Theologian Oleksandr Yefremenko spoke with Tyzhden about the mutations of Russian Orthodoxy, the prospects of the church tribunal over Patriarch Cyril, and the fate of the UOC-MP.
Obviously, there is a mutation ongoing in Russian Orthodoxy. It is enough to look at the main temple of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The khaki-themed building, whose proportions have a numerological meaning, with the Virgin Mary drawn on the motifs of the Motherland image from a Soviet poster, bears little resemblance to a Christian church. It is rather a sanctuary of the cult of war. Not surprisingly, the ROC patriarch blesses aggression against Ukraine. How did Russian Orthodoxy come to this? What happened inside the ROC and in society that in the XXI century the threat of nuclear war comes from the supposedly Christian, Orthodox Russia?
– Russian Orthodoxy has long been in such state, but now it has spilled out in such bright and flashy pictures that you have described. In addition, in the temple you mentioned, the icons are decorated with cartridge cases. While Christianity is called for peacemaking, Russia has taken up arms to justify the Putin regime’s aggression for at least the past two decades. Currently, the Russian Defense Ministry enjoys enormous support from the Moscow Patriarchate. Even the propaganda and false statements of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation regarding the “shelling of the Ukrainian Armed Forces of churches in Ukraine for Easter” were fully supported and circulated by the ROC as much as possible.
In fact, the Moscow Patriarchate has put the alternative truth, or rather the Kremlin’s propaganda, above the truth of the Gospel and the truth preached by Jesus Christ. Therefore, Orthodoxy in Russia has practically ceased to be Orthodoxy, because according to Orthodox teaching, where there is untruth, there is no God and grace, but there is the devil. It is even more comical that these words were also quoted by the head of the ROC, Patriarch Cyril, but he is unable to apply them to himself, to Russia, to Putin, because they do not see anything bad, false, or devilish in their bloody crimes. Modern Russia is a murderous rapist with a large golden cross on its chest, a Bible in its pocket, and a bloodied knife in its hand. Because talking about God and keeping his commandments are different things.
The ROC even consecrated weapons of mass destruction – nuclear arms that bring death to all living things and inevitably involve the killing of the innocent. This is the climax of the devil, and that is why the head of the OCU, like all conscious and caring people, demands a church tribunal over Cyril and the ROC leadership, which “sanctifies” the Kremlin’s crimes.
By the way, as regards the tribunal, what does this idea mean and how realistic is it to put it into practice? Were there already such precedents in history and what were their implications?
– There was an initiative to convene a court of the Pentarchy coming from the Alexandrian Orthodox Church, which recognized the OCU, and which therefore suffered from the ROC. The Moscow Patriarchate has long threatened the Patriarch of Alexandria and demanded that he recall his recognition of the OCU. Eventually, the ROC established its own parishes in Africa, in the canonical territory of the Church of Alexandria, which is a gross violation of Orthodox rules. It was because of this split between the ROC in the Patriarchate of Alexandria that world church leaders asked Patriarch Bartholomew to restore the ancient institution of the Pentarchy’s court.
What does it mean? The five heads of the oldest Churches were to convene: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus, to consider the actions of the ROC leadership.
The issue of anti-canonical actions of the Russian Orthodox Church in Africa was on the agenda. Perhaps the list of accusations would include the fact that Patriarch Cyril supported the war against Ukraine. But, as far as I know, the church trial of Cyril was to take place in late April this year. They could also consider appeals by UOC-MP priests to secede from the ROC and accept parishes as part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but due to geopolitical circumstances and quarantine restrictions, the Tribunal was postponed.
We know about the Pentarchy trials that have taken place in the past. For example, in 1666, four Eastern patriarchs condemned Moscow’s Patriarch Nikon. He was deposed from the patriarchate and became a simple monk, not even a bishop. Cyril has every chance to become another Nikon, but against an even sadder historical background.
Relations between the ROC and the Ecumenical Patriarch have become increasingly tense in recent years. First, the Tomos for Ukraine, then – the expansion of the ROC in foreign canonical territory in Africa. There is no indication that the degree of opposition will decline, as Moscow shows no signs of adequacy. Is a final break between the ROC and Constantinople possible? How and when can this happen?
– The issue is not quite relevant, because the break between the ROC and the Ecumenical Patriarchate has already taken place unilaterally in 2018, shortly before the Unification Council. Moscow took such a step in the hope that Patriarch Bartholomew would not go further with the idea of providing a Tomos to the OCU, but it miscalculated. Following Moscow, a break with the Ecumenical Patriarchate was announced at the UOC branch in Ukraine, the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate. All this was officially confirmed by the decision of the relevant Synods in Moscow and Kyiv.
As for the UOC-MP, the more toxic the ROC becomes, the more difficult it is for its Ukrainian branch, which tries to sit on two chairs moving in different directions under it. What is the future of this church structure?
– This church is at a disadvantage. Discussions are underway and there are already relevant bills banning the UOC-MP on the territory of Ukraine. The future of the UOC-MP is uncertain, and its very existence is due to the support of Russian capital. This organization is formally headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanych), although nominally the title of head of the ROC in Ukraine is held by Metropolitan Onufriy (Berezovsky), who is a permanent member of the ROC Synod.
The UOC-MP may try to resume communication with the Ecumenical Patriarch and, on a temporary basis, move under his omophorion with the prospect of further immersion with the OCU. The UOC-MP can also unite with the OCU with the preservation of dioceses and parishes under former bishops. And another option that this church can go for is to ask Patriarch Kirill for autocephaly. However, the autocephalous Church already exists in Ukraine, so the ROC has no canonical rights to grant church independence even to its branch.
How’s that? That’s because the ROC in Ukraine exists only due to Moscow’s annexation of the Kyiv Metropolitanate in 1686. At the time, the Ecumenical Patriarch only gave the Moscow Patriarch the right to ordain Kyiv metropolitans, who were to commemorate him as their superior. After some time, the ROC started ignoring the agreements and the Kyiv metropolitans began to commemorate the Moscow Patriarch, not the Ecumenical Patriarch, as their superior during the services. This is how the Muscovites annexed the Kyiv Metropolitanate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In 2018-2019, this injustice was resolved by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which revoked the 1686 agreement with the ROC and granted autocephaly to the Kyiv Metropolitanate.
Thus, the fact that Moscow stole something does not entitle them to disposing of what was stolen. In the church world, only Moscow’s satellites can recognize autocephaly granted by the ROC. In addition, the possible recognition of the fake autocephaly of the UOC will be hindered by the very existence of the OCU, which has had a Tomos of autocephaly for four years already and is recognized by the world’s local churches.
No matter what, in my opinion, Moscow will not take such a step, because then Ukraine, albeit formally, will come out of the “triune Russian world” – a concept condemned by the world’s leading theologians now and in the past as a heresy of ethnophiletism.
