Dear Vladimir Romanovich!

Having read Your commentary for UNIAN-Religions and having no possibility to convey to You my opinion in any other way, I decided to address You by this open letter. 

I was very much surprised that to Your opinion, “recent statements by the representatives of this association, (i.e. the Kyiv Patriarchate – the author) show their unreadiness for the dialogue. Moreover, for the Russian Orthodox Church it is unusual to hear declarations, which are allegedly aimed at peace and unification, and nevertheless demonstrate unreadiness for the dialogue.  Speaking of reunification, they (i.e. we – auth.) do nothing for that, their words bring about just separation.  It is always disappointing for us to hear and read the statements of the kind by the representatives of the so-called Kyiv Patriarchate”. You emphasize that for the constructive dialogue there should be no aggression on the part of the Kyiv Patriarchate.

I’d like to remind you that both the Primate of the Kyiv Patriarchate, and the conciliar bodies of the Church administration have repeatedly addressed the Patriarch of Moscow and other authorities of the Moscow Patriarchate with various propositions concerning the ways of overcoming church division, existing in Ukraine. We have received no response at all form the Moscow Patriarchate to ANY of these letters and addresses,  even at least a formal one – but yet a response. So who of us is unwilling of the dialogue?

We are being accused, by You as well, dear Vladimir Romanovich, of excessive politicization. I cannot judge here if it is so, for my opinion here may be called subjective anyway.  But let me note that only those who take no interest do not know about close interaction between some responsible persons of the Moscow Patriarchy and such symbols of “political Orthodoxy” as Kirill Frolov in Russia and Valeriy Kaurov in Ukraine.  Only the blind do not see how the Russian state solves its political tasks by means of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

However, it is not what I would like to draw Your attention to, but to the following. In the past three years the Kyiv Patriarchate has addressed to the Patriarch of Moscow three times on one and the same ABSOLUTELY NON-POLITICAL subject, on the subject of necessity to stop the practice of the so-called “re-baptisms”.   You must admit that this is not a political issue, but purely theological and canonical one.

In our addresses of the years  2007, 2009 and 2010 numerous arguments were provided, proving that rejection of the baptism by the Kyiv Patriarchate, practiced by the Moscow Patriarchate, contravenes the Creed and the dogmas, is anti-canonical, contradicts  historical precedents  and the ROC’s own documents.  All our three addresses remained without any answer. Which, evidently, testifies – numerous Russian theologians and canonists have simply nothing to say in answer.  They cannot justify with reason the iniquity done, and do not want to stop it.  The situation emerges similar to the Gospel one – answering the Savior’s questions where the John’s baptism came from, the scribes say: “we do not know”. And the Church you represent remains silent at all.

You reproach us of the absence of readiness for the dialogue. However, it was our party that wrote dozens of statements to the address of the Moscow Patriarchate to begin a productive dialogue.   For many years we have heard in response – repent and return to the fold of the Russian Orthodox Church. If, for instance, Metropolitan Nicodim Rotov in his time had conducted the dialogue with the American Metropolis like that, there would be still no communion between the two Churches.  Or may be the Moscow Patriarchy took that tone addressing the ROCOR striving to attain unity?

One might say in objection that less than a year ago an amazing thing happened and our numerous addresses were heard – not so much in Moscow as in Kyiv.  Two groups for dialogue preparation were set up and the first meeting was held.

However, On October 2, 2009 we met in Lavra and already on October 9 one of the main participants of this process, chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the UOC archimandrite Cyril Hovorun was withdrawn from Kyiv to Moscow to the office of vice-chairman of the Education Committee. It was interpreted both by us and the UOC-MP as a sign of obvious dissatisfaction with the meeting results and a manifest of the fact that productive dialogue is not desirable for the Moscow Patriarchy.  With that it becomes clear why with no official cancellation of the dialogue preparation there is no actual advance in its realization - there is no one willing to assume responsibility for the consequences and to follow the destiny of archimandrite Cyril.

Dear Vladimir Romanovich! If the Moscow Patriarchate propounds constructive dialogue, why did not Patriarch Kirill express publicly the support to this particular good initiative?  Why, with no obvious necessity did he recall to Moscow archimandrite Cyril? We see abstract appeals to love and peace in general, but what did the Moscow Patriarchy actually do to obtain them?

The only thing we see is a persistent search for those among our people who can be won to another side by promises and be declared the “repentant schismatics”.  But they are found and will be found not more than the Sanhedrim found traitors among the apostles. Unionism is not the way to the church unity, and You know that well enough.

Instead of support of the dialogue everybody sees many signs of attention paid by Moscow to its public opponents – Metropolitan Agathangel, Archbishop Ionafan, Bishop Yevlogy, Vasily Anisimov etc. Is it possible for the Patriarch Kirill’s WORDS to be perceived as sincere upon that, being refuted by his ACTIONS?

