Wednesday, November 14, 2018

UOC-MP issues resolutions on state of affairs in Ukraine

(Pravmir) - On 13 November 2018, the Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church convened in the Holy Dormition Kiev-Caves Lavra and, having heard an address of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine on the challenges that have recently arisen before the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, adopted the following resolution:


  1. Serving God and the people of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is canonical and recognized by the Local Orthodox Churches, takes a principled stand of supporting the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is present in all regions of Ukraine and unites the territories both under and beyond the control of the Ukrainian authorities, sharing with its people all the joys and sufferings. Read: We're real Ukrainians and not shills for Russia.
  2. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is vested with all rights of independence and self-governance that are needed today for fruitfully serving God and the people of Ukraine. Read: We're real Ukrainians and not shills for Russia.
  3. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has always and consistently spoken out in favour of healing the schism and restoring the ecclesiastical unity, that is, one Church. However, the restoration of the unity of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy must not mean the transformation of the Church into an element of politics or propaganda, for it is contrary to the nature of the Church. We are convinced that the ecclesiastical division must be overcome without the interference of the governmental, political or other external forces. Keep politics out of the Church.
  4. The Council of Bishops speaks out against any attempts, which have already been voiced by top public officials, to change the name of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, as well as against other manifestations of discrimination against the faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church at the legislative level. In the event that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine will adopt such bills, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will defend its rights by all legal means provided by the Basics of the Social Concept of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the legislation of Ukraine and the European Convention on Human Rights. The EP claims the name "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" fosters ethnophyletism and should be renamed the "Orthodox Church in Ukraine." Somewhat ironic given the problem is that they are trying to make a new Church along national/ethnic lines. Also somewhat ironic considering the refusal to acknowledge the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America.
  5. The Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church regards the decisions of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 11 October 2018 concerning the Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue as void and not having any canonical power. In particular, the decision on the establishment of the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the territory of Ukraine is the result of speculative interpretation of church history. And the decision to lift the anathema and other ecclesiastical bans imposed on the leaders of the schism and the recognition of validity of the pseudo-ordinations performed by them while in schism are the result of distorted interpretation of the Orthodox canons. The history of the Ukrainian Church does not know any examples of overcoming a schism by mere legalization. Having adopted such anti-canonical decisions and having recognized the schismatics in their current rank, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, according to the ecclesiastical rules, embarked on the path of schism. Therefore, the Eucharistic communion between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople is currently impossible and is broken off. Read: None of what the EP is doing is canonical either in letter or spirit.
  6. We consider inadmissible the unlawful interference of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the internal affairs of another Local Church and the attempts to resolve the Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue with the involvement of state authorities and schismatics, while ignoring the voice of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Moreover, we state with regret that hundreds of thousands of appeals sent by the faithful of our Church to Patriarch Bartholomew, calling upon him not to legalize the schism under the pretext of creating the autocephaly, have fallen on deaf ears. This is what I think is the most powerful message to the other Local Churches. If you can do this to Ukraine, why not to any other Church who calls Constantinople her Mother Church? The Serbians, for example, asked this very question.
  7. The Council of Bishops notes that the process of granting the so-called Tomos of Autocephaly is artificial and enforced, that it is not caused by the inner church necessity and will not bring about the real ecclesiastical unity, but will deepen the division and worsen the conflicts among the Ukrainian people. In such circumstances we believe that the participation of the bishops, clergy and laity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in these processes is impossible. Read: We aren't going to join in your reindeer games while you try to build this plastic, lifeless and graceless new autocephalous entity.
  8. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church takes a principled stand in adhering to the canonical approach to the overcoming of ecclesiastical division. This approach is based on the necessity of repentance for those returning from the schism. The Church has never closed its doors to those who want to achieve spiritual perfection as Orthodox Christians. We plan to keep playing by the rules. When you decide to follow the rules too we'll let you play again.
  9. The Council of Bishops states that the unlawful actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople lead to a deep ecclesiastical crisis both in Ukraine and in the universal Orthodoxy. We pray that the voice of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s millions-strong flock may be heard and that the actions committed so far by the Patriarchate of Constantinople may be rectified. It's not too late to turn back, EP.
  10. The Council of Bishops calls upon the Patriarchate of Constantinople to engage in dialogue with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with the fraternal participation of all the Local Orthodox Churches for the purpose of seeking the conciliar solution to this problem.
  11. The Council of Bishops asks the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine, to appeal to the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches with regard to the crisis situation that has arisen in the ecclesiastical life of Ukraine as the result of the unlawful interference of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Someone turn on the batsignal.
  12. The Council of Bishops calls upon all the children of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to pray ever more zealously, to preserve the unity among them, to remain faithful to the Holy Church of Christ and to feel no fear in the face of possible ordeals, bearing in mind the words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: “Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33).

15 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is just crazy.... http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/memorial-service-set-for-wednesday-to-honor-fallen-k9-axe

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Read: We're real Ukrainians and not shills for Russia."

    -Perhaps. But do their brothers and sisters in Western Ukraine feel that way about them? Trust has been broken, and having Patriarch Kyrill's picture on the wall is a non-starter.

    "Keep politics out of the Church."

    -That would be fantastic, but in our entire history, has this ever actually happened when it comes to the question of autocephalacy?

    "The EP claims the name "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" fosters ethnophyletism and should be renamed the "Orthodox Church in Ukraine." Somewhat ironic given the problem is that they are trying to make a new Church along national/ethnic lines. Also somewhat ironic considering the refusal to acknowledge the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America."

    -ethnophyletism is a lingering problem across the entire Church. I think fighting over names is just a small part of a bigger question here (Looking at you, "Russky Mir"). Unilaterally declaring a church autocephalous is seen as a problem, is it not? No matter who does it.

