscow Patriarchate). The existing schism cannot be overcome by creating a new, and even more widespread, separation. Such a road leads only to deepening the church crisis,” reads the address of the UOC-MP hierarchs to the UOC-KP.

The bishops of the UOC-MP consider inappropriate the proposition of the Synod of the UOC-KP to take as a model for overcoming the schism in Ukraine the recently-restored canonical communion between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad [ROCA] and the Moscow Patriarchate.

”This analogy is inappropriate in the Ukrainian situation, inasmuch as the status of the UOC-KP is not identical to the previous status of the Russian Church Abroad. First of all, the existence of apostolic succession in the ROCA is not disputed either by the Moscow Patriarchate or any other national church. Second of all, to none of the hierarchs of the ROCA were those canonical sanctions applied which were, for the creation of a schism, justly imposed on former Metropolitan Filaret and other former hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [UOC-MP] who support his schismatic acts (anathematizing or depriving of priestly status). With this in view, the ROCA had partial communion with the universal church, in particular through the Serbian and Jerusalem churches. At the same time it is known that the absence of apostolic succession in the UOC-KP is acknowledged by all other national Orthodox churches, in particular by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, whose representatives more than once have declared this during discussions with the Rus[sian] Orthodox Church on the Ukrainian question. The thought about this that, separating themselves from ecclesiastical fullness, the former bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [UOC-MP] who have gone into schism could maintain the blessing and pass it on to others in the ordinations that they perform is for us entirely unacceptable. So we cannot acknowledge that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [UOC-MP] and the schismatic UOC-KP are ‘parts of one church,’” reads the address of the UOC-MP Synod.

The UOC-MP Synod ended their address to the episcopate, clergy and faithful of the UOC-KP with a call to repentance:

”At the start we should reach a single understanding of the nature of the obstacles that are in the way of overcoming the schism. A change of understanding is the essence of repentance in the Greek sense of this word. Our church has spoken for many years about the need for such repentance on the part of those who created the schism. Only after this will we be able to remove that barrier which separates us and, as a result, we will have the possibility to reach a single vision of the future of the Orthodox church in Ukraine.”

risu.org.ua/eng/news/article;23451/

 

[bpbasilphx]

I’ve given up trying to keep track of the various jurisdictions of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

(This is just another reason why I find the only possibility for sanity and stability is to be with an Eastern Church in communion with the Roman Church.)

I do pray that SOMETHING works out where the various fragments can be reconciled. But it’s possible. Who would have thought that the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR would have ever have reconciled?

And every schism that is healed means we’re one step closer to seeing full reconciliation between East and West.

Lord Jesus, hasten the day!

 

[Peter_J]

**Ukrainian Orthodox (UOC-KP) positively Receive UOC-MP Response **

2008-07-18

18.07.2008, [12:17] // UOC-KP // RISU.ORG.UA

Kyiv— “On the whole we positively assess the response we have received.” So Bishop Yevstratii (Zoria) of Vasylkyivskyi, head of the Information-Publishing Department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP), commented on the 16 July statement of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) as to its position regarding the UOC-KP. uaorthodox.info posted the news on 17 July 2008.

“We are aware,” said Bishop Yevstratii, “that this response is the fruit of compromise within the walls of the church of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine itself. This very fact of a response witnesses to essential movement in the position of the UOC-MP about the possibility of dialogue with the Kyivan Patriarchate. For in previous propositions from this church they responded to us that, in the better instance, there is only one [proposition]: they are waiting for us to repent, and there will be no dialogue with us. Today’s response is more pragmatic and better corresponds to the realities of today.”

“At the same time, rather unfortunate is the fact that this response appeared seven months after the address from our church was approved. If we will wait a half year for each of our proposals, dialogue between our churches threatens to drag on for decades,” said the bishop.

He also said that it is an unfortunate fact that in the UOC-MP’s response a number of “common phrases” taken from the rhetoric of previous years are again repeated. “This relates especially to repeated attacks on the person of the head of our church. It is certain that history and universal Orthodoxy will witness that His Holiness [Patriarch] Filaret [Denysenko, head of the UOC-KP] is not a schismatic, but the builder of a single national church. The hierarchs of the UOC-MP, finally, will be convinced of the incorrectness of their position regarding him.”

