Odesa and the Cathedral: How are a bomb and autocephaly connected?
After the strike on the UOC Cathedral in Odesa, publications demanding autocephaly appeared. But can a bomb be used as an argument for church independence?
23 July 2023 began with very bad news for every Orthodox Christian – the destruction of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Odesa. In just a few hours, almost everyone, from senior villagers to the President of Ukraine, started talking about it. No wonder, because the Cathedral in Odessa is not just a decoration of the city, it is a landmark temple, which just 13 years ago was consecrated personally by Patriarch Kirill.
Just a few hours after the strike on Odesa, there was an emotional appeal by Archbishop Viktor of Artsyz in which he demanded that Patriarch Kirill "stay away from the UOC", later that day Metropolitan Agafangel of Odesa wrote his appeal. His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry reacted to the destruction of the cathedral, calling on the faithful to "humble anger" and not let it turn into blind hatred.
However, another surprising thing is how synchronously, as if by magic, publications appeared demanding that the UOC respond to the strike on Odessa with a "complete break with the ROC". An online petition has started collecting signatures for the appeal of the UOC clergy to His Beatitude, requesting to convene a Council and proclaim autocephaly. They claim that "the time has come." But is it really so? Is it possible to relate directly the arrival of a missile in one, albeit very important, temple and the decision on the status of the entire Church? Let's look into it.
The Council in Feofaniya: from love to hatred
Let's start by stating our position: such a serious decision as autocephaly should be made solely for ecclesiastical reasons, be justified canonically and ecclesiologically, and not depend on the political agenda. It is clear that there has been no such autocephaly in the history of the Church. Just as it is evident that practically all autocephalies were either self-proclaimed or "granted" with the serious involvement of the authorities. However, does that mean we should not strive for an ideal?
So, putting aside emotions, let's try to analyze the situation we are currently witnessing. The first question we ask is who exactly is trying to put pressure on His Beatitude through the collection of signatures. We assume that one of the authors of this petition is the banned priest of the Dnipropetrovsk Eparchy, Andriy Pinchuk. This fact is not unimportant because this individual has discredited himself so much in the eyes of the faithful and clergy of the UOC that any of his "church" initiatives are perceived as nothing but provocation. And this appeal confirms that.
Right at the very beginning, the Council of the UOC in Feofaniya is subjected to harsh criticism because, according to the author (or authors), "as time has shown", the decisions made at this Council "turned out to be half-hearted and allowed for completely opposite interpretations".
If the author of this petition is Priest Andriy Pinchuk, then it's strange that it took so little time (just over a year) to understand the "half-heartedness of decisions" made at the Council, because not so long ago he said: "I didn't believe in it (the Council – Ed.). Honestly, it looked like a dark room in which darkness was about to thicken and cover everyone. And suddenly, Someone invisible takes out a lamp to shine for everyone. That's exactly what happened at the Council. I even think that understanding everything that happened there will be possible in many, many decades, not just years. Because it was a truly great event."
And now, according to Pinchuk, this "great event" has raised more questions than provided answers, because "there was no real break with the ROC” as autocephaly was not proclaimed.
However, not long ago, the presumed author of the petition said things that were directly opposite: that, for example, the UOC's appeal to Patriarch Alexy’s Letter on self-governance was a "brilliant move". "It saves us from the humiliating and, in my opinion, an absolutely incomprehensible situation of submitting some kind of petition to the ROC Synod or the Bishops’ Council of the ROC, asking for autocephaly. Instead, we simply say, 'Here, we have the Letter, and we expanded it slightly.' It's such a brilliant move! Nobody expected it at all." And he goes on: "His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry did not use the word 'autocephaly.' This is wisdom. Samson (apparently, Pinchuk meant Solomon – Ed.). Because we have had 30 years of propaganda against autocephaly in the Church. The very word already carries a negative connotation. And it is right that it was removed – it jars on the ear. Time should pass."
