Participants in interchurch dialogue are not authorized to make declarations

On February 16, 2023, the second "meeting of the dialogue between the OCU and the UOC" was held in the St. Sofia Cathedral of Kyiv. Like the previous one, on July 5, 2022, it was held under the auspices of the State Ethnic Policy Service (DESS).

On February 20, the DESS published the “Appeal of the Participants of the Interchurch Dialogue in the St. Sofia Cathedral of Kyiv to the Episcopate, Clergy and Believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine”. To what extent are its theses acceptable to the Orthodox?

The fact that this Appeal posted on the official website of the DESS is very significant. Apparently, this public service attaches quite a lot of importance to this issue, although in fact the composition of the participants does not allow this event to be taken seriously. Judging by the photographs, on the part of the OCU, these were mainly former clerics of the UOC who left the Church for various reasons. On the part of the UOC, there were priests who speak so negatively about their Church that it is time to ask the question – why are they still here and not there?

However, the answer is quite simple: in this case, the dialogue will not even formally be considered interchurch. No one authorized these clerics of the UOC to participate in this dialogue, this participation is their own business and has nothing to do with the Church. Their actions run counter to the official position of the UOC, which is worded by the supreme governing body – the Council of the UOC. It consists in the fact that the UOC is not against but for dialogue; not against but for healing the schism; not against but for the unification of all Ukrainian confessions that call themselves Orthodox.

Quote from the decision of the Council of the UOC of May 27, 2022: “Realizing the special responsibility before God, the Council expresses deep regret over the lack of unity in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. The Council perceives the existence of a schism as a deep painful wound on the church body. It is especially unfortunate that the recent actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Ukraine, which resulted in the formation of the ‘Orthodox Church of Ukraine’, only deepened misunderstandings and led to physical confrontation. But even in such crisis circumstances, the Council does not lose hope for the resumption of dialogue.”

However, in order for such a dialogue to be substantive and fruitful, the UOC points out the necessary conditions. Quote: “In order for the dialogue to take place, the OCU representatives need to:

• stop the seizure of churches and forced transfers of parishes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church;
• realize that their canonical status, as it is provided for in the 'Statute of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine', is in fact non-autocephalous and significantly inferior to the freedoms and opportunities in the implementation of church activities, which are provided for by the Statute on the governance of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church;
• resolve the issue of the canonicity of the OCU hierarchy, because it is quite obvious for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, as well as for most Local Orthodox Churches, that in order to recognize the canonicity of the OCU hierarchy, the restoration of the apostolic succession of its bishops is necessary.”

All three conditions are quite valid.

It is impossible to conduct a dialogue with those who seize churches and engage in violence; it is impossible to conduct a dialogue about unity with those who, according to their Tomos, are not independent in making decisions; finally, it is impossible to conduct a dialogue with those who were “ordained” by a person excommunicated from the Church.

Nevertheless, the initiative groups still conduct a dialogue and adopts the Appeal. Let us turn to what is written there and see how it corresponds precisely to church criteria, bearing in mind that it is fully in line with the political and social ones. In order not to overload the article, we will not give the full text of the Appeal, but we will confine ourselves to the key takeaways and the most striking quotes.

I. “Russia's armed aggression against the sovereign Ukrainian state was the culmination of centuries of imperial pressure on the spiritual and cultural identity of our people. <…> Russia has always denied the right to exist of the Local Ukrainian Church.” It is also said that the ROC has invaded the canonical territory of the "Ukrainian Churches", approves and blesses the aggressive war.

The participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the war on the side of the aggressor in the form of approval, blessing and a direct call to the citizens of the Russian Federation to go to war is undeniable. Enough articles have already been published on the pages of the UOJ condemning such a position and stating that it directly contradicts the Gospel. At the same time, it is necessary to remember for what reason Ukraine, under Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky, first fell under the protectorate of Russia, and then became part of it. This is clearly indicated by such a historical document as the Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk. Quote: “It is no secret that Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky of glorious memory rebelled with the Zaporizhzhia Army and began a righteous war against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for military rights and liberties, but above all for the holy Orthodox faith, which, by various burdens of the power of Polish power, was forced into union with the Roman church. After the eradication of heterodoxy from our native land with the Military Zaporizhizhia and the Little Russian people, he voluntarily succumbed and came under the protection of the Muscovite state with the sole purpose – only for the sake of the common Orthodox faith.”

