Myth of No Schism among Eastern Orthodox

The Myth of No Schism among Eastern Orthodox

Rferl - Ap 8/05 - Who has legal jurisdiction over the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople or the Moscow Patriarch?

Who has legal jurisdiction over the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople or the Moscow Patriarch? This question has been debated for centuries and Moscow was the correct, if not always legal, answer.

This suddenly came into doubt when Interfax and the RIS (News Service /Ukraine) reported that on 24 March a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople told Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko that "the Moscow Patriarchate consists of the territory which it encompassed to the year 1686." The visitor, Archbishop Vsevolod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States, added that Kyiv's subjugation to the Russian Orthodox Church that began that year was not ratified by Constantinople.

The statement sent shock waves throughout the Orthodox Church establishment in Ukraine and Russia, and it soon became an object of speculation as to its implications if this was indeed the case. The website of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople has neither confirmed nor denied the statement.

A number of mostly non-canonical issues are involved in the dispute, the main one being ownership of Orthodox Church property in Ukraine.

In Ukraine, there are three Orthodox churches: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The largest by far is the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which has 9,049 communities, 122 monasteries, and 7,755 churches (840 churches are under construction).

The Kyivan Patriarchate has 2781 communities, 22 monasteries, 1825 churches, and is building 217 more.

The Autocephalous Church has 1,015 communities, 1 monastery, 697 churches, and is building 101 churches.

Among the properties belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate are such historical sites as the Monastery of the Caves (Lavra) in Kyiv and the St. Sophia Cathedral, also in Kyiv.

If the church of the Moscow Patriarchate were to come directly under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, then the Moscow Patriarchate would stand to lose not only title to property but also enormous influence in Ukraine, where it has traditionally played an important role as a pro-Russian-oriented organization.

The political role of the church was evident during the Ukrainian presidential election last year, when many priests openly took part in campaigning for Viktor Yanukovych. According to the obkom.net.ua website, the pro-Moscow church not only supported Yanukovych's candidacy but actively agitated for separatism in the eastern regions of Ukraine after Yushchenko was declared the winner.

The patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Aleksii II, made an indirect reference to the 24 March announcement in comments to the annual meeting of the Fund for Unity of Orthodox Nations in Moscow on 28 March, Interfax reported.

Aleksii told the gathering that the president of Ukraine had stated that he would not tell people which church to attend and he hopes that this promise will be kept. Other members of the Russian clergy have avoided making any statements on the topic.

In Kyiv, Oleksander Lytvynenko of the Razumkov Center for Political and Economic Studies, told Interfax on 29 March that it would be unwise for Constantinople to interfere with religious affairs in Ukraine. In the past, such interference has hardly led to positive changes, he said, adding, "Today it could provoke conflicts and political speculation by those forces in society who used the Orthodox church issue during the last elections."

(Originally published on 8 April 2005)

Moscow Expects Constantinople to "Clarify" Position on Ukraine

RISU - Jul 13/05 - Moscow– Despite an official query sent by the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) more than three months ago, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has so far failed to provide an official answer regarding its position on church jurisdiction in Ukraine. sedmitza.ru posted this news on 8 July 2005.

“The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople still has neither confirmed nor denied the statement of Archbishop Vsevolod (Majdanski) about the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s ‘canonical claims’ on Ukrainian territory,” said Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, secretary for inter-Orthodox relations of the ROC,. He added that there have been cases when in interchurch correspondence responses would only arrive after many months, because of the complexity of the issue.

He also said that the statement Archbishop Vsevolod made at the meeting with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko on 24 March 2005 has led to “considerable tenseness in the religious situation in Ukraine, causing outrage among the faithful and clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Moscow Patriarchate.”

Archbishop Vsevolod said at the meeting that the Moscow Patriarchate “consists of that territory which it encompassed to the year 1686. The subjugation of the Kyivan Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate was concluded by Patriarch Dionysius without the agreement or ratification of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Great Church of Christ (the Patriarchate of Constantinople).”

Fr. Balashov noted that Patriarch Dionysius’s decree on the unification of the Kyivan Metropolitanate with the Moscow Patriarchate was signed by all the members of the Holy Synod, almost 20 hierarchs, and that the decision was made in agreement with Patriarch Dosipheus of Jerusalem, who also issued a decree.

Fr. Balashov also stressed that Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople officially stated in 1993 that “the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognizes only one metropolitan of Kyiv, Metropolitan Volodymyr [Sabodan] of Kyiv and all Ukraine.”