In other words, a year ago, Priest Andriy Pinchuk said that everything at the Council was done correctly, but now he believes otherwise. What caused such a sharp change in his position? Was it because of the missile hitting the Transfiguration Cathedral in Odessa? Unlikely. Because Russian rockets and shells have hit Ukrainian shrines and UOC churches before. According to the official information, during the armed conflict, over 240 UOC churches were damaged or destroyed. How are these churches worse than the Odessa Cathedral? Why didn't similar petitions appear after the destruction of those temples? After all, each of them is also a House of God where the Eucharist was celebrated. And isn't Russia's war against Ukraine reason enough to raise the issue of autocephaly? And in general, should any single event be the basis for the epochal decisions of the entire Church? After all, they are made for centuries and millennia.
What is the reason for the request for autocephaly?
On the other hand, how does the strike on the Transfiguration Cathedral of Odesa differ from the strike with a sledgehammer on the doors of the same Transfiguration Cathedral in Bila Tserkva? In our opinion, there is no difference. So why does the author of the petition demand to "break unity" with the ROC while simultaneously demanding to build dialogue with the OCU? Agree that these are double standards. Therefore, it seems that the missile hitting the altar of the Odessa Cathedral is just an excuse for the appearance of Pinchuk's petition. The real reason behind it is someone's "compelling request". One can guess who that someone is from several phrases of the appeal.
For example, Pinchuk believes that "there was no real break with the ROC" and "under these circumstances, almost a year after the start of the war, the state authorities took a course to liquidate the UOC". He goes on to say that he is addressing His Beatitude, "not the civil authorities", while suggesting that the state had "grounds to make claims against our Church".
This is no news; the state has been making claims against the UOC practically since Ukraine gained independence. For the most part, all these claims are not only not supported by facts, but are far-fetched or even false. To rely on them as an argument to justify the necessity of autocephaly means not only to play into the hands of the authorities but also to acknowledge the "rightness" of all these claims. And to do that would be to accept the arguments of enemies of our Church, who pour streams of mud on it. Believers are unlikely to welcome such a prospect.
Is autocephaly revenge?
Yes, the country is at war. Yes, in this situation, the ROC leadership has shown itself in the worst light, effectively destroying the idea they themselves have been promoting for decades about the "non-coincidence of the boundaries of the Church and the state". For them, everything coincides perfectly. It doesn't for us.
But should we act in the same way? Should we seek revenge for violations of canons by violating canons ourselves? Does Christ anywhere say that if someone steals from you, then you should steal too?
No. He says that we should treat others as we would like to be treated. So, if the ROC is stealing our eparchies in eastern Ukraine, we should not do the same. If the Russian clergy make offensive statements bordering on impropriety, we should not do the same. And if they have forgotten who Christ is, it is not a reason for us to forget as well.
We cannot retaliate with autocephaly for the eparchies taken away from us. Autocephaly should be the result of serious work in the fields of theology, ecclesiology, and canonical law, and it should be granted based on the needs of the Church, not the state.
What to do with the Phanar?
At the end of their appeal, the author expresses another thought that may shed additional light on the true reasons behind writing the appeal.
They state that the movement of the UOC towards autocephaly cannot be successful "without returning to prayerful unity with the Ecumenical Patriarch and all the Churches that recognise the OCU." And here we agree – it cannot. The autocephaly of the UOC requires a comprehensive approach and must address existing problems rather than create new ones. So, let's declare autocephaly, and then what? The Phanar will not recognise it, just as the Greek Churches do not. The ROC will also not recognise it, having declared a schism. There are doubts that other Churches will recognise it. What then?
Then either remain in the status of schismatics or… join the OCU. This, by the way, is the dream of all the northern critics of the UOC, who cannot sleep well until the UOC is declared a "schismatic structure".
The conclusion from all this is evident: the initiators of the letter, who proved themselves as provocateurs and manipulators, have decided that on the wave of indignation over the explosion of the Odesa Cathedral, their goal is not to save the UOC but to push it into a steep dive, where the only way out can be to catapult into schism. The UOC Council and the proclamation of autocephaly are only needed for this purpose.
But no matter how emotions overwhelm us, let us always remember that any conciliar decisions must be made by the Holy Spirit, not in a state of resentment and hysteria.
