Response to Russian critics of the UOC

The radicals of the ROC want "punishment" of the UOC. Photo: UOJ

Paradoxically, against the backdrop of the lawlessness that the authorities and the “Christians” of the OCU are doing to churches and communities of the UOC, aggressive rhetoric towards the Church has recently intensified on the part of some radical bishops and clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as Russian journalists.

All their arguments boil down to one thought – in the event of the victory of the Russian Federation in the war, there should be no UOC. For example, blogger-priest Sviatoslav Shevchenko writes on his Telegram channel that “by the end of the SMO, the UOC may disappear as a subject, since it has not passed the test for independence.”

Exarch of Africa, Metropolitan Leonid, speaks more extensively on this issue. In an interview with the Russian resource Ukraina.ru, he said that the leadership of the UOC is cowards and separatists who "came out from under the wing of Moscow when such an opportunity presented itself." According to the bishop, as Ukraine is conquered, the ROC should take away its dioceses from the UOC and transfer them to Moscow. He sees no other solution. The hierarch is convinced that "there should not be any Feofaniya at all."

In an interview with the Den TV channel, Metropolitan Leonid states that the leaders of the UOC have committed "a betrayal of the Mother Church" and, accordingly, they will be "convicted and punished".

However, the exarch of Africa talks more about the administrative aspects of "relationships" with the UOC. And there are priests who bring under these aspects a whole “theological” ideological platform, where they accuse the hierarchy of the UOC almost of renouncing Christ. And since such theses are being promoted at a fairly high level, we propose to analyze them in more detail.

On July 3, 2023, an interview with an employee of the Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church in Africa, a member of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, Archpriest Andrei Novikov, was published on the GOLOS EU YouTube channel, fully devoted to the situation around the UOC. We propose to analyze the main theses of Fr. Andrei and see how well-founded his arguments are. But first, let's state some undeniable facts:

• On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a war against Ukraine and its people, during which it seized a number of its territories;
• The Russian Orthodox Church, represented by the hierarchy, supported this war and called on believers to participate in it;
• Not a single holy father of the Church justifies an aggressive war. The positive statements of the holy fathers about the feat of arms apply only to those who defend themselves.

The question of how, with all this, the ROC itself has remained faithful to the Gospel and the Holy Tradition of the Church, we will leave to the consideration of each of the readers. Now the main theses of Fr. Andrei.

The Council of UOC on May 27, 2022, in Feofaniya did not express the will of the UOC?

Father Andrei claims: “Some bishops who did not agree with the liberated territories (meaning the Ukrainian territories occupied by the Russian Federation – Ed.) were simply denied participation in this Council. Someone refused. The voices of those who were against were suppressed. With such a strong-willed effort of the leadership of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the decisions were pushed through.”

Unfortunately, Fr. Andrei lied, although perhaps not intentionally. This lie has been in circulation for more than a year, since the very Council in Feofaniya. It has already been exposed many times, but continues to be repeated by those to whom it is convenient and pleasant. How the Council actually took place can be found in the article “From the First Person: Truth and Lies about the Council of the UOC”. Here we confine ourselves to a brief statement by the author of the article, who participated in the Council: “Everyone from among those who had gathered in the church approached the microphone. They spoke without regulations, they said everything they thought, and about everything that hurts." We add that those who were not able to come to Feofaniya personally participated via video link. Not a single person was denied participation in the Council.

There is another evidence that the Council in Feofaniya really expressed the opinion of the UOC, and that its decisions turned out to be correct. This is the reception of these decisions by the fullness of the UOC. Our Church has made these decisions and lives by them. Even the dioceses in the occupied territories. After all, the Council in Feofaniya granted them the right to independently resolve issues of their life.

Communion with Christ can only be through the ROC?

Father Andrei says: “According to the Letter of Patriarch Alexy II of 1990, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church maintains its connection with Ecumenical Orthodoxy through the ROC, and therefore with the Head of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ.” The priest claims that only through the ROC (according to the letter) can the UOC can have communion with Christ, that having departed from the ROC, the UOC came out “against the truth of God and therefore against God himself.”

