In the wake of Frankenstein: what the “U-council” of SLC seeks to create
The "council of hierarchs" announced by Filaret is in sight. It targets to create a new "Church" for the sake of Tomos. How realistic and consistent with canons is it?
The autumn is approaching and the “council of the hierarchs", announced by Filaret, is nearing. They are the hierarchs who appealed to Patriarch Bartholomew in April 2018 to grant autocephaly to the "Orthodox Church in Ukraine". This “council”, according to Filaret, is supposed to establish an organizational structure which will receive a tomos on autocephaly.
How realistic is this scenario? Does the "council" comply with the canons of the Church? Let's try to figure out.
The idea of the "unification council" is not new. As early as 2016, on the eve of the Cretan Council, the Ukrainian Parliament appealed to Patriarch Bartholomew so that he "took an active part in overcoming the consequences of the church separation by convening the All-Ukrainian Unification Council under the auspices of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to resolve all disputes and integrate the Ukrainian Orthodoxy."
True though, the statements of SLC campaigners do not give a clear vision of what should come first – the decision to grant the Tomos or the "unification council" which the Phanar will be attuned to.
In early June, Archimandrite Kirill (Govorun), one of the active ideologists of Ukrainian autocephaly, said that "some new ecclesiastic and administrative structure should be created to be subsequently bestowed the Tomos. The Synod in Constantinople will be attached to this Council."
It seems that the supporters of autocephaly themselves do not know what to do and what the Constantinople Patriarchate really wants.
It's already the middle of August, but there are still no run-up signs of such an event. If the decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople were already known, then the venue for the Council would be organized, while the internal sources would confirm the development of draft documents. However, there hasn’t been apparently any "signal" from the Phanar yet.
In any case, holding a "unification council" is unlikely for a number of reasons to be considered below.
One cannot teach a donkey, or There is no overcoming schism without the UOC
First, no council is going to be "unifying" unless the UOC participates in it. Individual bishops who agree to take part in such an event will not have the right to represent the canonical Church.
For such a council to take place, an actual and formal decision of the Church's hierarchy and the participation of the entire episcopate are necessary! Without such a decision, no unification is possible and from the standpoint of ecclesiastic law it is completely untenable.
In the history of overcoming splits, there hasn’t been a single case that occurred without the participation of the Church which some part fell away from. This is per se an absurdity and a logical contradiction.
In fact, this "council", if any, will be another attempt to unite the schismatics, similar to a number of "unification councils" of the UAOC and UOC KP which ended in failure. The unauthorized alleged participation in it of several bishops of the UOC, who violated their hierarchical oath, will not add anything to it. It is absolutely impossible to refer to it as "overcoming the consequences of the split", whereas granting autocephaly to this structure is inconceivable from the point of view of common sense and canons of the Church.
Prot. Georgy Kovalenko
In 2013, Spokesman of the UOC Protopriest Georgy Kovalenko (at that time he used to firmly defend the canonical foundations but after his dismissal from the post he changed his views dramatically and now stands for the "unification council”) declared, "No unification council of the UOC and UOC KP is possible as long as the bishops of the UOC are canonical (recognized by the World Orthodox Church), while "bishops" of the UOC KP are self-proclaimed and self-recognized."
"There is no reason to assert, as Filaret did, that part of the episcopate of the UOC will go to the unification council, whereas the other part will refuse. This would mean the split of the UOC itself. Moreover, the example of the UOC KP, which is forced to constantly seek ways to restore unity with the Universal Orthodoxy, attests to the fact that the path of schism is unproductive."
The "prophetic" vision of the future awaiting the "unification council of the UOC and UOC-KP" reminds us of a parable about how Khoja Nasreddin was going to teach a donkey to speak," Kovalenko noted with irony.
According to the representatives of the Kiev Patriarchate, Patriarch Bartholomew will abolish the anathema and disciplinary punishments imposed on Filaret, and the issue of the episcopal consecration of the schismatic clergy will no longer be the case. But then again, there are no tips that Constantinople intends to do this. In addition, according to the ecclesiastic canons, punishments and excommunication from the Church can be removed only by the Church that imposed them.
Head of the UAOC Methody, who was also skeptical of the scheme "first tomos – then unification", said in 2008: "In the opinion of many, an optimal step of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew would be to proclaim complete canonical independence of the Ukrainian Church and the consolidation of Ukrainian Orthodoxy on the basis of the Tomos on autocephaly, proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarch. However, despite all the undoubted advantages of such a unification model, it does not look realistic today. According to the norms of canon law, such a tomos can be granted only to that part of the Ukrainian Orthodox episcopate whose canonical status is recognized today by the Universal Orthodoxy. In other words, to the episcopate of the UOC, who, as we know, has never asked Constantinople for that."
As we can see, even the schismatics themselves hardly believed in the fact that the Tomos on autocephaly could be granted by Patriarch Bartholomew without the involvement of the UOC.
Filaret casus or the Issue of personalities
Secondly, it is hard to believe that the UAOC and the UOC KP themselves will be able to find the middle ground after years of enmity and mutual accusations.
The UAOC has accumulated a whole "truckload" of offenses against the Kiev Patriarchate. Beginning with the raider capture of the UAOC in 1992, when, in spite of the will of its head, "patriarch" Mstislav, a part of this organization was usurped by Filaret and several "bishops"- autocephalists. During the 25 years cool hostile relations were maintained between the UAOC and the UOC-KP. The autocephalists invariably criticized Filaret, calling him the main obstacle to achieving autocephaly. In response, the "Filaret" adherents accused the UAOC of being pro-Kremlin, and in every way harmed this organization on various scales.
