The Unity of the Russian People [Mikhail Khmelko, 1948]
This year, as the MP Archpastoral Council showed, the Church is fighting against internal schisms. On Friday 27 June, Bishop Diomid of Anadyr and Chukotka was warned that if he did not repent [of his schismatical opinions] before the next session of the MP Holy Synod that he would be deposed from the episcopate. A no less important problem is the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. We spoke with Archbishop Ionafan Yeletskikh of Tulchinsk and Bratslavsky about this and also concerning missions, youth work, and the state of Church-state relations. Vladyki Ionafan is widely-considered one of the founders of the Orthodox internet.
Oleg Gorbunov
To your way of thinking, why is it necessary to work on the Internet?
Archbishop Ionafan
The fact is that at the beginning of the 1990s, the era of the disintegration of the USSR and the formation of its successor states, a time of uncertainty and the appearance of the autocephalist schism in the Ukraine, I was the chancellor of the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church of the MP (UAOC (MP)). One of the things that I came to understand was we would not be able to withstand the vicious attacks against the MP in the Ukraine without an effective media presence. That was a necessary element of our defence!
Of course, once we realised this, we had to make plans and implement them. We had to explain our position, the position of canonical Orthodoxy in the Ukraine. This is the situation that faced us when the government of Leonid Kravchuk banned us from all newspapers, periodicals, TV, and radio, that is, from all media outlets in the Ukraine. Through this, a media blockade of the UAOC (MP) was imposed. For many years after his arrival in Kiev as Metropolitan, His Beatitude Vladimir was denied access to broadcast time on the state-run television network.
Under such conditions, when the internet made its appearance, Local Churches such as the MP established official websites, so, we thought that we could do something similar. I organised an internet-page for the Diocese of Sumy. This modest website soon acquired an official status because His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir wrote us a letter giving his blessings to this undertaking. In fact, I used my status as the chancellor the UAOC (MP) to post on this site all our official statements, the decisions of the Holy Synod, polemical articles, etc. One can say that this site was the genesis of all our contemporary internet presence. This site was called Pravoslavie v Ukraine (Orthodoxy in the Ukraine) and it soon led to the official UAOC (MP) website (www.pravoslavye.org.ua) edited by Vasili Anisimov. More and more, we systematised and defined our work; it resulted in the site http://orthodox.org.ua. Of course, we have other websites, Pravoslavie v Ukraine is still in existence, and there are others.
Oleg Gorbunov
Are there pro-autocephalist factions in the UAOC (MP)?
Archbishop Ionafan
As far as the UAOC (MP) is generally concerned, indeed, it is no secret that there are traitors amongst us who support [autocephaly]. They are traitors not simply because it cannot and must not be implemented; they are such because this is the basis of their church life. They are open about this.
Oleg Gorbunov
Vladyki, what are your personal views on this?
Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow
Archbishop Ionafan
I share the theological opinion of Fr Sergei Bulgakov as found in his book Essays on the Church. He relates interesting ideas concerning autocephaly, especially national autocephaly (complete independence). He said that autocepahlism is evidence of the weakening of sobornost (conciliar consciousness is a weak translation: editor’s note) and Catholicity in the Church. The splitting of the ancient churches into the Local Churches of today, separated by national particularities (Antiochian, Egyptian, Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian churches et al) testified to their lack of a sense of Catholicity, he thought. I agree with this idea very strongly. Therefore, in principle, I am against autocephaly! Nevertheless, that is what President Kravchuk advocated. There is another point of view, that is, autocephaly lacks soterological value, for it does not help our salvation in the least. It is only the outward form of the earthly life of the Church.
However, politicians and nationalists place unchurchly (netserkovnye) foundations under the notion of “autocephaly”, and their motivations are similar in nature. You have heard of one of these notions… “An independent church in an independent state”. We must ask ourselves, “What does this idea stipulate?” Obviously, it implies that the Church is subordinate to the state. But, the Church is by its very nature independent! Christ created the Church and it has inner freedom as a result! A manifestation of this is that the Orthodox Church forbids its clergy to take a direct part in the secular government.
