On a single Ukrainian Orthodox Church

Lots of Ukraine news of late. Here are two articles on ecclesial bodies trying to find a way to come together. For reference, the three bodies involved are the Moscow Patriarchate: the largest and most widely accepted, the Kiev Patriarchate: the second largest body, and the "Autocephalous" group which is rather small.

17 July 2008 (Translation from Portal-credo.ru) - Members of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate (UPTsMP), meeting on 16 July in their regular session under the leadership of Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan in the Kiev caves lavra, displayed a unanimous attempt to overcome the church divisions in Ukraine on the way to creation of a single Ukrainian local church. As the official web site of UPTsMP reported, they responded favorably to an appeal from the leadership of UPTsKP [Ukrainian Orthodox church of Kievan patriarchate] and UAPTs [Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox church], which up to now have been officially viewed by the Moscow patriarchate as "schismatic groupings."

Participants in the synod's meeting, held on the eve of the celebration of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Kievan Rus-Ukraine and the historic visit to Kiev by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, included metropolitans of Odessa and Izmail Agafangel, and Dnepropetrovsk and Pavlograd Irinei, and archbishops of Khust and Vinogradov Mark, Belotserkov and Boguslav Mitrofan, and Kamenets-Podolsk and Gorodok Feodor, and bishops of Alexandriisk and Svetlov Panteleimon and Borispolsk Antony.

Responding to the appeal from the bishops of UPTsKP, the synod of UPTsMP noted in particular: "Realizing the necessity of the urgent overcoming of church divisions in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Orthodox church is ready for a constructive dialogue and cooperation with all interested parties, including representatives of those religious groups that do not now have unity with ecumenical Orthodoxy."

The Holy Synod of UPTsMP declared officially for the first time that "it is ready to engage in strict compliance with ecclesiastical procedure, with the only condition being that such procedure not lead to a degradation of canonical ecclesiastical consciousness which would have yet greater catastrophic consequences for the church." If you consider some of the biting pronouncements from even this year, it's easy to acknowledge what a turn-around this is. When the Moscow Patriarch doesn't like you they seem to have a special gift for writing media material that tears big chunks of viscera from their opponents and leaving the reader feeling unremorseful for the heterodox group as it gets its comeuppance.

Speaking of the necessary preconditions for canonical autocephaly of the Ukrainian church, the synod of UPTsMP indicated two conditions: "1) the unanimous opinion of the episcopacy, clergy, and faithful of the local church regarding the necessity of the proclamation of autocephaly; 2) agreement to the new status for the local church on the part of the plenitude of the Orthodox church, including the mother-church." At the same time the leadership of UPTsMP posits that their church already possesses "the canonical rights which are effectively equivalent to the rights of an autocephalous church."

The synod wished for "the spiritual wisdom and courage" for all brothers and sisters who, for one reason or another, are separated from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church and are seeking a way to return to church fellowship.

At the same session the synod of UPTsMP reviewed the appeal from the Bishops' council of UAPTs to the local council of UPTsMP and sent to the hierarchy of UAPTs an official answer. It approved the attempt of UAPTs to continue a dialogue with UPTsMP with the goal of restoring unity to Ukrainian Orthodoxy. "As the documents and appeals of UAPTs, adopted during 2006-2008, testify, there is within UAPTs a clear tendency to seek understanding with the Ukrainian Orthodox church in canonical, ecclesiastical matters," the document states. It notes, in particular, the condemnation by UAPTs of ethnocentrism [ethnophiletism] as "a perverse representation of the principles of the organization of the life of the local church."

As is noted in the response, "there exist today in our church various points of view regarding its future." In the opinion of the authors of the response, "it is not surprising that a substantial part of the clergy and laity of our church now are negatively disposed toward the idea of autocephaly, seeing in it a threat to liturgical and spiritual unity with the Russian Orthodox church." In developing the idea of the full independence of UPTsMP, the synod concludes that it has even more rights than the officially autocephalous Greek Orthodox church is considered to have.