The Ukrainian issue as seen through UOC-KP eyes

(RISU) - In an interview to the agency OstroV, Patriarch Filaret, the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate, stated that he sees the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) losing its independence and recommends the Russian hierarchy not to interfere in the matters of the Ukrainian state. According to him, when he was the head of the single Ukrainian Orthodox Church, he secured from the hierarchical council the status of an independent and self-governed church for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1990. Therefore, the Ukrainian Church is really more independent now than the Belarusian one or that of Kazakhstan or Baltic countries. But now, according to Patriarch Filaret, these rights of independence are gradually being taken away.

“Therefore, there are already divisions in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate): some are for autocephaly, some bishops and clergy are for closer unity with the Moscow Patriarchate. This is discussed in Moscow and they do not like that Metropolitan Volodymyr corresponds with the bishops in Ukrainian, that some churches serve services in Ukrainian. It is understandable that Moscow would like all Ukraine to speak only Russian. But our state language is Ukrainian, and Russian is not oppressed in Ukraine. We want Ukrainians to speak Ukrainian and all citizens to know Ukrainian: they can speak any language but they should all know the state language,” stressed Patriarch Filaret.

He is sure that the people “want to have an independent church as well as an independent state, And Kirill will not do anything about it. His efforts in this direction are in vain, it is a road to nowhere.”

Patriarch Filaret accentuates that the Ukrainian Church is already in existence and it is simply impossible to destroy it. “As of today, the Kyivan Patriarchate has 14 million adherents, believers, and the Moscow Patriarchate has nine million, even though the Moscow Patriarchate has twice as many churches and parishes than we do,” said the head of the UOC-KP. According to him, many adherents of the Kyivan Patriarchate go to churches of the Moscow Patriarchate. “We see no difference between the believers of the Kyivan and Moscow patriarchates. We are all Orthodox and we all live in Ukraine. But it is interesting that the youth is pulled more to the Kyivan Patriarchate. According to a poll conducted in Odesa a month ago, 33.7% called themselves adherents of the Kyivan Patriarchate and 31.5% called themselves adherents of the Moscow Patriarchate. And this is in Odesa!” stressed Patriarch Filaret.

He criticized the situation when the church allows someone to involve it in politics. The head of UOC-KP mentioned an example when Russian hierarchs begin to interfere in the state affairs of independent Ukraine. According to Patriarch Filaret, it is in violation of the principle of the separation of the church from the state. According to the patriarch, one cannot dictate where the Institute of Ground Forces should be located or what should be the name of a certain street.

In answer to the question what the UOC-KP expects from the all-Orthodox council, which is being prepared by Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, Patriarch Filaret expressed a doubt whether such a council will take place at all. In his opinion, the “Council can do more harm than good. Because what Constantinople and Moscow recently agreed upon does not serve the unification of Orthodoxy but its division.”

Patriarch Filaret gives the following motivation of his position: “A church is granted autocephaly on the consent of its mother church. If the mother of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is the Russian Church, as they think there, our autocephaly depends on Moscow. If the Ukrainian Church is a daughter of the Constantinople Church, as history testifies, the autocephaly depends on Constantinople. But there can not be two mothers! Therefore, the preliminary agreement reached by Moscow and Constantinople is convenient to them but does not settle the issue of recognition of the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church, one of the largest ones in Orthodoxy. But the agreement satisfies Moscow and it will not let the Ukrainian Church go. It also suits Constantinople because it will not let the American Church go, which has sought autocephaly for a long time. According to the agreements, the Tomos of autocephaly is granted by the Ecumenical Patriarch and not the Patriarch of Moscow. But it gives it on the consent of all the local Orthodox Churches. That is, if any church is against it, there will be no autocephaly. As we analyzed these agreements, we have come to a conclusion that they concern not the establishment of autocephalous churches but prevent the establishment of autocephalous churches. And in addition to the Ukrainian one, there are other churches seeking recognition of autocephaly; these are the Macedonian Church and the Church of Montenegro. And this can lead to a divide in Ecumenical Orthodoxy.”