Here it is appropriate to cite the commentary of the author of the text of the Letter, Abbot Innokenty (Pavlov), which he said shortly before his death in 2020: “I remember Kirill (the current patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church – Ed.) call me and says, 'Write the Tomos on independence and self-governance of the Ukrainian Church.' I say, 'Vladyka, why, if there is such a historical request, not to give it autocephaly? – No, no, there shouldn’t be such words, only ‘independence’ and ‘self-governance’ in internal management.' And with the Ecumenical Orthodox Church, it means that it is in unity through the Russian Church. Well, I thought, that never happens and has never happened in history. So they played with these words. I understood this: you know, there was such a game even before the revolution ‘do not say yes and no.’ So here it is the same – "do not say yes and no’.”

Nowhere in the canons is it written that one Church can be connected with the Universal Church of Christ through another. The original understanding of the Local Church is a Christian community containing the dogmas of faith and moral norms, headed by a bishop who has the grace of consecration from the apostles. Here is a quote from the Epistle of Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-bearer to the Smyrna: “Without a bishop, no one does anything related to the Church. Only the Eucharist that is celebrated by the bishop or by those to whom he himself will grant it should be considered true. Where there is a bishop, there must be a people, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

Well, if we recall the words of the author of the Letter that the wording about the communion of the UOC with Orthodoxy through the ROC is just an instruction of the current patriarch that, according to Abbot Innokenty, “this never happens and has never happened in history”, everything falls into place.

“The UOC is in a difficult spiritual state”

From the lips of Fr. Andrei, a lot of reproaches were made against the UOC for following the political situation. Fr. Andrei regards the fact that the UOC declared its complete independence from the ROC almost as a betrayal of Christianity. In particular, he says that “the UOC is in a difficult spiritual state”, that the UOC should “return to the normal confession of the Orthodox faith” because “then tomorrow we can say that Christ can also be renounced.”

However, what did the UOC renounce? She did not violate a single dogma or a single church rule. Let us repeat that there are no generally binding canons that would regulate various ecclesiastical-administrative statuses, autocephaly, autonomy, a self-governing Church, and so on. All this is regulated in relation to a specific case and in a specific historical situation and can change within the framework of truly universally binding canons. And it certainly has nothing to do with the "normal confession of the Orthodox faith."

Answering a journalist's question why the UOC separated from the ROC with such ease, Fr. Andrei said, “A spiritual fall took place. The UOC has lost the understanding of what the Church is, that we are not a political party that adapts to the current situation, and also that the entire history of the Church is a history of opposition to the spirit of the world, the spirit of this age.”

But aren't all these words about the current ROC? Didn’t the Russian Orthodox Church prove its loyalty to the Russian state, rather than to God with His commandments “do not kill”, “do not steal” during this cruel war, the victims of which were tens of thousands of people? Isn't the support of the Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy for this war the same "spiritual fall" Fr. Andrei is talking about?

The truth of God does not consist in observing the rules of administrative subordination, but in the fulfillment of Christ's commandments. His words. His teachings.

Is the ROC in line with them, supporting Russian authorities in murders and seizures of what does not belong to them? The question is rhetorical.

One could talk about the spiritual fall of the UOC only if it caved in under the powers that be and chose to unite with the OCU. But the UOC suffers real persecution: criminal prosecution of its hierarchs, forcible seizure of churches, violence against believers, defamation in the media, and so on. And all this for the sake of standing in the true Orthodox faith. But how convenient it would be back in 2018 to agree to the terms of power, recognize the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople, turn a blind eye to the absence of canonical consecrations among the “bishops” of the OCU and absorb them (after all, the UOC is numerically much larger than the OCU). But the UOC prefers to follow the path of confession, rather than the path of compromises with its conscience.

Current situation and Soviet persecution

Fr. Andrei tried to compare the current situation in Ukraine with the 1920s, saying that it was more difficult at that time, but the patriarch was commemorated.

“Remember the situation with the Bolsheviks, with the persecution of the 1920s. It was terrible to commemorate the Patriarch. Tikhonovites, those who were in the canonical Church, who commemorated Patriarch Tikhon, were killed for the mere fact of commemorating this name, thrown into camps, into the most difficult exiles, churches were destroyed or handed over to schismatics. It was a persecution worse than now in Ukraine. Nevertheless, people went to and revered such temples. And the commemoration of the Patriarch was the most important marker of belonging to the true Church,” said Fr. Andrei.

Is such a comparison appropriate? Let's answer the question – did Patriarch Tikhon bless believers to go to a foreign country and kill their brothers? Did Patriarch Tikhon promise forgiveness of sins for this? Did he make a deal with the authorities?