In other words, Pylyp Orlyk asserts that if the Polish authorities had not persecuted the Orthodox Church, had not forced it into union with Catholicism, then Ukraine would not have become part of Russia, and, accordingly, there would have been no “centuries-old imperial pressure on spiritual and cultural identity of our people." As the issue of unification with Ukrainian Greek Catholics is being promoted with might and main, the canonical UOC is on the verge of being outlawed. Are historical mistakes making a comeback?

II. From the previous thesis about the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the participation of the ROC in this aggression, the participants in the dialogue conclude: it is necessary to unite “all Orthodox Ukrainians in a single conciliar and local (autocephalous) Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

A military invasion can in no way be a pretext for spiritual unification, just like any other event of a political or social nature. Religious unification takes place on the basis of the unity of faith, morality and the apostolic succession of ordinations. This is exactly what the UOC puts forward as a condition for dialogue and what the OCU rejects, saying that these are unacceptable ultimatums.

III. At this point, the dialogue participants stated that “among a significant part of the clergy and laity of the two Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions, there is a deep alienation, distrust and the formation of an “enemy image”, which leads to mutual dehumanization, and noted the need to “reset our relations”.

Further in the text there is a “one-sided game”: the UOC is reproached with its statements about the illegal seizures of its churches and transfers of communities to the OCU, non-recognition of the grace of the “hierarchy” of the OCU, “manifestations of collaborationism of individual representatives of the UOC clergy”, the destructive influence on the society of the UOC as a structure "subordinate to the aggressor state."

Yes, we do not agree with the seizure of temples; yes, we do not consider "bishops", "ordained" by a person excommunicated from the Church, to be blessed; yes, we do not impose canonical punishments for political or criminal crimes, which, moreover, for the most part have not been proven in court. But this is where our commitment to both the canonical rules of the Church and the legislation of Ukraine, which guarantees us the right to freedom of conscience and the right to church property, is manifested.

As for subordination to the aggressor state, this is a lie, since the UOC does not depend on the ROC in any way, and it proved its support for Ukraine and its people in this war by many actions, from official statements to blessing soldiers, faithful children of the UOC, for the defense of Ukraine, many of who have already paid with their lives for our country and our freedom.

At the same time, the participants in the dialogue did not mention in a word either the seizure of churches, or the violence against believers and clergy of the UOC, or the illegal decisions of local authorities, and so on. In this context, the words below sound rather cynical: “We see the prospect of the relationship of the Orthodox Churches with the state and society on the principles of the rule of law, mutual respect and partnership.” What kind of rule of law in relation to the UOC can we talk about?! Not to mention respect. The UOC is kicked and insulted by all and sundry! It will suffice to remember at least the blasphemous episode of Quarter 95! However, the participants in the dialogue prefer to remain silent about this.

Another cynical call: "We call for a broad discussion of legislative initiatives relating to complex and often painful issues of religious life." Does anyone listen to the position of the UOC on anti-church bills?! Does anyone pay attention to the documented cases of violation of its rights?!

IV. The participants state that there are different views on "these issues" in the Ukrainian society and offer "the first (!) steps for our rapprochement" without blinking an eye.

These steps are:

• cooperation between the UOC and the OCU in social and educational projects;
• joint “service of representatives of both Churches during cultural and religious events of local and national importance”;
• joint prayer at prayer services, lities for the dead, and notably at the burial places of dead soldiers;
• recognition of "grace in church sacraments and sacred rites";
• removal of “barriers preventing <…> Eucharistic communion of both Churches”.

At the same time, the participants in the dialogue cannot fail to understand that the main “barrier” is precisely the lack of the grace of the priesthood among the representatives of the OCU.

Probably, the Primate of the Albanian Church, Archbishop Anastasios, said it best in a letter to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople: “All the time, while Mr. Filaret was deposed and anathematized, he performed non-canonical rites, which were not real Sacraments.

Therefore, the consecrations performed by him are invalid, empty, devoid of Divine Grace and the action of the Holy Spirit. Among others is his secretary Serhiy Dumenko, now Metropolitan Epifaniy, who was consecrated successively to deacon, priest, and, finally, to the bishop.

