St Sophia Cathedral in Kiev
Editor’s Foreword:
“Tsargrad” is the Russian name for Constantinople/Istanbul. Literally, it means “the city of the Emperor (Tsar)”.
The tensions in the religious situation in the Ukraine were aggravated unduly on the eve of the celebration of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia by the official meeting of Viktor Yushchenko with a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The EP alleges that it is the unquestionable source of authority in the Orthodox world, a stance that is unacceptable and rejected by the Moscow Patriarchate, as the MP outnumbers all other Orthodox bodies put together by a wide margin. In the course of the meeting, Mr Yushchenko stated that “the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian believers are convinced that we must move to make an agreement and seek unity with the Mother Church of the EP”. He gave an invitation to Patriarch Bartholomew of the EP to take part in the anniversary celebrations. This places into question the planned visit of Patriarch Aleksei II of Moscow and Russia to Kiev as part of the festivities.
Interfax-Religion
Recently, Mr Yushchenko has repeatedly stated his desire to enter history as the “Father-Uniter of Ukrainian Orthodoxy”. Today, the field is divided amongst the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church of the MP (UAOC-MP) (the sole canonical body), the schismatic “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate” (UOCKP) (recognised only by the EP, just as they recognise schismatic Russian bodies in England, France, and Estonia), and the “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” (UAOC) (the samosvyatsy (self-consecrators), recognised by no one). According to Ukrainian estimates, the three bodies have 45 percent, 40 percent, and 15 percent of the faithful respectively (This is incorrect. Per objective Western estimates, the MP body has 85 percent of the faithful, the other two share the remaining 15 percent. Caveat auditor. Nothing from “Orange” sources is reliable. Editor’s note).
In 2000, the “bishops” of the UOCKP and the UAOC wrote a letter to Bartholomew in which they stated their support for “a revival of the unity of the Ukrainian church and the restoration of its subordination to the EP”. Mr Yushchenko actively backs these efforts. In June 2007, he met in Istanbul with Bartholomew and discussed with him the possibility of creating a united Local Church in the Ukraine that would be under the EP’s authority. At the meeting, EP “Archbishop” Vsevolod Maidansky of Skopelos claimed that “the EP considers that the MP is its daughter church (are they voiding the Tomos of 1589 by this statement? Editor’s Note) and it can only have the canonical territory it possessed in 1686 (!) (by what authority was such a meaningless date chosen? Editor’s note). The subordination of the Kiev Metropolia to the MP was realised without the agreement or confirmation of the Holy Synod of the Great Church of Christ”. The MP reacted immediately to these assertions. Patriarch Aleksei II of Moscow and all Russia said, “this opinion affects not only the MP, but, also all other Local Churches. This can become a source for many conflicts that would have a perceptible impact on Orthodox unity and the position of Orthodoxy in the world”.
Facade of St Vladimir Cathedral in Kiev
However, these words did not deter Bartholomew, Mr Yushchenko, and the self-proclaimed “patriarch” of the UOCKP, Philaret Denisenko, in their schemes. In Kiev on 20 May, Mr Yushchenko met with a delegation of the EP headed by Metropolitan Emmanuel Adamakis of France. Mr Yushchenko thanked him for the efforts of Bartholomew in uniting the Orthodox churches [of the Ukraine]. He then stated that he supported, in every way possible, the activity of the EP in the Ukraine to unite all the Orthodox churches [under its jurisdiction]. “The Ukrainian state and Ukrainian believers are convinced that we must move to make an agreement and seek unity with the Mother Church of the EP”, Mr Yushchenko said on Tuesday in the course of an official meeting with a delegation of the EP in Kiev, the press service of the president reported. “The Ukraine shall take this path”. He then invited Bartholomew to participate in the celebrations marking the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia at the end of July.
The next day, the EP delegation met with Philaret Denisenko. He stated the readiness of his church to have a dialogue on the problems facing Ukrainian Orthodoxy “if it leads to the formation of an autocephalous Local Church in the Ukraine”. What this actually means is that Philaret is ready seize power and head this hypothetical body with the support of Bartholomew. It is interesting to note that Pyotr Yushchenko, the brother of the president and leader of the movement “For a Local Ukrainian Church”, was present at the meeting.
These meetings place Patriarch Aleksei in an embarrassing position. He received an invitation from Mr Yushchenko to visit Kiev during the anniversary celebrations. It is clear that His Holiness cannot serve together with or even merely pray with the schismatic Denisenko or even with Bartholomew, as the latter considers the renegade hierarch the sole authority in the Ukraine. Fr Nikolai Balashov, the Secretary of Inter-Orthodox Relations in the MP Department of External Church Relations, said the following in commenting on the events in Kiev. “According to the church canons, any invitation to the Ecumenical Patriarch to attend the celebrations marking the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia must proceed expressly from the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. According to ancient and universally-accepted Church tradition, the First Hierarch of one or another Local Church does not enter the canonical territory of another Local Church without the express permission of the First Hierarch of that Church in advance”.
Meanwhile, yesterday, Mr Yushchenko met with Philaret of the UCOKP and the head of the UAOC, Mefody Kudryakov, to discuss plans for the festivities. Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan of the canonical UAOC-MP was not honoured with an invitation.
22 May 2008
Mikhail Pozdnyaev
Novoye Izvestiya
Interfax-Religion
http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=24591 (in Russian)
St Michael of the Golden Domes Cathedral in Kiev
Editor’s Afterword:
If one reads the above carefully, one finds the EP making some interesting assertions. Firstly, it considers that it has the right to withdraw the Tomos of Autocephaly from the MP. Truly, that is what “Archbishop” Vsevolod meant. No one can accuse the MP of being as grossly mismanaged as the OCA is. Indeed, it has 75 percent of all Orthodox in the world under its omophor, and it is growing, whereas the EP is reduced to a small rump of 10,000 faithful in Turkey dependent totally on handouts from the Vatican and the US. The foreign jurisdictions of the EP were seized illegally during the period of the church repressions in Russia. Great folks… they kick people when they are down.
Secondly, the EP is putting itself up as the Orthodox papacy. The MP has commented copiously on this recently, and there is no need to repeat it all. The Orthodox Church has never had a figure comparable to the Pope of Rome, and it never shall. Bartholomew was trained in Rome, and it shows.
Thirdly, the EP is willing to support a man, Philaret Denisenko, who was defrocked for good and sufficient reason. Mr Denisenko had a common-law wife and children, he was a simoniac of the worst sort, and he was an active collaborator of the KGB and KRA. His Ukrainian and EP supporters do not tell you that the reason that he proclaimed himself “Patriarch of Kiev” was that he was thwarted in his ambition to be Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. The Holy Synod of the MP would have nothing to do with him, which was providential. No union of the ROCOR and MP would have occurred with such a secret-policeman as patriarch. He was a protégé of Nikodim Rotov… as are Kyrill Gundyaev and Hilarion Alfeyev. It is why the former shall never be patriarch and the latter shall always be a church “diplomat”, not a diocesan archpastor.