“That is why it is difficult for us to believe that the statement made in Kyiv by Archbishop Vsevolod really reflects the official position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” Fr. Balashov said. He said the majority of the UOC–MP’s clergy and faithful “are content with the current status” and changing it “may cause new challenges.”

Parliament Addresses President on Intensified Interdenominational Conflicts in Ukraine

RISU - Jul 12/05 - Kyiv – The Parliament of Ukraine has approved an address to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko concerning the intensification of interdenominational conflicts in Ukraine. In particular, the actions of law-enforcement organs and local authorities in the case of religious communities of the village of Rokhmaniv, Shumy district in western Ukraine’s Ternopil region, were mentioned. This news was posted by rada.gov.ua on 6 July 2005.

According to the press service of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), the address expresses concern over the condition of religious life in Ukraine today. The organs of government are receiving numerous complaints from clergy and communities of the UOC-MP, asking for protection from infringements of their constitutional rights. The regional governments of a number of Ukrainian regions, such as central Ukrainian Rivne and southern Ukrainian Kherson, have ordered the alternating use of previous UOC-MP churches with other religious communities, while the Chapel of the Kazan Mother of God in Lutsk was seized.

The address goes on to say that the situation around UOC–MP property in the village of Rokhmaniv is an example of the policy of local government in conflicts of this type. According to the UOC-MP, the local UOC–MP community is the legal proprietor of the Church of the Holy Trinity, starting from an agreement signed in 1946. Decree No. 301 of the Ternopil regional executive committee of 26 December 1991 confirmed the UOC–MP’s property rights with regard to the church.

Recently, the Tenopil Regional Administration decreed alternating use of the church by the UOC–MP and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate community, which became a source of conflict. In response, the regional administration cancelled the 1991 decision and took the church out of the UOC–MP’s control, basing its actions on the fact that no agreement has been signed between the community and the local authorities.

According to the UOC–MP press service, the case of religious communities using their churches on the basis of governmental decisions, rather than laying down their property rights in agreements, is typical for the Ternopil region. The UOC-MP press service also states that carelessness and procrastination on the part of the local authorities are also typical. The representatives of the UOC–MP think that alternating use of churches by different communities will only make the difficult religious situation in Ukraine worse, deepening conflicts and bringing about interreligious conflicts.

A situation arose in which, according to legislation, it is up to the local government to introduce or prohibit alternating use, as well as to give churches to communities’ for use or as property. According to the UOC-MP press service, this opens the way for abuse by local authorities.

In conclusion, the representatives of the UOC–MP say the situation requires involvement from the president.

Orthodox Priests Protest Sharing of Church Building

Events in Ternopil Region

RISU -Jul 12/05 - Ternopil – Orthodox priests of three eparchies in western Ukrainian Ternopil met with Regional Governor Ivan Stoiko on 8 July 2005 to express their protest of his decision that a controversial church in the village of Zazdrist, Terebovlia district, be used alternately by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC).

The Initiative Group of Orthodox Clergy was headed by Father Anatolii Zinkewicz, superior of the Holy Trinity Spiritual Center named in honor of Prince Danylo Halytskyi.

The governor’s order to establish alternating Liturgies in the village church has not been fulfilled yet. According to the Orthodox priests, deliberate provoking of religious hostility among the faithful of different denominations is taking place in Zazdrist.

As RISU reported on 7 July, the UGCC community in Zazdrist is ready to take turns using the church.

UOC-KP Orthodox Claim Religious Intolerance From other Eastern Orthodox

( Ukrainian Orthodox Church- MP) in Donbas

RISU - Jul 12/05 - Donetsk – The Donetsk eparchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP) released an official report about vandalism on the construction site of its cathedral. The eparchy’s report blames the faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) for provoking interdenominational hostility in the region. Below is a translation of the full text of the report, which RISU received on 8 July 2005. (Note: Donbas is a historical name for Ukraine’s far eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions.)

REPORT OF THE PRESS OFFICE OF THE DONETSK EPARCHY OF THE UOC-KP

On the night of 5 July 2005, an act of vandalism was committed at the construction site of the Cathedral of St. Andrew the First-called Apostle in the city of Donetsk, which the press office of the Donetsk eparchy of the UOC-KP reported. “Strangers” broke and bent the holy cross, blessed by His Beatitude Patriarch Filaret of Kyiv and All Ukraine on 30 May 2005 during his visit to the Donetsk eparchy.