You speak of aggression on the part of the Kyiv Patriarchate. And at the same time Your colleague, representative of the Diocese of Odessa, insistently suggests the state to liquidate the Kyiv Patriarchate by force . Everything seems quite simple to him – it is enough to remove registration of the Kyiv Patriarchate, to withdraw by force our churches and “the schism will cease, disperse like smoke”. Isn’t it aggression?

I dare to remind You that it was not our Primate who banished from the see and anathematized ours, but vice versa. It weren’t our faithful who tried to beat up your bishop in Mariupol in 1999 and in Odessa, 2004. It was not our Patriarch who spoke of “damnation” that befell our people “supporting schism”.

Many in the Moscow Patriarchate are proud of their “canonicity” and “gracefulness”.   But they forget of the basic commandments of our Savior - “in everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you”.  “Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you. So exercise all that towards us - your brothers in faith.  All the more so we are not your enemies, though you consider us to be enemies.

Your Primate finds both time and possibilities to meet with catholic cardinals, protestant pastors, Jewish rabbis and Muslim muftis.  He only can’t find possibility to meet the hierarch who ordained him as bishop. One can find numerous justifications for that, but the one was right who said – “the one who wants seeks for a possibility, the one who does not is looking for justification”.

While reading Your commentary, I understood that You, as many Russians, are enthralled by illusions regarding Ukraine. You speak of some officials, implementing their instructions, and our numerous common believers, who allegedly think otherwise.  I’m sorry, but I have remembered the radio speech by Mikhail Gorbachev, who stated assuredly that “all Ukrainians are for the renewed Union” in November, 1991, a week before the referendum on the independence of Ukraine. And on December 1 more than 90% voted for independence of Ukraine.

Would You understand at last that millions of Orthodox Ukrainians are not deceived by propaganda and are not forces by the authorities – they really want to have the autocephalous, Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  And this desire takes root in their internal conviction, not in the officials’ instructions.

Pay attention to one eloquent fact – in our churches no one and nowhere ever prohibited our faithful to attend the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, while at the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate they prohibit to attend our churches almost everywhere.  Unlike our opponents, we do not keep hold of our flock by fear and give full freedom of choice.  But the faithful do not leave us – though everyone has a possibility to compare our and your confessions, to listen to what we preach and to what is preached in your churches.

In conclusion I’d like to add a few words on the “Russian world”. This concept, or, more precisely, the discussion on it, reminds me the disputes on ecumenism, by which anyone may mean quite different things depending on the circumstances and conversation partner - from a simple cooperation of the confession to a unified “super-church”.  The same relates to the “Russian world”; in Moscow it is beneficial to present it as geopolitical concept, whose realization is supported by such reputable institutions as the Foreign Affairs Ministry of the Russian Federation and the Foundation “Russian World”, and in Ukraine one might say that it is just a concept of “spiritual unity”.

In no way I challenge the affinity of the Russians and Ukrainians, our spiritual kinship and the common pages of our common history. But there is a principled difference between the spiritual and administrative unity. Existence of the Local Churches of different nations does not break the unity of the Church of Christ. So why it has been insistently repeated to us for many years that autocephaly, i.e. the ADMINISRATIVE independence of the Kyiv Church from the Moscow Church implies breaking the SPIRITUAL unity?  Why replace the unity of the CHURCH by the unity of its ADMINISTRATION?

In my earnest conviction, in order to restore the spiritual unity of the Russian and Ukrainian people,  Moscow should recognize  the Ukrainian Church as autocephalous  – as, for example, Constantinople recognized autocephaly of the Church of Greece, thereby having strengthened and not broken the unity of the church Hellenism.  Then the church division in Ukraine would stop, and all the Ukrainian orthodox people would obtain full-fledged spiritual unity with the Russian and other Orthodox people; unity in Christ, though not under authority of the Moscow Patriarchate.  Since the vocation of the Church is not to RULE the peoples and the canonical territories, but to SERVE its flock.  At present, still, to our regret, Moscow presents us many examples of desire to rule us, and very few to serve.

My sincere hope is, dear Vladimir Romanovich, that this letter will help you understand better the realia of the Ukrainian church life and our stance on many sore points. I believe that it's not the matter of remote future when the Russian Church will recognize obvious things and agree to autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church. And then all the past disorders will remain just memories and a subject for historians’ study.

Respectfully and with the wishes of success,

Your colleague –

Bishop Yevstraty,
Chairman of the Information Department  of the Kyiv Patriarchy

P.S. After review of the movie “Tsar” and after reading the books, the Holy Hierarch Philip of Moscow became one of my favorite saints. In spite of his being “of Moscow”.  I also hold in respect the Holy Hierarch Tikhon, though he opposed autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  And I wrote this letter in Russian, which I speak freely.  So I am not alien to the Russian world too. But not the political one, not the Third-Roman one, but the spiritual one. I also wish You would understand and love Ukraine as it is.

Tags: коментарі | листи | Москва–Київ