Is a Single Local Church possible without UOC?

In fact, this is an absurd question. In a more lucid form, it reads as follows: Is it possible to create One Church without the Church? Sounds dumb, isn’t it? It's like trying to make an iron thing out of paper or cook your own food out of inedible ingredients. Tell this to someone and they will laugh at you right away or call an ambulance. However, in the field of faith, things are not so rosy.

Although it is quite possible that our life too often began to resemble the theater of the absurd and, therefore, we are no longer surprised by the numerous inconsistencies or frank foolishness (concerning the future of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine), which are drummed into the heads of ordinary people with the help of our "independent" media.

To be frank, I find it difficult to grasp the logic of our President, who decided once more to speculate on the idea of creating a Single Local Church. I mean I understand that this is the beginning of his pre-election campaign, yet how can he think so badly about not only Orthodox Ukrainians but also about the Ecumenical Fullness of the Church? What else can it be but humiliation of the faithful?

Or maybe our government wants to create a pocket religious organization in Ukraine like the Anglican Church. But then where is Orthodoxy? What are all these appeals to the Ecumenical Patriarch for? The assurances of the public that dissenters from the self-proclaimed "Kyiv Patriarchate" and the UAOC cannot wait to see when this happens? What do they have to do with the Orthodox Church?

Why do they need this entire circus, when instead they can turn to specialists and get to know a few simple but very important things?

This Is an Internal Church Affair

First, from the point of view of Orthodox dogma and church law – the True Single Church was created long ago by our Lord Jesus Christ about two thousand years ago. Today it represents the organic unity of all the Local Orthodox Churches, which have a blessed communion in the Sacraments and a common (ascending to the apostles) church hierarchy. At the same time, the administrative structure of Churches can be different – autocephaly, autonomy, patriarchy. In Ukraine, the Universal Orthodoxy is embodied in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

So, in fact, in Ukraine, it may not be about the establishment of the SLOC (Single Local Orthodox Church) but solely about changing the canonical status of the UOC. This issue can certainly be discussed, but, again, this is an internal matter of the Church and it must be solved in practical terms without state interference. For the state consists of people, and among them there are atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, pagans, etc. Well, tell me, how can they interfere in the affairs of Christians? After all, we do not interfere into state affairs.

In short, this is not even an internal matter of the UOC – it is a matter of the universal scale. And representatives of the UOC have repeatedly reminded about this to our schismatics and our authorities who are playing the SLOC game. For example, Prot. N. Danilevich, in his interview to the UNIAN news agency said the following: "... the kiriarkhal Church (Mother Church – Author) announces its desire to grant autocephaly to its part in the Patriarchate of Constantinople as the Church being the first in the diptych. Constantinople sends a message to all the Local Churches about whether they agree and, in the case of the general agreement expressed by each of the Churches in its Council, a new autocephalous Church is enrolled into the family of the Local Churches via the corresponding Tomos being granted and signed by the Primates of all (!) Local Orthodox Churches.

Accordingly, if we talk about the Ukrainian situation, then at a given historical moment the Russian Orthodox Church is the kiriarchal Church for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It is true no matter whether someone likes it or not. Therefore, if there is a desire to enjoy complete ecclesiastical independence, then one should negotiate it with the ROC, maintain friendly relations with it, rather than demonize the image of the Moscow Patriarchate, which certain unrecognized Orthodox denominations are engaged in at present.

Thus, the question of autocephaly is now a matter that concerns all the Local Orthodox Churches of the world, and not just one Constantinople unlike autonomy, which is an internal matter of a particular Local Church."

This is exactly what our powers that be do not understand and therefore, they constantly talk about Constantinople in terms that are applicable more to Catholicism and the Vatican than to the one, even the first among the equal Orthodox Local Churches. Yet it’s high time they realized that “All Autocephalous Churches have equal rights, though they occupy different places in the diptych. In addition, it is only about the advantage of the honor of one of the Churches over another, but not about the difference in rights. Orthodoxy rejects not only the Roman Catholic doctrine of Christ's vicariousness, not only the infallibility of the Roman bishop, but also the claim of Patriarchs of Constantinople to special rights in the Ecumenical Church."