No, the saint stood on the side of the victims, not the aggressors, on the side of the persecuted, not the persecutors, and this, among other things, determined his high authority among the faithful. Indeed, the commemoration of Patriarch Tikhon could be regarded as a marker of belonging to the true Church, but the commemoration of Patriarch Kirill is a marker of what? Belonging to the ROC, which today obviously and openly stands on the side of the aggressors who have already killed thousands of believers of the UOC, destroyed hundreds of their churches? Which today between loyalty to Christ and loyalty to the Russian state chooses the latter? These are all bitter, unpleasant questions, but they show how appropriate the comparison of Fr. Andrei with a situation of a hundred years ago.

Myrrh, Patriarch and Governing Synod

Father Andrei opposes the resumption of myrrh-boiling in Ukraine and says that when it was brewed in Kyiv before the revolution, then it was “with the blessing of the Most Holy Governing Synod” and hence was legitimate and rightful. And if you boil myrrh without blessing from Moscow, this will be a sign of a split.

But, firstly, it should be remembered what the very essence of myrrh-boiling consists in. As you know, initially at Baptism, the grace of the Holy Spirit was transferred to new members of the Church through the laying on of hands by the apostles, and then by the bishops. And only over time, as a substitute for the laying on of the hands of a bishop on a newly baptized, the holy chrism began to be used, which is prepared and consecrated by a special rite by a council of bishops, as a rule, headed by the first bishop. That is, in principle, every bishop, by virtue of his episcopal consecration, has the ability to transmit the grace of the Holy Spirit, although today even bishops prefer to use chrism. Therefore, there is nothing illegal or non-canonical in the fact that the Ukrainian bishops brewed and consecrated myrrh in Kyiv.

Secondly, it is quite remarkable that for almost the entire duration of the interview, Fr. Andrei keeps ranting about the sacredness of the figure of the patriarch, the loyalty to which means loyalty to the Church. But when he talks about preparation of the myrrh in Kyiv before the Revolution of 1917, he mentions the Holy Governing Synod, which replaced the patriarch in the Russian Orthodox Church for two hundred years. What the canon law of the Church certainly does not know is such an institution, and even more so, its sacralization.

Moreover, for 200 years, there was not only no patriarch in the ROC, but also no councils, which violated the principle of catholicity. The members of the Holy Synod were appointed by the emperor, and they were led by a secular official, the chief procurator, also appointed by the tsar. Historically, these officials included Freemasons, unbelievers, and freethinkers.

Is the myrrh brewed actually with the “blessing” of the Chief Prosecutor “correct”, while the myrrh brewed by the Primate and the bishops of the UOC is not?

About sacraments “for condemnation”

Father Andrei Novikov claims that the clergy and laity of the UOC who participate in divine services (without commemoration of the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church) “accept all the sacraments for condemnation, because they know that by celebrating divine services without commemorating the patriarch, they are committing a grave sin. A sin for which, according to the canons, a heavy church punishment is due."

Firstly, it is appropriate here to recall the same “synodal period” in the Russian Orthodox Church, when a secular chief prosecutor, not a patriarch, ruled the Church. Those sacraments were not "condemnable"?

Secondly, let us cite the publication of the famous Fr. Andrei Tkachev immediately after the Council: “To those who are worried about a possible split with the UOC. Please cool down. If the priests do not commemorate the patriarch, then strictly canonically speaking, nothing has happened. Ecclesiology says and teaches that a priest living in the conventional Mirgorod, in order to be in union with the fullness of the Church, must commemorate the Bishop of Poltava. And that's it. And that same Bishop of Poltava, for unity with the fullness of the Church, must exalt the name of the primordial hierarch in his country, i.e. today it is Onuphry. And that's it. In turn, Onuphry should commemorate either only the Moscow Patriarch or all the Patriarchs, without fail including the Moscow one (depending on the status of the Church in Ukraine).”

And not a word about "sacraments for condemnation."

Foreign parishes and borders of the UOC

Fr. Andrei accuses the UOC of creating their own parishes abroad to take spiritual care of the Ukrainian Orthodox who were forced to flee the country to escape the war. He sees this as another sign of the "schismatic" activity of the UOC. “Only the Local Church can have parishes outside its canonical boundaries,” he says.

But we repeat again: there are no canons that would formulate the rights of autonomies, autocephaly or other church statuses. There is only a ban on ordaining clerics and conducting church activities in foreign canonical territories. The UOC does not violate this prohibition at all. We create our parishes only in those countries in which there is no historical Orthodoxy, for example, Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, and so on. In these countries, many Churches provide spiritual guidance to their diaspora. So why can't the UOC do this?

