Ακολουθούν αποσπάσματα από την
παρέμβαση του Σεβ. Μητροπολίτου
Δημητριάδος κ. Ιγνατίου,
Προέδρου της Συνοδικής Επιτροπής Διορθοδόξων και Διαχριστιανικών
Σχέσεων της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, κατά την Έκτακτη Συνεδρία της Ιεράς
Συνόδου της
Ιεραρχίας της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, της 12ης Οκτωβρίου 2019, σχετικώς προς το ζήτημα της αναγνωρίσεως της νεοσύστατης Αυτοκεφάλου Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας της Ουκρανίας
στα Αγγλικά.
Ukrainian Autocephaly and Responsibility
Toward the Faithful
Excerpts from the intervention of His Eminence Metropolitan Ignatius of Demetrias,
Chairman of the Synodal Committee for Inter-Orthodox and Inter-Christian Relations
During the Extraordinary Session
of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece
(12th October 2019)
Your Beatitude Archbishop of Athens and all Greece, Brothers in Christ,
The
Synodal Committee for Inter-Orthodox and Inter-Christian Relations,
which I am honored to chair, explicitly followed the mandate of the
Standing Holy Synod of the Church of Greece. In this light, I would
like to summarize the prevailing perspectives during the Committee’s
discussions, drawing your attention to the following five points:
1. The Ukrainian Orthodox people
As
His Beatitude pointed out in his opening address, we are concerned with
the Orthodox people of an independent state, which Ukraine constitutes
today. We are dealing with millions of Orthodox faithful, who have
historically suffered from policies of either Poland or Russia.
Therefore, our focused discussions on the validity of Ordinations and
the stance of Bishops must take into account the existence
of millions of believers for whom we are responsible.
As
the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece underlined, shortly after the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the declaration of independence of
Ukraine, the latter requested that its local Church be granted the
status of autocephaly, in accordance with the pattern of the other
Autocephalous Churches. This original request was a genuine one. The
fact that it was co-signed even by the current Metropolitan
Onufriy is a strong indication that it was a comprehensive request, in
the sense of reflecting the desire of the entire people and the
hierarchy, so that they would achieve independence from subservience to
the Russian hierarchy. Unfortunately, this general
request was not answered adequately and the issue remained pending.
Nevertheless, we are dealing with an independent Ukrainian state, a
people with a particular identity, to which the Orthodox faith has also
contributed.
2. The role of the Russian Orthodox Church
I
think that it is also appropriate to explore the role of the Russian
Orthodox Church. And I insist on the term ‘Russian Orthodox Church’,
inasmuch as experience has unfortunately demonstrated that our brothers
give priority to the adjective ‘Russian’ over the adjective ‘Orthodox’.
Regretfully, this is a reality that has been already observed since the
fall of Constantinople. In fact, while the
Russian Orthodox Church had every opportunity to resolve the issue by
taking steps towards autocephaly, or at least by proposing a solution
that would be acceptable to the Ukrainian people, it sadly failed to do
so. Despite a long-lasting dialogue of nearly
thirty years on the matter, the Russian Orthodox Church did not want to
provide any solution. Meanwhile, the Ecumenical Patriarchate had also
contributed to this dialogue in an effort to show its support. However,
after Russia’s invasion of Crimea, all of
these efforts collapsed. Today, no one believes that the Russian
Orthodox Church could provide any solution that would prove satisfactory
to the Ukrainian people. Such a view clearly belongs to the past. No
solution will ever emerge from that side.
Indeed,
not only did the Russian Orthodox Church fail to present any solution,
but its attitude during the preparatory process for the Holy
and Great Council of 2016 was moreover completely negative. As we all
know, autocephaly was among the questions discussed during this
preparatory process. Thus, in the 1980s, the Ecumenical Patriarchate
even appeared to consent to a relativization of its own
privileges. Accordingly, adhering to a strict process, the Ecumenical
Patriarchate requested pan-Orthodox consensus for the granting of
autocephaly.
During
the pre-conciliar meetings leading up to the Holy and Great Council of
Crete, we were asked to address the question of signatures consenting
to autocephaly. There was no further discussion on the text itself,
which had already been agreed upon. This was without a doubt precisely
the point that demonstrated the contention of the Russian Orthodox
Church and its obsession with refusing the Ecumenical
Patriarchate's proposal. The proposed process followed the precedent of
granting autocephaly to the Church of Greece and adopted the terms
‘determines’ and ‘codetermines’, signifying that the decision is
‘determined’ by the Ecumenical Patriarch and ‘codetermined’
by the rest of the Primates.