Secondly, the recognition of schismatics will have fatal consequences for Orthodox unity, because will create a precedent, a situation where any group of impostors who declared themselves to be the "Orthodox Church" can claim the canonical status. And also this will lead to complete chaos and anarchy within each of the Local Churches, when anyone who does not agree with the decisions of his hierarchy will be able to transfer to another ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which will inevitably lead to the severance of relations between these Churches.

Metropolitan of Dnepropetrovsk Iriney spoke up very well on this occasion. In particular, he said the following, "To recognize such a schismatic group (i.e. UOC-KP) means to incur condemnation of all ecclesiastical fullness. We will reason logically: if, for example, the Patriarchate of Constantinople would like to recognize the UOC-KP led by Filaret, then we could recognize the split in Constantinople, where they have their "filarets" too ... To take sides with schismatics automatically means to fall away from the Universal One and Catholic Church,” noted Metropolitan Iriney.

In short, the recognition of the schismatics will be the beginning of "Orthodox Protestantism" – an endless split of the Church into ever new church jurisdictions that do not recognize each other. Only the enemies of the Church, the enemies of Christ, can wish this! And therefore, one can say with confidence that none of the heads of the Local Orthodox Churches recognizes the UOC-KP.

I assure you, Constantinople understands the implications of this step. Therefore, the issue of recognizing Ukrainian schismatics, and the creation on their basis of the Single Local Orthodox Church in Ukraine, will never be on the agenda of any of the Orthodox Churches, including Constantinople which has voiced this position many times.

Well, this is not a secret at all. The only question is why our government pretends that there is nothing of this sort and, with surprising perseverance, continues to repeat the mantra about the establishment of the SLOC.

Thirdly, Metropolitan Iriney is absolutely right that the recognition of schismatics automatically makes the one who recognizes them also a schismatic. Therefore, no Local Orthodox Church will take such a suicidal step.

The canonical rules of the Church say about this the following, "If anyone prays with an excommunicated man, even if it was in the house: let him be excommunicated" (10th Apostolic rule), including a ban on a common prayer with heretics and schismatics, i.e. with the persons who are separated from the communion of the church (this directly concerns the schismatics from the UOC-KP and the UAOC). The same idea is reiterated in several more canonical rules, for example, the 45th and 65th Apostolic Rules, the 33rd Rule of the Council of Laodicea, the 2nd Rule of the Council of Antioch etc.

What Is Autocephaly And Why Is It Needed?

By the way, the most interesting thing in this story is that the very fact of recognition of the autocephalous status of the UOC from all Local Orthodox Churches will not involve isolation of Ukrainian Orthodoxy from the ROC – what our hurray-patriots, Ukrainian schismatics, and our power are trying to achieve. The fact is that "The autonomy of Autocephalous Churches is restricted, manifesting itself only in relation to other Local Orthodox Churches, but by no means the Universal Church which they are a part of. It is not about the independence of a particular local Church in the field of dogma, which was originally preserved by the universal Church (Ap.37, Trull.2). Any discrepancy with the truth, kept by the whole Church, entails falling away from the Ecumenical Fullness of Orthodoxy..."

In this sense, Eucharistic communication will always remain between the UOC and the ROC.

And yet, the most important condition for obtaining autocephaly for the UOC (once again we note that no other pseudo-Orthodox organization in Ukraine can basically claim the autocephalous status) is neither the political independence of Ukraine nor the ethnic differences of the region from the main territory of Kiriarchal Church: "...The desire for autocephaly of the church people, the clergy and the episcopate of the respective ecclesiastical region is an absolutely necessary condition for the establishment of Autocephaly, on top of that – a considerable majority at all these levels."

Strange as it may seem, absurd statements of our politicians, their interference in the internal affairs of the Church, as well as a complete misunderstanding of church laws and norms of intra-church relations, are precisely the main obstacle on the path of the UOC towards autocephaly.

Therefore, dear gentlemen, you’d better step aside and indulge yourselves in your direct duties related to improving the quality of life of the Ukrainian population. As for the Church, it will take care of the arrangement of its internal life on its own. Moreover, it has all the possibilities for this end, proven actually by the two thousand-year experience of the Church. After all, so is its nature. That's why, according to the apt remark suggested by Prot. N. Afanasyev, "The Church itself changes its forms of historical existence from its depth. In specific historical conditions, the Church seeks to find the right form in which the essence of the Church, the Church itself and its dogmatic teaching are most fully and perfectely expressed.