The Passions of Feofania
A public polemic among hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church about autocephaly and the Council in Feofania: a search for truth or signs of internal division?
Lately, we have witnessed rather fierce arguments among our hierarchs. These concern both the Council in Feofania and the attitude toward the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC).
Arguments of those who support UOC autocephaly
One side believes that the UOC must obtain autocephaly. Their position is rooted in an understanding of the logic of church history. The rights of broad autonomy, exarchate status, and similar arrangements have always been temporary. Any Church bearing such a status sooner or later either gained independence or returned to the orbit of its Mother Church.
The UOC is the most numerous Church that once belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church. The status of Ukraine as an independent state naturally implies that the largest Orthodox confession in that country should also attain independence.
In fact, the desire for autocephaly has lingered in the air since 1991, and the war against Ukraine has only accelerated a decision that, by the logic of history, should have been made thirty-five years ago.
To accuse the bishops who hold this view of fearing the authorities, of seeking to please them, or of bowing before the powers of this world is baseless. Still less justifiable are accusations that they are betraying the Church or even committing apostasy. No – their position is measured, consistent, and historically grounded.
Arguments of those who oppose autocephaly
The other side holds a different view. They believe that decisions of such magnitude, first of all, should not be made amid war and national turmoil. Secondly, they must take place in a way that leaves no doubt among any of the Local Churches about the legitimacy of the newly acquired autocephaly.
In other words, it must be a conciliar decision involving the episcopate of the Mother Church, with an official proclamation, and, most importantly, with consideration of the will of the Orthodox people of the country receiving it.
If the UOC were to hastily proclaim autocephaly, it would then have to prove that it had not embarked on a path of schism, and its canonical status throughout the Orthodox world would remain uncertain.
Another important argument of the opponents of autocephaly is the appeal to the will of the people.
As we can see, both groups of hierarchs invoke the Orthodox faithful as the key factor in making such a decision. And among the people themselves, opinions differ. Since the start of the war, the number of those opposed to autocephaly has decreased – but by how much? Probably not by much. The very idea of autocephaly has long been discredited and, because of the schism of 1991, has come to be seen by many as something unacceptable in principle.
Whether we like it or not, Ukraine and Russia share a common state and ecclesiastical history that stretches back centuries: a shared calendar, venerated saints, and liturgical traditions. And, as politicians may not wish to admit, we also share family ties. Our histories contain many tragic pages, yet the spiritual unity of the Church endured, for it was rooted in the higher, metaphysical realms of the soul.
The attempt by other Orthodox jurisdictions to revise the calendar, to remove “Moscow saints” or revered icons of the Mother of God, will not be accepted by the faithful of the UOC.
This is the view of those who refuse to place politics and statehood above traditional conciliar unity. Moreover, the “conservative” part of the episcopate understands that their flock will not accept autocephaly, which could lead to another schism – far deeper and more tragic than that of 1991.
And here the issue is not about unity with the ideology or politics of a neighboring state, but about that spiritual unity which has always transcended statehood – about the pan-Orthodox communion of people bound by shared history, spiritual roots, and sacred values. To accuse the hierarchs who defend this position of betrayal, lack of patriotism, or serving the aggressor state would be profoundly unjust.
Conclusions
Despite their opposing views on autocephaly, both sides of the episcopate are primarily concerned with the interests of the Church and its faithful. Both desire what is best for the Church and are guided not by self-interest, but by pastoral conscience and responsibility before God.
I would therefore ask both supporters and opponents of autocephaly to strive to understand one another, to listen, and to conduct dialogue in a spirit of Christian love and mutual respect.
As for me, I am almost certain that the final decision on this matter, as has often happened in history, will depend on political events – above all, on the outcome of the tragedy we are now enduring.
A special reflection on the merits
Both supporters and opponents of autocephaly appeal to the canons, which, as we are often told, are “our everything.” For decades, I have heard impassioned speeches about the sanctity of the canons and the duty to “guard them as the apple of one’s eye,” to live in harmony with the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers.
And yet, through all these years, I have wondered: have those vested with authority and possessing theological education ever read these canons from beginning to end? Or is this simply an Orthodox mantra repeated out of habit?