”We understand that the leadership of the UOC-MP today is as if caught between two fires. On the one hand, the pressure of Moscow, and on the other, the understanding of Ukrainian realities. So we highly appreciate the act of Metropolitan Volodymyr [Sabodan, head of the UOC-MP], who last year dared for the first time to accept in his residence representatives of our church, and by this, not only by words but more in deeds, showed his desire to see a single Orthodox church in Ukraine. So we also appreciate this response, as a door for leading in the search for church unity. We hope that communication between the representatives of our churches will continue, in an informal and also, perhaps, on a formal level. I am certain that in some way or other our churches will come to full-fledged and constructive dialogue which will have as a result a single Ukrainian church. And if the position of Moscow obstructs such dialogue and union, we will look for ways to go around this obstacle,” Bishop Yevstratii concluded.

byzcath.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2511&Itemid=49

 

[Peter_J]

From ByzCath:

**UOC-MP Orthodox Hold Press-Conference **

2008-07-24

“Constantinople, Kyiv, Moscow: Meeting on the Land of the Baptism of Rus”

24.07.2008, [10:43] // UOC-MP //RISU.ORG.UA

Kyiv— Before the ceremonies on the occasion of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Kyivan Rus, delegated representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) decided to talk with the press about plans for celebration, circumstances of preparation, and their expectations and fears. RISU’s Ukrainian-language site posted the news on 23 July 2008.

Taking part in the press-conference were Ihumen (Abbot) Lonhin (Chernukha), head of the mission of spiritual education of the UOC-MP; Archimandrite Kyryl (Hovorun), head of the Department of External Church Contacts; Archbishop Mytrofan (Yurchyk) of Bilotserkva and Bohuslavskyi; Protopriest Volodymyr Saveliev, head of the publishing department; and Volodymyr Bureka, head of the press-center of the organizing committee for the celebration of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Kyivan Rus.

“The 1020th anniversary is not such a round date,” said Fr. Kyryl. “But this is a certain revision of that which happened with us in the last 20 years.” The archimandrite recalled the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Kyivan Rus, in which the main goal was to revive spiritual life. The goal of the celebration now, in his words, after 10 years of rebirth, is to reflect on how to organize church life and its mutual relations with the state, society, and other religious subjects.

”Will or will not the UOC-Kyivan Patriarchate [UOC-KP] be at the general ceremonies?” So the journalists asked the hierarchs. Responding, Fr. Kyryl said that, according to the particular agreements of Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan), head of the UOC-MP, with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople it is known that “schismatic groups” should not participate in the celebrations. But our state is free, he added, in that it cannot forbid anyone to do something; however, if someone of those so-called groups should appear, then it will be in opposition to the agreements of the above-mentioned hierarchs.

The press asked if the president does not “take much on himself,” inviting the ecumenical patriarch and organizing a large program for his visit. Isn’t this a politician interfering in church matters? Archbishop Mytrofan shared his disturbance with the press: “The celebration of the 1020th anniversary is a church initiative, but the state, which stole our idea, included itself, and started to develop it in the way it itself wanted to.” The archbishop emphasized that the visit of the patriarch of Constantinople is a church matter. And the state has the competence to take on itself only questions of the arrangement of delegations and their security. But the president, inviting Bartholomew I, did not even inform the church about this, though at least he should have consulted with the heads of the main denominations. The archbishop is also dissatisfied with the work of the press, which, instead of helping establish a favorable atmosphere for distinguished guests, sets one patriarch against another: one is our friend, the other our enemy.

A key question was a theme which the press has already heated up in recent days: “A Metropolitanate of Constantinople in Ukraine: How Possible is This?” Fr. Kyryl confirmed the existence of such a possibility, but that such acts of the UOC-KP and UAOC (Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church) regarding this seem inconsistent, for they hunger for and have declared principles of autocephaly. But if a Metropolitanate of Constantinople were created, when these two churches would go over to the given jurisdiction, they would simply disappear. And it is not very likely that Constantinople would sometime give them the desired autocephaly. Fr. Kyryl also emphasized that the rights of these churches will be very limited, whereas the UOC-MP in its present status has significantly wider rights.

In order to slightly change the accents, Fr. Lonhin recalled that the UOC-MP specially for the celebration of the 1020th anniversary released a facsimile publication of the Peresopnytskyi Gospel and Bible for the blind. But this is not all. Fr. Saveliev presented to the journalists the recently-published “God’s Law.” For now, 500 copies have been printed. They will be given to guests for the 1020th anniversary ceremonies. Later a larger number of copies will be printed. And they also plan to publish “God’s Law” in Ukrainian, for this is, for now, in the Russian language.

