Elephant in church shop: Poroshenko’s new religious embarrassment

Complete déjà vu – this is how one can characterize a statement of Petro Poroshenko on the occasion of the Day of Rus Baptism. This year, like it was last year, the message content has not changed at all. The President persists in his hopes about the express recognition of autocephaly for the “Ukrainian Church” by the Constantinople Patriarchate. However, some details and new circumstances are still worth noting.

The statement contains several controversial points. The assertion that Prince Vladimir baptized "Rus-Ukraine" is an extrapolation of modern political ideas to the realities of the ancient world. After all, the Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince baptized all of Rus, including territories that would later become the basis for modern Belarus and Russia. In the 10th century, except for Kiev, ecclesiastical dioceses arose in Rostov, Veliky Novgorod, Belgorod, Turov, Polotsk and other northeastern cities of Russia. Therefore, it is impossible to consider that the act of Rus Baptism concerns only those lands that later became Ukraine.

The theological novelty is the term "natural autocephaly." Obviously, there is a display of the position of the Kyiv Patriarchate, which believes that autocephaly should self-proclaim, and only then the Mother Church and the other Local Churches "recognize" it. However, the Orthodox Church disagrees with this interpretation and believes that unauthorized appropriation of a canonical status is a violation of the rules adopted in the Church.

In his statement the President says "we", "for us." But on behalf of whom does he speak? On behalf of the Church? But the secular head of state cannot speak for the Church. On behalf of the people? But there is no such thing as the Mother Church for any people. This concept refers exclusively to the canonical relationship between the two Churches. In this context, Poroshenko cannot appeal to the people as a source of desire to receive autocephaly. After all, the canonical status is not received by the people, but by a particular ecclesiastical organization. In our case, this can only be the UOC (under the primacy of Metropolitan Onufry), as the only historic successor to the Kiev Metropolitanate in Ukraine.

Finally, the "expectation of recognition" on the part of the Church of Constantinople is absolutely in vain, since it is unable to provide autocephaly without the consent of other Local Churches. When the question of the mechanism for granting autocephaly was discussed, the Local Churches made it clear that Patriarch Bartholomew cannot make such decisions alone. Let us give the full answer of the representative of the Constantinople Patriarchate of, Archbishop Job (Gecha), to the question of the possibility of granting autocephaly by Patriarch Bartholomew:

"In the process of preparations for the All-Orthodox Council, the question of autocephaly and its proclamation was discussed. And even there are texts of documents that were made. I will talk in general about the process, in order to understand, on what point everything stopped. The study of the issue began with the assumption that the Ecumenical Patriarchate – the only Patriarchate in the Orthodox world that has the right to grant autocephaly that has been common since XVI century, with the appearance of the Russian Orthodox Church to this day – are the former territories of the Ecumenical Patriarchate , which were granted autocephaly by this Patriarchate. It happened for canonical reasons, because the Ecumenical Patriarchate occupies the first place in the Orthodox world.

During the discussion of the issue of autocephaly at the pan-Orthodox level in the spirit of consensus it was said: "No! Constantinople itself cannot provide autocephaly. It must be added that in order to be granted autocephaly, there must be consent and address from that Church, from which some part wants to receive autocephaly." Here you can take an actual example, if Ukraine wants to receive autocephaly, then Constantinople cannot provide it alone, it is necessary that there should be an address from the Russian Orthodox Church, since Ukraine is currently in its bosom.

Then, within the preparation framework for the Pan-Orthodox Council, the Patriarchate of Constantinople compromised, agreed that autocephaly can be granted by Constantinople only with the consent and at the request of the Church, in which part is located.

Let's move on. We came to the making of Tomos – a document that proclaims autocephaly of the particular Church and in which all the points that the new Church should adhere to are remembered, all the demands that it must fulfill. Again there was the question that this Tomos is signed only by the Patriarch of Constantinople. As part of the discussion, it was said: "No! It must be signed by all the heads, all the priests of the Local Churches. Because they must agree, they must recognize this new Church." Again the Patriarchate of Constantinople agreed to a compromise and said, "Very well. Tomos will be signed by all the priests of the local Churches."