It should be recalled that pro-Moscow representatives headed by O. BAZYLIUK, the malevolent politician, head of the Slavic Party, tried to hinder the blessing of the holy cross. The Slavic Party, under slogans in defense of Moscow Orthodoxy in Ukraine, is trying to destabilize the interreligious climate in Donbas.

Similar acts of vandalism have become a sad “tradition” in the Donetsk region. (In 1999 supporters of the Moscow Patriarchate together with representatives of the local criminal element broke the holy cross at the construction site of the Church of the Protection of the Most Holy Mother of God in the city of Mariupol). Regrettably, some state officials connive at these processes in our region, using such notions as separation of church and state to justify similar actions of the fanatics of the Moscow Patriarchate, and forgetting that such actions are not a manifestation of religious feelings but are an act of real hooliganism.

We should learn how to make use of the laws of democratic society and to take action against those who violate these laws.

Undoubtedly, similar actions of modern vandals will not have the effect they expected (since instead of the broken cross a new granite one will be set up in some days). The UOC-KP will continue its growth in the Donetsk region, but this will happen not due to the illegal actions and threats to unleash a “religious war,” something the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate have been repeatedly hinting at lately. Our church will continue to be an example of the Christian virtues, i.e. FAITH, HOPE and LOVE.

An Unorthodox Orthodoxy: Eastern churches should break (SCHISM !!) with Moscow

National Review, 15 April 2005, by Zeyno Baran & Emmet Tuohy

RISU - Ap 19/05 -In Washington last week, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko received a hero's welcome as he concluded a new strategic partnership with the United States and gave a historic address to a joint session of Congress. Throughout his visit, especially during talks with President George W. Bush, Yushchenko adhered to his main theme: the commitment of both countries to democratic values. While they discussed numerous issues of common concern, there was one item conspicuous by its absence from the agenda: religion. In Ukraine - and elsewhere in the Orthodox world - a struggle for freedom and independence is still being waged against the Russian Orthodox Church.

In his controversial book "The Clash of Civilizations," Samuel Huntington identified a fundamental divide between the areas represented by Catholicism and Protestantism in the West, and the Orthodox Church in the East. As recent events have shown, however, a more correct line can be drawn, with the Russian Orthodox Church representing the authoritarian status quo on one side, and the rest of Europe – including the other Orthodox traditions - representing freedom and democracy on the other.

During the recent democratic revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, the local branches of the Orthodox Church acted in full concordance with liberal democratic values, supporting the desire of people in these countries for political freedoms. However, they were resisted at every turn by the nationalistic Russian Orthodox Church, which is tightly tied to a Russian state that is still trying to reassert control over its former dominions.

Though not widely known, the structure of the Orthodox Church is highly conducive to local, responsive decision-making. Since the famous 1054 split with Roman Catholicism, the Ecumenical Patriarch (who has continued to reside in Constantinople/Istanbul over the intervening millennium) enjoys only a primus inter pares relationship with the autonomous patriarchs of individual countries. Over time, each national Orthodox Church thus became closely tied to the needs and desires of their people. However, as Ottoman political control receded over the 19th century, the influence of the Russian Patriarchate grew in keeping with the expansion of Tsarist and later Soviet power. While many churches were able to regain effective independence during the widespread clamoring for freedom that accompanied the fall of the Berlin Wall, pro-Russian elements have resisted such efforts.

In contrast, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, based in Istanbul, has acted as the leading voice in favor of freedom and democracy in the Orthodox world. A prominent promoter of interfaith ties and environmental issues (he has, somewhat unusually, been labeled "the green patriarch"), Bartholomew I has taken a special interest in the anti-authoritarian movement that has steadily gained steam in Orthodox countries over the last two decades. Standing at the center of coordination among all the Orthodox, he strongly supported the independence of the church in Estonia, which led to a major split within the Orthodox Church (between Russian and Greek churches). Today he is the key to the independence of the Georgian and Ukrainian churches, as well.

In Georgia, when the pro-reform movement took off in 2003, the independent Georgian Orthodox Church supported Mikheil Saakashvili, the young democratic reformer who successfully attained the presidency of the Georgian state. The Russian Church, however, has continued to oppose Saakashvili and his reforms, most notably by encouraging the separatists in Georgia's Abkhazia region to unite their church with the Moscow Patriarchate. (The Russian church is also supporting the criminal separatist regime in Moldova's breakaway region of Transnistria).