Of course, Fr. Andrei wants the Ukrainians who fled the horrors of the war to be in the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, which blessed this war, to pray there for the Russian authorities and the army that brought so much evil to their land. But doesn't the Russian Orthodox Church really understand that this is impossible?

There was also an interesting incident. Commenting on the opening of parishes abroad, Fr. Andrei said that according to the documents of the Russian Orthodox Church, "the borders of the UOC are limited to the territory of the State of Ukraine." But if this is so, then on what grounds are the dioceses of the UOC – Crimean and Berdiansk – taken away from the UOC by the ROC? After all, all these documents were adopted at a time when Ukraine owned all its territories, which belonged to it under international law, within the borders of 1991.

Catechonic statehood

“I talk a lot about how important the role of catechonic statehood is. If it had not protected the Church, then there would be no Orthodoxy on the vast territory where Orthodoxy now exists. Because this catechonic statehood also comes from God, just as the Church does,” says Novikov.

Fr. Andrei does not name Russia, but from the context it is clear that it is about Russia. But the Russian Federation today positions itself as the heirs of the USSR. And here is a simple question: what state in the history of Christianity was the most violent and cruel persecutor of the Church? Which state consistently destroyed the Church for 70 years? Tens of thousands of priests and hundreds of thousands of believers who were shot? Thousands of temples blown up?

To say that thanks to this "catechonic statehood" Orthodoxy exists is at least not reasonable. And by and large, it borders on blasphemy, because the Church, thus, is made dependent not on God, but on the state.

Everything that happens in the world happens according to the providence of God, which favors one to be accomplished, and allows another to be accomplished. The Church lives and moves by the power of God, not by the power of the state. The Church does not depend on the state system, nor on the economic model, nor on the political regime. The Church depends on God. It can live and multiply even in conditions of enmity towards itself on the part of the state, as happened during the first three hundred years of the history of the Church. The then state destroyed Christians, but the number of Christian communities multiplied. The seed of Christianity, which bore fruit a hundredfold, was the blood of Christian martyrs, rather than the state guardianship of the Church.

Fr. Andrei’s conclusion is the same as that of other “radicals” of the ROC – the UOC should be punished: “All the leadership of the UOC, bishops, are in a state of jurisdiction, since they commit canonical crimes under jurisdiction, for which they are subject to severe ecclesiastical punishment.”

Whether the UOC is “worthy” of punishment, and whether the Moscow “judges” have a moral and canonical right to it, is up to the reader to decide.

Instead of an afterword

Both this interview and many other statements of the modern Russian clergy, unfortunately, testify that many in the Russian Orthodox Church live in the paradigm of the so-called "synodal piety", where the Church is conceived as an administrative structure with its own power vertical, in the service of the state. Here is how nun Maria (Skobtsova) describes this type of piety in her book “Types of Religious Life”:

“Since the time of Peter the Great, our Russian Orthodox Church has become an attribute of Russian great-power statehood, has become a department among other departments, has fallen into the system of state institutions and absorbed the ideas, skills and tastes of power. The state provided it with patronage, punished for church crimes and demanded curses for state crimes. The state appointed church hierarchs, monitored their activities with the help of the chief prosecutor, gave the Church administrative tasks, introduced its political aspirations and ideals into it. <...> The system developed a special religious psychology, a special religious type of people, a special kind of moral foundations, a special art, a way of life. From generation to generation, people have been accustomed to the idea that the Church is the most necessary, the most obligatory, but still only an attribute of the state."

Fr. Andrei’s words about “catechonic statehood” once again prove that the ROC has firmly tied itself to the Russian state. Whether it's good or bad, it's up to Russian priests to decide, it's their choice.

However, it is quite obvious that the UOC under no circumstances wants to be involved in the Russian state. To break with the Russian Orthodox Church is likely to be a leitmotif of the decisions of the Council in Feofaniya, rather than “cowardice”, “flirting with the Ukrainian authorities” and “betrayal”, as often broadcast in the Russian media.

The UOC does not want to be an attribute of Ukrainian statehood either.

This means that the UOC must return to those Gospel ideals, to that understanding of the Church, which was laid down in it from the very beginning by the Lord Jesus Christ. The UOC is trying to do this, and all the attacks on it, both from the Ukrainian authorities and from the Russian clergy, once again emphasize the truth of the words of the Apostle Paul: “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).

Read also