Archbishop Anastasios, Primate of the Albanian Church

Your letter of December 24 says: 'We reinstated them to the episcopal and priestly degrees they had." However, we ask ourselves the question: to what extent did the consecrations performed by Mr. Filaret, while he was deposed and anathematized, retroactively, without canonical consecration, become valid in the Holy Spirit and receive the true seal of apostolic succession? It is pan-Orthodoxly recognized as a basic ecclesiological principle that the ordinations of heretics and schismatics, and especially those deposed and excommunicated, as ‘sacraments’ performed outside the Church, are invalid. This basic principle is inextricably linked with the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Spirit and constitutes the unshakable foundation of the apostolic succession of Orthodox bishops. We are convinced that it is unacceptable to disregard this principle.'”

But despite this point of view, which is based on the Orthodox dogma about the Church and the Holy Spirit, and which is shared by the majority of the Local Orthodox Churches, the participants in the dialogue suggest simply turning as blind eye and recognizing the “bishops” of the OCU as canonical.

The issue of any joint prayers with representatives of the OCU is resolved unequivocally by virtue of Canon 10 of the Holy Apostles: “If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.”

It is entirely in the power of the OCU to eliminate the "interfering barrier". If they receive canonical consecrations even from the Phanar, even from any other Local Church, then there will be something to talk about. Until then, the canons forbid praying with them under the penalty of excommunication.

V. The participants in the dialogue call for "launching a direct dialogue to develop models that enable the UOC and the OCU to unite into a single Local Church without any preconditions in the future."

At this point, it must again be stated that those participants who are allegedly from the UOC, wholly and completely take the position of the OCU. After all, the call to start a dialogue without preconditions means to recognize the grace of episcopacy where there is none. In addition, the unification of “the UOC and the OCU into a single Local Church” is nothing more than the accession of the UOC to the OCU, because the OCU calls itself this very “single local church”, all the rest can only join it.

VI. The participants express "sincere hope that thousands of believers of both Churches who root for the fate of Orthodoxy in Ukraine and strive for unity and victory in the struggle for our independence will join our voice."

Here there is a shift in concepts, designed for people who do not read the Gospel. There is no need for the Church at all in order to unite in striving for "victory in the struggle for our independence.” To do this, there are other formats of associations and other institutions, primarily in the public plane. The Church is needed for the sole purpose of uniting with Christ and eternal life with Him. The lengthy Catechism reads: "The Church is a God-established society of people united by the Orthodox faith, the law of God, the hierarchy and the Sacraments."

The same three aspects that the UOC speaks about on the issue of dialogue with the OCU:

• faith;
• morality;
• apostolic succession.

The absence of apostolic succession has already been mentioned above. In terms of morality, the supporters of the OCU have already demonstrated their adherence to moral standards in the form of raids, violence, slurs against the believers of the UOC and lies against the Church. As for the faith, which is articulated primarily in the Creed, the rhetoric of the representatives of the OCU about the prospects for unification with the Catholics, who, as you know, changed the text of the Creed, appears as the declared departure from the purity of the Orthodox faith.

Conclusions

All the above paragraphs of the Appeal of the dialogue participants would be correct and acceptable if it were not about the Church, but about a public organization. Then, indeed, it would be possible to unite and turn a blind eye to the existing differences in the name of victory and freedom. However, things are different in the Church. The Church is not of this world, and secular approaches cannot be applied to it. What is crucial and critical for the UOC seems to be some trifle for those in power, the general public, representatives of the OCU and, unfortunately, those participants in the dialogue who allegedly spoke on behalf of the UOC. A point of principle is the absence of canonical consecrations among the "hierarchs" of the OCU, as well as violence and seizure of the UOC temples by supporters of the OCU.

There is also a point of curiosity. Supporters of the UOC did not commit any illegal actions against the OCU. Everything is just the opposite. However, it is the supporters of the UOC who are accused of intolerance and hostility. Although we only want the OCU to stop violating the commandments of God, stop inflicting violence and iniquity against us, and finally receive canonical ordination to the priesthood.

Without fulfilling these "ultimatums", any dialogue with the OCU stinks.