Thus, it is absolutely unclear why the authorities ignore an absolutely clear and transparent response to their "expectations." Constant statements that Constantinople will give "Ukrainian Church" autocephaly instill in Ukrainians false hopes and are an unrealizable promise. Constantinople through the mouths of its representatives has long said that the condition for granting autocephaly can only be the address of the ROC and the consent of all the Local Churches. On top of that, all Ukrainian Orthodox denominations have to unite.

In addition, the hierarchs and priests of the Local Churches have repeatedly made it clear that interference by politicians can only harm this process.

"I believe that this was bold – even too bold – on their part," Father Aleksandr Karlutsos, representative of the Constantinople Patriarchate said, commenting on the appeal of the Ukrainian Parliament to Patriarch Bartholomew. – “Their politicians should not concern the issue of recognition (autocephaly - Ed.) of the Church."

“The Parliament of Ukraine, referring to the Ecumenical Patriarch, pursued some of its own goals. However, there is such a rule: when politicians interfere in church issues, there are never positive results from this intervention. This question is purely ecclesiastical and it should be addressed by the Local Churches without the participation of politicians. We are sure that the Ecumenical Patriarch will approach this appeal with big caution, as he always does,” noted Metropolitan of Kirus George (Hellenic Church).

"No one should interfere with this issue, because politicians have already intervened in it, having created many problems, and even when other Churches begin to interfere, the problems will multiply," emphasized Archbishop of Lublin and Chelm Abel.

Patriarch Theophilos III of Jeruslaem is convinced that the issue of schism in Ukraine can be resolved “by spiritual means rather than political or military.”

"I'm sorry about the information that representatives of Ukrainian church separatists were received at Phanar, with representatives of the authorities coming there with similar talks, some of them not Orthodox at all. Of course, in this step they see state interests. And we have a similar encounter in Montenegro. The Church is being made an instrument of such a policy so that it serves state interests, and not its real purpose. I do not think Patriarch Bartholomew will make any concessions,” said representative of the Serbian Church, Bishop Irinej of Backa.

Why then do the authorities make statements that are contrary to the position of world Orthodoxy?

In our opinion, such statements are designed more for the domestic Ukrainian audience and contain elements of propaganda. Autocephaly is another carrot waving before a nationalist-minded electorate. Commenting on the President's address to the Parliament in September 2016, political scientists noted the following.

“I’ve watched the rhetoric traditional for me. It is obvious that this strategy is no coincidence for the President and his team towards the Church,” believes political expert Mikhail Pavliv. “If not the creation of the Local Church, then significant weakening of the influence of the canonical Orthodox Church on the flock – that is their goal. Not surprisingly, that sounded in the Message of the President to the Verkhovna Rada. Especially given how this strategy was severely impacted by the Cross Procession held in June.”

"From the mouth of the President of the secular country, where the Church is separated from the state, it is somewhat strange to hear about the need to create a local church. But I think that the humanitarian aspect played a significant role here: for lack of real achievements, we have to create the illusion of life in a new way," political expert Andrei Zolotarev said.

Trying to create a picture of the Ukrainian people supporting the idea of creating a "single local church", the authorities resort to data from various opinion polls that appear in the exact order of the desired date. However, reality shatters all manipulations with figures – a multi-thousand Cross Procession of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church made it clear what position the Orthodox believers take in real.

Political scientist Mikhail Pavliv clearly described the situation: "The Constitution guarantees every Ukrainian freedom of conscience and religion. Freedom of choosing a religion and Church. But there is still propaganda, there are still manipulations and a powerful imposition of religious choice to ordinary citizens, which is authorities choose as appropriate. The result of this propaganda is the astonishing figures of all ratings of pseudo-support for various confessions in the country, and some views on the organization and functioning of the Orthodox communities in Ukraine. The pro-governmental propaganda trumpets that Ukrainians prefer the so-called church of Filaret, the so-called Kyiv Patriarchate. However, reality puts everything in its place. And I will not even operate on the figures and ratio of monastics in the "patriarchate" and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, led by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry (the UOC has dozens as much monks and nuns), although this is one of the most reliable criteria for real support. It's enough just to compare the festive Cross Procession, led by His Beatitude Onufry, in which, according to the most conservative estimates, tens of thousands of believers took part (while the Metropolitanate speaks of almost 100,000 arriving from all six dozen eparchies) and today's religious procession "of the “patriarchate" (Kiev - Ed.) The number of its participants totals to 2,000 people (data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs).

“The reality will sort EVERYTHING out.”