    "Read: None of what the EP is doing is canonical either in letter or spirit."

    -The entire Diaspora situation is "uncanonical." It is easy to hide behind the Canons to support an ulterior agenda. The EP is trying to get the three groups in Ukraine to come together as one. Ideally, the MP should have done this, but for various reasons they haven't (they could have also headed this off by granting autocephalacy in the early 90s). When maintaining the integrity of "Holy Rus" becomes more important than the pastoral, practical healing of a bad situation, then we will have issues. The MP keeps saying that the schismatics have to "repent."

    http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

    The act of Canonical reunion between the MP and ROCOR. Did ROCOR have to "repent" of their schism? And of the Old Believers? What did their "repentance" look like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This is what I think is the most powerful message to the other Local Churches. If you can do this to Ukraine, why not to any other Church who calls Constantinople her Mother Church? The Serbians, for example, asked this very question."

      -A fair question, but not the same circumstances. The Ukraine's "jurisdictional" history has been messier than most, with lines drawn and redrawn. The least we can say is that this whole area is "disputed." Whatever you think of the EP's actions, it isn't as clear cut as partisans would have you believe.

      "Read: We aren't going to join in your reindeer games while you try to build this plastic, lifeless and graceless new autocephalous entity."

      -The Ukrainian Churches in North America were reconciled and reintegrated into the Church. Moscow didn't like that either, but it was done. The same can happen here. People who were outside the Church have a chance to be brought back in. This schism is political (like ROCOR's and the UOC-USA/CANADA) and it can be healed.

      "We plan to keep playing by the rules. When you decide to follow the rules too we'll let you play again."

      -Again, what did ROCOR's repentance look like?

      "It's not too late to turn back, EP."

      -To what? Children being denied the Holy Mysteries because their parish is on the wrong side of the line?

      "Someone turn on the batsignal."

      -Cute. Fortunately though, HAH is not unaware of how unsettling this is for the Church and a Council will no doubt be called when everything settles down. The question is, will the MP come?

      Delete
    2. The MP has repeatedly stated that it would attend a council once called. But if it were to be called after this faux autocephalous church has been established, that would be exceedingly backhanded. (As if this whole situation caused by the EP isnt backhanded enough towards the church of Moscow already). The church of Russia wish children to be "denied the Holy Mysteries because their parish is on the wrong side of the line" but has always wished sincerely for the schismatics to return home to their mother church through canonical means. So that the long suffering church of Ukraine might be strengthened and united. It is rather insulting and presumptuous sir that you would imply that the church of Moscow would somehow see benefit from "childrwn being denied the holy mysteties". Patriarch Kirill himself has stated that he prays for Ukraine every day, and sincerely cares for all the souls of Ukraine. Please stop making such accusatory and misleading statements. May Christ our true God be with you my friend.

      Delete
    3. Sorry typo *The church of Russia does not wish children to be..

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you’re taking this a little too personally Mr. White, which is understandable to the degree that if you are under the EP you’re no longer in communion with MP, but nevertheless objectivity is important.

    ROCOR was an entirely different situation. They had a mandate from St. Tikhon Patriarch of Moscow to break away from the MP until Communism fell, to preserve the faith until the church in Russia was free. They were not in schism, if they had refused to rejoin MP after the fall of communism, they would have been in schism, but thankfully that didn’t happen.

    The accepting of an individual who has been punished by another bishop is an unfortunate practice that is a common part of the history of the church. It doesn’t make it okay, but it also has very little to do with this situation.

    Accepting a priest who claims he was wrongfully punished, is completely different from taking over someone else’s jurisdiction, and setting up your own.

    The MP has stated their case, that EP has not acted in good faith or according to canon law, which no one has contested except EP. In fact I have yet to see a single autocephalous church come out and say that EP is correct, most have said the opposite or have said we need a council. That should really tell you something.

    Can you site an official statement of the ROC or ROCOR that is endorsing ethnophyletism? So far the only one to bring race into the equation has been EP who has used Slavs and Slavic in a ethnophyletist negative connotation; and again the Ukrainian schismatics are quite blatant that this is about ethnicity in their anti-Russian statements.

    Believing that EP’s uncanonical intervention has bourne positive fruit is honestly an amazing claim to make.

    So far the only “fruit” is the largest schism since 1054, which would not have happened if he stopped and engaged in a council and dialogue instead of ignoring every branch of the church calling for such, the imminent threat of massive church seizures through violence by schismatics who are claiming they have the right to take canonical churches and monasteries as soon as there is a tomos granted; and setting a precedence for the idea of a papal authority in Orthodoxy and a total disregard for canon law. That’s some pretty rotten fruit by any account.

    The autonomous and canonical Ukrainian church, made up of Ukrainians, has just declared they don’t agree with EP and they will have no part with schismatics who have not repented.

    All this talk of autocephaly and “freedom” from Russian political influence, and yet we’re going to ignore what the largest body of canonical Ukrainians wants? As if they don’t matter? Who is playing politics here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prayers for the suffering Church in the Ukraine. Lord, have mercy.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ""Read: We're real Ukrainians and not shills for Russia."

    -Perhaps. But do their brothers and sisters in Western Ukraine feel that way about them?"
    You didn't know that Met. Onufriy of Kiev and All Ukraine is from Western Ukraine, like his predecessor, Met. Volodymyr of Kiev and All Ukraine?
    Mykhailo Antonovych Denysenko is from Eastern Ukraine, the Donbass?
    "Trust has been broken, and having Patriarch Kyrill's picture on the wall is a non-starter."
    au contraire

    ReplyDelete