Detailed plans for the events celebrating the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Kyivan Rus were presented at the press-conference. The main points in the list, according to Fr. Kyryl, are the festive Divine Liturgy on Volodymyr’s Hill on 27 July where the patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow will concelebrate and also the Divine Liturgy at the Kyivan Monastery of the Caves on 28 July.

 

[Peter_J]

Top Orthodox leaders in Ukrainian showdown

Kiev, Jul. 29, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The two leading patriarchs of the Orthodox world set aside their differences at least temporarily during a joint weekend appearance in Kiev, Ukraine, where the celebrated the 1020th anniversary of the “baptism of the Rus.”

Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, joined Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the acknowledged “first among equals” in the world’s Orthodox hierarchy, for the celebration in Kiev. The two patriarchs later issued a joint statement, affirming their commitment to fraternal relations. The statement proclaimed that "dialogue is always the most important thing because we are always responsible for Orthodoxy’s unity.”

Nevertheless, the weekend in Ukraine was marked by tensions, as the Russian Orthodox Church bitterly complained that Patriarch Bartholomew was involved in a plot to create a new, unified, Ukrainian Orthodox Church-- breaking off a traditional tie to the Moscow patriarchate. The disagreement between the Russian Orthodox Church, which is the world’s largest, and the Constantinople patriarchate, which carries the greatest prestige, reflects a long-running struggle for supremacy among the world’s Orthodox believers.

The Russian Orthodox Church celebrates the “baptism of the Rus” as the foundation of the Church in Russia-- and only secondarily in Ukraine. From the perspective of the Moscow patriarchate, Ukraine is part of the “canonical territory” of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is by far the largest of the world’s Orthodox churches.

In Ukraine, however, many Orthodox believers have worked to establish their own identity, separate from Moscow. In 1992, after Ukraine won its political independence, Metropolitan Filaret-- who had been the head of the Russian-backed Ukrainian Orthodox Church-- broke with Moscow to establish an independent Kiev patriarchate. The Russian Orthodox Church has refused to recognize that group, instead backing the rival Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow patriarchate.

Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko has strongly backed the establishment of an independent, unified Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Russian Church spokesmen bitterly complained that the attitudes of the Ukrainian government were clear in the treatment of Patriarch Alexei during his stay. They observed that President Yushchenko went to the airport to greet Patriarch Bartholomew, but not Patriarch Alexei. Posters of the Ecumenical Patriarch were places all around Kiev, they noticed, while posters of the Russian prelate were taken down. Russian Orthodox officials even charged that Ukrainian police had barred the faithful from attending a liturgical service at which Patriarch Alexei was presiding.

After the weekend visit by Patriarch Bartholomew, President Yushchenko claimed the backing of the Ecumenical Patriarch for an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. “I am glad that the Patriarch is backing the aspiration of the Ukrainian people to have its own national local church,” Yushchenko said.

Russian Orthodox leaders strongly denied that the Ecumenical Patriarch had given his blessing to an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. A spokesman for the Moscow patriarchate claimed that in fact, Patriarch Bartholomew had recognized Moscow’s claim to the “canonical territory” of Ukraine.

Patriarch Bartholomew declined to comment directly on the competing claims. The Ecumenical Patriarch had consistently said that his visit to Ukraine was not intended to cause division but to “contribute to the unity of the Ukrainian Church.” He said that he also wished to honor the Christians who had suffered under Communist rule in Ukraine.

That cautious approach did not satisfy the Russian Orthodox leadership. Without referring to Patriarch Bartholomew by name, Moscow’s Patriarch Alexei observed that any question about Russia’s claim to a sort of spiritual paternity over Ukraine could be dangerous. “By raising doubts about what has been undisputable for centuries, we endanger our common future,” he told the Interfax news service.

During his stay in Kiev, Patriarch Bartholomew did his best to avoid a confrontation, meeting with both of the rival leaders of the Ukrainian Orthodox faithful-- and also with Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, the Major Archbishop of the Eastern-rite Ukrainian Catholic Church. During a dinner meeting with Metropolitan Vladimir, Moscow’s favored Orthodox leader in Ukraine, the Patriarch of Constantinople lamented that “at this table, brothers from other churches from the Ukraine are missing.” He said that his role, as Ecumenical Patriarch, was to “mend divisions” among the Orthodox faithful.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=59933