The question arises: what will another "unification council" change? Will confrontation disappear somewhere? Will perennial grievances suddenly dissolve in the air? Will Filaret abrogate the office of the primate? For he has already stated he is an uncontested candidate for the post of the SLC head.
However, the UAOC has repeatedly stated that a new person should be in the lead of the united Church, who does not personify longstanding confrontation in the Ukrainian Orthodoxy.
Back in 2008, the then head of the UAOC Methody said, "Overcoming the split is impossible without concessions. In particular, without departing from the leadership of the Church of persons who, in the eyes of the church community of Ukraine and the Universal Orthodoxy (rightly or wrongly, this is another matter) have become an embodiment of the split. The position of the head of the UAOC on this issue is well known: in the name of ecclesiastical unity and peace, we are ready to give up the leadership position in the Church. In addition, we urge the current head of the UOC KP to act similarly, since from our point of view, a new, canonically legitimized Church must be led by a new church leader, whose name is not associated with the contemporary confessional conflict.
However, as we know, the current head of the UOC KP Filaret (Denisenko) is dead-set against this approach thinking he is the only possible candidate for the post of head of the unified and canonical Ukrainian Church, legitimized by Constantinople. This hierarch gears the destiny of the whole Church to his own destiny and thus completely blocks the prospects of canonical legitimization of his own Church in the coming years.
<...> Sooner or later the UOC KP will be headed by another person. And it is his name that all positive changes in the history of the Ukrainian Church will be associated with like restoration of an official dialogue with the UOC, the canonical legitimization and consolidation of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy, and in the end – the Tomos on canonical autocephaly."
It is unlikely that the autocephalists will so easily agree to the uncontested election of Filaret as head of the SLC, who is anathematized, to make matters worse.
The same thing concerns potential defectors from the UOC. It is very doubtful they are burning with the desire to become subordinate to Filaret.
Therefore, it can be concluded that until the problem of Filaret's ambitions has been resolved – there will be no unification council. Theoretically, it can work provided its participants know for sure that Filaret will not be elected. This is possible only if he does not take part in the elections, or if the unification begins after the death of the permanent leader of the Kiev Patriarchate. In the latter case, the matter can be postponed for another several years.
Creating Frankenstein, or How eparchies will be divided
We all remember a number of unsuccessful attempts to unite the UAOC and UOC-KP. Everything would stop when it came to distribution of episcopal chairs. The model, which was then proposed by the head of the UOC-KP Filaret, did not satisfy autocephalists because it implied their complete merger.
Perhaps, bearing in mind this problem, Filaret offers another option now – namely, to leave all the "bishops" in their places. That is, there will be several bishops in one diocesan area. "For instance, in Ternopol region there are two bishops. Well, ok, there's no problem. According to the canons, the main thing is that one parish should not be subordinated to two bishops, and since each parish will be subordinate only to one bishop, there will be no violations," Filaret said.
We do not know why the head of the Kiev Patriarchate decided that this corresponds to the canons. In fact, this is a gross violation of the apostolic rule "one bishop in one place ". Such a "pluralistic" structure resembles Frankenstein, sewn from parts of bodies of different people. This is not allowed in any Local Church of the world.
Conclusion
Most likely, there will be no "unification council". A more probable scenario may be the creation of the Exarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine, although in this case the Phanar will expose itself as a deceiver not worthy of any trust.
Recall that in August 2016, Archbishop Job (Gecha), a prominent representative of the Church of Constantinople, announced that Phanar would not create a parallel jurisdiction in Ukraine.
"The Ecumenical Patriarchate does not plan to create so far another parallel jurisdiction in Ukraine because such a non-canonical situation will only aggravate the problem," he said.
"The main goal of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the unity of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Everybody, both Ukrainians and Orthodox Christians around the world, was fed up with the split," Archbishop Job stressed then.
Additionally, during the celebrations dedicated to the 1030th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus, on the morning of July 28, 2018, Metropolitan Emmanuel of France said these words: "... the good shepherd gathers his flock and calls under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Constantinople." This means that Constantinople sees the solution of the Ukrainian issue in resuming its exarchate in this territory with a remote prospect of autocephaly.
The secular authorities of Ukraine and representatives of the UOC KP and the UAOC, arguing about the tomos and autocephaly, pretend that there is no church split in Ukraine, that granting autocephalous status to an even non-existent religious structure in circumvention of the UOC is quite regular and does not violate any canonical rules of the Church. However, representatives of the Local Churches, whatever the "patriotic" media told us, think differently.
Not so long ago there was a split in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian schismatics, just like the Ukrainian ones, sidestepping the canonical rules, wanted to legalize their status at a legislative level. However, in 1998, the All-Orthodox Council was held in Sofia, where the schism of the Bulgarian Church was healed with the help of representatives of all the Local Churches, including through the participation of Patriarch Bartholomew. Archbishop Job (Gecha) in 2016 said, "The Ecumenical Patriarchate is ready to help heal the church schism in the wake of the recent example with the Bulgarian Church and the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia."
Well, who knows – perhaps, it is the implementation of the Bulgarian scenario in Ukraine that the upcoming meeting between Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew will be dedicated to.