In itself, the thesis “an independent church in an independent state” implies that state policy shall dictate the canonical position of the Church. This is nothing but a reversion to ancient, need I say, pagan, notions of caesaropapism. To follow this paradigm enunciated by Kravchuk and Philaret is simply impossible. The autocephaly of the Local Churches is not built on such a foundation, nor should we do so in future. [Autocephaly] is built on the obedience, fraternity, and interaction of the people, all done in the spirit of seeking selfless benefit for the Church of Christ! However, if it does not proceed naturally from within the Church, if it is imposed from without by a diktat of the state, shall this thoughtless interference [by the state] in the matters of the Church bring us benefit? No. Does autocephaly add anything of itself to the saving of souls? No.
Before I left for Moscow [to attend the Archpastoral Council], I met with the clergy of my diocese. I wished to hear from them their opinion of the idea of the autocephaly of the UAOC (MP). An overwhelming majority agreed with my negative stance on the question. They asked me to express this openly.
As far as I know, since I am a member of the theological commission of the UAOC (MP), the government exerted pressure on the Church by circulating a proposal coming from the Uniates (headed by Cardinal Husar), the so-called Ukrainian Autocephalous Church (under pseudo-Metropolitan Mefody), and the anathematised former cleric of the MP, Philaret Denisenko (the pseudo-Patriarch of Kiev) advocating the formation of a united Local Church in the Ukraine. Well, each of these parties submitted their own version. Here is our idea. The UAOC (MP) and its hierarchy, led by His Beatitude Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev and all the Ukraine, have always stood for, stand for at present, and shall always stand for a canonical solution to the problem. We think about the results of a schism with the Russian Church, therefore, we shall not be [schismatics]. We accept the Will of God in everything!
However, one main thing remains. The Ukrainian Orthodox people do not want autocephaly!
Oleg Gorbunov
Personally, do you desire union with the schismatics?
Archbishop Ionafan
No. Their conditions are anti-canonical.
Oleg Gurbunov
What are their conditions?
Cardinal Ljubomir Husar (1933- ), head of the Uniate church in the Ukraine. He has a US passport and does the bidding of Bush and his running-dog-lackey Rice.
Archbishop Ionafan
For example, Cardinal Husar proposed that the Uniates join the Ukrainian Local Church and that it should recognise the Pope of Rome [as its head]. He proposes that we all should become Uniates! This is preposterous. Of course, we answer “no” to such. [Husar] still hopes that he can pull this off, though. Philaret proposed that we “reject” any association with the MP. It means that from the small schism that exists at present we shall erect a larger schism, with Philaret himself as the head.
Oleg Gurbunov
That is what they wrote?
Archbishop Ionafan
You only have to read it! He said, “There is no need to elect a patriarch as I am already one”. Him… someone under an anathema. In any case, is this the canonical way of doing things? He said, “We only have a jurisdictional separation, just as existed between the MP and the ROCOR. There once was a breach, but, now it is healed. In any case, we (that is, the “Patriarchate of Kiev” under Philaret) are not schismatics”. Excuse me! He created his “autocephalous local church” out of thin air. However, the UAOC (MP), this is a branch of the MP, he said. Then, by saying this, he rejected his own claims of being an independent patriarchate, if he speaks of the separation being merely jurisdictional, or, as they propose, the churches are actually united and only await the time when they all recognise one another. This is not the canonical way. Therefore, our answer is “no”.
As far the other schismatics are concerned, we are not as harsh concerning them. At least, they recognise that it is necessary to approach this problem in a canonical manner. Our position is simple. We shall articulate and follow the canonical path. In any case, the final word on such affairs lies with His Holiness the Patriarch, the Local Church of the MP as a whole, and the Archpastoral Council of the MP.
Oleg Gorbunov
What is your idea of the proper role of the mission of the Church to youth?
Archbishop Ionafan
Before the Archpastoral Council, I saw in some of the media that the Council would discuss a letter, if I am not mistaken, of 26 clergymen stating that innovations in church life and missionary work are inadmissible. However, the programme of the Council says otherwise!
Firstly, we must find who actually wrote this letter and who actually signed it. As always, “manifestoes” are posted on the internet before any significant church event such as the Archpastoral Council, and most of them are merely provocations. When I was surfing the internet and saw this letter with the signatures of respectable people, then, I began to very seriously doubt that this text was written by them. In cases such as this, one has to investigate the matter thoroughly.