We
attempted to explain to the Russian Orthodox representatives that once
the Ecumenical Patriarch had signed the decision, it could not be
questioned. On the contrary, Autocephaly would already have been
granted. Nevertheless, the term ‘codetermine’ still implies a powerful
action because it indicates participation in the actual decision.
Nevertheless, the persistent contentiousness of the Russian
delegation was inconceivable. Allow me to share with you that I
personally reminded the senior representative of the Russian Orthodox
Church, ‘The Ukrainian issue is at hand. Do you not see this? Can you
not comprehend what will happen?’ In response, he invoked
his Patriarch’s insistence that he should not retreat from his position
on this matter. I am not quite sure whether his claim was legitimate
after all. Today, it might even be questioned.
The
Russian opposition arises in the context of the international
theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic
Church.
In this regard, it emanates from the unwillingness on the part of the
Russian side to accept any concept of primacy in the Eastern Church.
This is the heart of the problem. For it seems that the representatives
of the Russian Orthodox Church believe that,
if the Ecumenical Patriarch had signed [the Tomos of] Autocephaly in
the proposed manner[1]
during the process of granting autocephaly, then they would somehow
accept that ‘there is a Primate’. This remains a problematic point for
the Russian Orthodox Church.
As
a result, the question of granting autocephaly was not discussed at the
Holy and Great Council of 2016. Had it been discussed there, there
would have been no issue today. Not only was it not included in the
agenda, but the Russian Orthodox Church also chose not to participate in
the Council, invoking the absence of the Patriarchate of Antioch. We
believe that it could in reality have also played
a part in Antioch’s participation in the Council. If the Russian
Orthodox Church had participated in the Council, we firmly believe that
it would have been able to ensure and record in the proceedings the
pledge of the Ecumenical Patriarch not to proceed with
granting autocephaly without its consent.
3. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and its obligation
The
Ecumenical Patriarchate considers that it was obligated to take action.
With very few exceptions, everybody recognizes that it had and still
has the right to grant autocephaly, a privilege that the Holy and Great
Council certainly did not deny. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is
concerned about the ecclesial and spiritual life of the faithful that I
mentioned. For that reason, it provided a solution
to a problem that could not otherwise possibly be solved. It acted in a
particular way, because this is precisely the ministry of the
Patriarchate, its task within Orthodoxy.
Granting
autocephaly is a prerogative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which in
the case of Ukraine does not negate the ecclesial entity headed
by Metropolitan Onufriy and the Russian Orthodox presence in Ukraine.
The status of these does not change; they are neither excommunicated nor
led to schism. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has not broken communion
with them. On the contrary, it is they who have
broken communion with it. The Ecumenical Patriarch continues to
commemorate Patriarch Kirill according to the diptychs. Thus, he
continues for his part to be in communion with Onufriy, while at the
same time offering the possibility of ecclesial communion
to the Ukrainians belonging to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. No one
can dispute this prerogative of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
4. The Church of Greece and its unity
Let
us turn now to our own Church of Greece. Herein lies the most vital
point, Your Beatitude. I agree with you when you cite Article 3 of the
Greek Constitution [which concerns relations between Church and State]
that we safeguard and do not wish to change.
As
the President of the Hellenic Parliament has rightly pointed out,
Article 3 does not merely concern the relationship between State and
Church,
but it also relates to the unity of our Church with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. This is a unity that we cannot call into question or
permit to be jeopardized in any way because it involves the unity of the
Body of our Church and our hierarchy, especially
since a considerable number of our hierarchs in the so-called ‘New
Lands’ belong spiritually to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople and only administratively to the Church of Greece. We
should never become embroiled in a conflict with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate over the Ukrainian issue because this would lead to our
own division, our own problematic relationship with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. Why would we ever do that?
5. Geopolitical developments and national matters
Without
doubt, the current situation also has geopolitical dimensions. We
recognize our own responsibility today. For better or worse, no
autocephaly
was ever granted with reference to intra-ecclesiastical factors alone.
It always had to do with geopolitical developments as well. I am sorry
if some do not understand what is happening in our time: where we belong
and how responsible we are for the outcome.
What
the Russian Orthodox Church will do after the recognition of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the Church of Greece is up to the Russian
Orthodox Church. In any case, it always operates in a way inappropriate
to an ecclesial ethos and is not respectful of the autocephaly and
independence of our Church. This will be demonstrated if it decides to
break communion with us, which in turn will prove
precisely that we must maintain our own unity, support the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, and – as you have rightly argued, Your Beatitude –
recognize the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. If we maintain unity, we will
be able to overcome any omissions and correct any
mistakes; whereas if we are divided, we will never be able to
contribute to that which all of us desire, namely the oneness and unity
of the Orthodox Church.
Thank
you.
Εκ του Γραφείου Τύπου.