In Ukraine, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP), joined with Uniate Catholics, who practice the Orthodox rite but profess loyalty to the pope, as well as with evangelical Protestants, in supporting the Ukrainian people's right to a free electoral choice. These churches were instrumental in inspiring and assisting the throngs of Ukrainians who took to the streets last year to protest election fraud, protests which ultimately led to the recognition of the victory of reformist candidate Viktor Yushchenko in the presidential elections. Meanwhile, the Moscow Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church threw its full weight behind government candidate Viktor Yanukovych in a propaganda campaign that included the lending of icons to anti-Yushchenko marches and the dissemination of anti-Yushchenko leaflets at church services.

In the aftermath of Ukraine's peaceful revolution, there have been calls for unification of the two branches; at a special sobor (assembly), the UOC-KP asked Yushchenko and Bartholomew I for their assistance in ending the division and providing true independence for Ukraine – politically and theologically. During a recent visit to Kyiv, however, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated the well-known position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which would allow the unification of the Ukrainian churches only if they continued in "canonical unity" with the Moscow Patriarchate, which means continued influence not only from the church leadership, but from the Russian government.

However, there is to be no exterminating the freedom bug caught by nearly the entire Orthodox movement. If the Moscow Patriarchate continues to support repressive regimes and separatist regions throughout the former Soviet Union, it will only add to its increasing isolation from a "Western civilization" that now extends to the borders of Russia.

- Zeyno Baran is director of the international-security and energy Programs at the Nixon Center, where Emmet Tuohy is a research associate.

Constantinople Doesn’t Recognize Kyiv (Kiev) Church as under Moscow, Says Ukrainian Orthodox USA Archbishop

March 26/05- (Risu) - New Jersey, USA— “The Moscow Patriarchate consists of that territory which it encompassed to the year 1686.” Archbishop Vsevolod (Majdanski) of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (UOC USA), a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, told this to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko at a meeting on 24 March 2005. The archbishop added that Kyiv’s “subjugation” to the Russian Orthodox Church, starting that year and continuing to the present, was not ratified by Constantinople.

According to the press release of the Ukrainian government, during his discussion with Archbishop Vsevolod, Yushchenko stressed that his government will not directly involve itself in ecclesiastical matters. “We stand for the equality of all churches,” the president said. The meeting also centered on the necessity of developing harmonious interdenominational relationships on the road to the establishment of a local Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Archbishop Vsevolod expressed the good wishes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to both President Yushchenko and the Ukrainian nation.

During the meeting with the president, Archbishop Vsevolod made a statement which, according to the UOC USA public relations office, reflects the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople: “The position of the Mother Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, is that her daughter, the Moscow Patriarchate, consists of that territory which it encompassed to the year 1686. The subjugation of the Kyivan Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate was concluded by Patriarch Dionysius without the agreement or ratification of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Great Church of Christ (the Patriarchate of Constantinople).”

During his recent visit to Ukraine, Archbishop Vsevolod also met with Patriarch Filaret, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate, Metropolitan Volodymyr, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Moscow Patriarchate, and Archbishop Makarii of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) in Lviv.

Another hierarch of the UOC USA, Archbishop Antony of the church’s eastern eparchy, also recently traveled to Ukraine and met with Yushchenko.

On 11 March, Archbishop Antony met with Yushchenko to discuss the continued ecclesiastical struggles in Ukraine and sought the government’s assistance in resolving the issues which divide the church. The president expressed his deep desire to see a single, united Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine and indicated that he will work closely with all sides, in particular the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, to bring this unity about. The archbishop also invited the president to visit South Bound Brook/Somerset, New Jersey, the Metropolitanate Center of the UOC USA, during his upcoming working visit to President Bush in Washington, D. C. President Yuschenko expressed a sincere desire to make that visit.

Archbishop Antony also met with hierarchs of the UAOC, Metropolitan Andrii of Ivano-Frankivsk and Archbishop Makarii of Lviv, and with clergy who serve in the UAOC Patriarchate Office in Kyiv to discuss recent developments in the life of the church.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

--Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--

True Christianity is the way of Genuine love and caring for others.

Christian Conversions - According to the Bible - Can NEVER be forced.

Any Conversion to Christianity which would be "Forced" would NOT be recognized by God. It is in His True and KIND nature, that those who come to Him and choose to believe in Him, must come to Him OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Don't Let anyone tell you that Christians support Forced Conversions.

That is False. True Christianity is NEVER forced.

Core Universal Rights

The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one's belief or religion
The right to join together and express one's belief

Please Note: We do try to be accurate. If you see anything which you believe

Is not correct on our website, please do bring it to our attention.

Thank you

(XOFC Staff)

If you Disagree