The same hierarchs who speak of the sanctity of the canons – are they unaware that they themselves have long ceased to observe them? I am sure not one bishop has ever asked his physician whether he is a Jew, though the canons forbid Christians to seek medical treatment from Jews (Canon 11 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council).
Even the rules concerning the most sacred matter – the Holy Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ – have long been set aside as “inconvenient.” According to the canons, a Christian should receive Communion every Sunday, and anyone who abstains for three consecutive weeks should be excommunicated (see Apostolic Canon 9, Canon 80 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Canon 11 of the Council of Sardica).
Perhaps it is time to open these canons once again and say: this is sacred, and this is no longer so – and explain why. I understand that only an Ecumenical Council can revise canon law, but I am convinced that nothing prevents us from discussing these matters at the level of a Local Church, at least to begin an elementary codification.
I am not bringing this up by chance – it is directly connected to the issue of autocephaly.
First of all,
it is already wrong that we have begun to dogmatize the canons. By speaking of their sanctity, we have in fact granted them an absolute and indisputable authority, even though, as I have shown with examples above, most of these canons we have long since ceased to observe. For the canons reflect the life of the Church in a particular time and were written for particular reasons. But time does not stand still – nor do the circumstances of the Church’s life.
Secondly,
it would be right to stop using the canons as a cover for the sinful actions of human will in Church history – to stop calling “holy” that which in truth does not bring us closer to God, but leads us away from Him.
The canons were written in different historical periods of the Church, under the pressure of different circumstances – including the influence of political power and will, which used the Church as an instrument of control and was interested in administrative dominance over parishes within certain territories.
Perhaps it is time to admit honestly that the division of the One Church – or, as some theologians call it, the “multiplication of autocephalous Churches” – was inspired not by care for the salvation of souls, but by the struggle for territory, which in essence means the struggle for power and money. The mechanism of these divisions is the same as that of the division of all humanity into nations and states – it is one of the sinful manifestations of our fallen nature, not the action of the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Christ created One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, in which there is neither “Greek nor Jew.” Yet over time, people preferred slavery to freedom and found nothing better than to divide the One Church according to the same principle that the Apostle Paul rejected – by national, ethnic, and state-administrative lines.
Thus, within the boundaries of the One Church, separate Local Churches arose for the Greeks, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, and others. Formally, we say that all these are parts of the one indivisible Church of God. But in practice, this is not so. Despite the declaration of pan-Orthodox unity, we know from both history and our own times that these Churches are often in conflict with each other. And once again, the essence of this enmity lies in the struggle for power and possession – though it is again cloaked in canonical language.
That is precisely why the so-called “Mother Churches” do not wish to release from their orbit those Churches that are ready to attain independence. There is nothing sacred in this struggle. To invoke the sanctity of the canons in such a context is either hypocrisy or ignorance.
For my part, it makes no difference whether our Church bears the label of “autocephalous” or remains part of another Local Church. I have long understood the essence and meaning of this struggle. What matters to me is only one thing – that the basic requirements we set for the legitimacy of the Church be preserved. That we not be led into union with schismatics or self-ordained groups, and that we ourselves not fall into schism. As for whose “most holy name” will be commemorated during the liturgy, or where the palace of the “great lord and father” will be located – I am indifferent. For the salvation of my soul and the souls entrusted to me by God, such things do not matter.
All that ordinary priests need from our “most holy lords” is that they not hinder us too much – that they allow us and our parishioners to walk toward God and to live by the Gospel.
I am convinced that Christ will not judge us by which churchly masters we belonged to by registration, but by entirely different criteria – ones that have nothing to do with ranks, titles, diptychs, or any of the other inventions of human vanity and egoism.
And finally: there is no pan-Orthodox unity today. The Ecumenical, Russian, Alexandrian, and Antiochian Patriarchs, as well as the ruling elites of most other Local Orthodox Churches (though not all), revolve in the orbit of whatever political power they depend upon, expressing its interests. Even Mount Athos – where monks live who, one would think, have nothing in this world to cling to or fear – even there, unity is lacking in matters that seem perfectly clear and simple. This was clearly demonstrated by the events that took place on Athos on October 10 of this year. What then can be said of those hierarchs whose well-being directly depends on the state authorities?
So let us stop deceiving ourselves with illusions and start facing the truth.