It is hard to relate to this statement unambiguously. On the one hand, their concern for the good of the Russian church, its parishes, and parishioners is praiseworthy. People are interested, but, what can they do? This, of course, is the best face that one can put on this letter. On the other hand, what do they propose? Are we to be a set of “new” Old Ritualists? Do they truly think that we cannot use modern Russian in our missionary outreach, in our work with young people, or in our prayer meetings? Are they saying that we cannot translate the Canon of St Andrew of Crete into modern Russian? Gentlemen, you are obscurantists! The Bible, the Word of God, was translated into Russian in the 19th century with the blessing of the Holy Synod. They even cite this fact in their letter. Obviously, this means that the translation of the Word of God is possible, but, the translation of the poetry of the Canon of St Andrew of Crete, which is nothing but a paraphrase of the same Word of God is not?
Oleg Gorbunov
What is your opinion of the new methods?
Archbishop Ionafan
We should speak about principles first. Why do these people wish to close open doors? Indeed, this door was opened by the tsar some 150 years ago. St Philaret of Moscow blessed the work and carried it out. The spirit of Ss Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius cannot be killed!
Sometimes, another argument against the use of modern Russian in church is used. On the eve of the Revolution, in 1915-16, some attempted to come up with a more intelligible version of Church Slavonic. The commission was headed by the future patriarch, Sergei Stagorodsky. They were able to publish new versions of several religious rites in corrected Slavonic, a move that made the text more intelligible. Unfortunately, the introduction was handled poorly, and the people did not accept it. So, according to these folks, there is no need to translate anything, it is not a pressing need. Even if it is incomprehensible and incorrect, but, we must preserve what is accepted, everything! Anyway, such is their argument.
These people are the Avvakums of our time; they have not changed over the centuries. What about the Yelizavetinskoe edition of the bible in Slavonic? They had to made constant corrections to the text! Look at the Slavonic usage in The Lay of the Campaign of Igor! I can understand the gospel [in Slavonic], but, it is necessary for me to sit and sweat over “the word”, examining every word and phrase carefully. The language has changed that much. So, corrections exist, and shall continue to exist, one way or another. Therefore, the question is not whether translations are possible or not, but, rather, shall they do any good. In my opinion, there is no need to remove Church Slavonic from our divine services. God forbid! I am a strong supporter of the Church Slavonic language. However, divine services are one thing, and mission in all of its forms, including amongst our youth, is another. You must speak the language of your flock.
Was the Gospel written in the classical Greek language? No, it was written in the simple colloquial language of the people, not in the Attic or any other high-falutin’ dialect. What kept Blessed Augustine from embracing Christianity at first? He was well-read, received an education in the law, and was a polyglot. This saint and Father of the Church wrote in his Confessions that the humble language of the Gospel repulsed him at first.
Now, the defenders of the Church Slavonic language would say that this sort of language is not spiritual, that only Church Slavonic can properly express the prayerful spirit of Christian humility. Nevertheless, Blessed Augustine accepted the Good News in precisely such simple language! Therefore, to speak of the special spirituality of the Church Slavonic language is unnecessary. Language is not spiritual; rather, it is ideas, the Word, which was at the beginning! It is spirituality directly from the Holy Spirit!
Oleg Gorbunov
Despite the fact the Church is formally separate from the state and does not participate directly in the making of policy, it is closely concerned with everything that happens in public life, in particular, with state policy. As a citizen and clergyman, how do you relate to the fact that there are those who are trying to push the Ukraine very actively into the Western camp?
Archbishop Ionafan
I cannot forget the horrific impression that I received during NATO’s so-called Operation “Merciful Angel”. Their aircraft dropped their bombs and they fired their rockets at Belgrade on Orthodox Easter, when all the Serbians stood at prayer in their churches. Can you deny that this was spitting in the faces of all Orthodox Christians? This was my human reaction to all of this.
There is a remarkable academician, Pyotr Tolochko, a corresponding member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He recently wrote an article on this very topic. He considers that if the Ukraine where to break with Russian civilisation, the result would be catastrophic. I think that he is absolutely correct. I dare you to contradict me! There are no counter-arguments that I can see.
Oleg Gorbunov
The “church” of Philaret Denisenko even advocates the integration of the Ukraine into the West in its propaganda.
Archbishop Ionafan
The “church” of Philaret is nothing but a political organisation filled with politicians, nationalists, Russophobes, and other such. I would be quite surprised if you thought of them differently. “Say to me who your friends are, and I shall tell you who you are”. NATO bombed Belgrade on Easter! Such people are peacemakers? Philaret’s gang are the same as they are. Then, they must be the enemies of Holy Orthodoxy.
30 June 2008
Russki Zhurnal (Russian Journal)
Quoted in Interfax-Religion
http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=radio&div=893 (in Russian)
