The book entitled “Bartholomew I: 30 Years of Patriarchal Service in the Context of Ukraine” reveals the views of His All-Holiness on the issues of Ukrainian autocephaly and church division. The publication presents in chronological order his ideas on ways to resolve this difficult issue. The book mentions that almost immediately, as this painful wound appeared on the Church’s body, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew started seeking to achieve its speedy healing.
From the documents presented in the book, it becomes clear that Patriarch Bartholomew’s position was based on the fact that Ukraine has full right to have its own Local Independent Church. In particular, this is stated in the report by the diplomatic corps, stating that during one of the meetings, the Patriarch expressed his conviction that “an independent Ukraine should and will definitely have its own independent Church.” To ensure that it obtains the autocephalous status, it was necessary to resolve the issue of church division in Ukraine.
Another report, which provides information about the talks between Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine M.Zhulynsky and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, notes that during the meeting His All-Holiness stated: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the ‘mother Church,’ is clearly interested in having the Ukrainian Orthodoxy obtain canonical autocephaly as soon as possible.”
At the same time, the Patriarch stressed that such autocephaly can be offered “only by the ‘mother Church,’ the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the Moscow Patriarchate has no such right.” As an argument, Patriarch Bartholomew recalled that “in 1970, the Moscow Patriarchate granted autocephaly to the American Church, but Constantinople and many other Churches never recognized that autocephaly.”
As for the way of granting church independence, “the Patriarch stated that he sees the possibility of granting autocephaly only in a canonical way, in accordance with the canons of the Orthodox Church.” He also stressed “the need to resolve the issue step by step, peacefully, through negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate, avoiding conflict with it.” “Bartholomew sees the unification of all three currents in Ukrainian Orthodoxy as a condition for the gift of autocephaly. To the question of I. Yukhnovsky, whether it is possible to grant autocephaly to a part of Ukrainian Orthodoxy: namely, the UOC-KP and UAOC united in one denomination, Bartholomew responded negatively. According to him, autocephaly shall not be granted separately to any of the denominations, UOC-KP, UOC-MP, UAOC, or, for example, the denomination united as a result of UOC-KP and UAOC merger,” the document reads.
In addition, the Patriarch explained that “he understands that the Moscow Patriarchate doesn’t want the autocephaly of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, but he sees no other way but to negotiate with the Moscow Patriarchate on the issue.” According to him, “if the three Ukrainian Orthodox denominations agree to unite, Moscow will have no choice but to agree to see autocephaly being granted to the unified Orthodox Church of Ukraine.” Therefore, the main condition for obtaining autocephaly was the unification of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.
From this document it becomes clear that the Patriarch was already well aware of this difficult issue, so he stressed that it is “so delicate that putting forward any conditions before any of the denominations will prevent unification. If one of the branches declares it will join the union only if the Primate of the unified Church (for example, Filaret or Volodymyr) is elected from among its episcopate, the other or two other denominations will refuse to unite. The Ecumenical Patriarch has clearly stated that “now is not the time to find out who will be on top.”
According to His All-Holiness, one of the important conditions of the unification as such is the removal of the issue of non-recognition by one denomination of the “non-canonicity” of other denominations. It is automatically about a Church, in which all who belong to it will be recognized as canonical, in particular, bishops of all three former denominations (that is, all bishops) will be canonical.”
Twenty years ago, the Patriarch saw that the next step following unification was to hold a Council and elect a Primate. After that comes the “obtaining of autocephaly by the unified Church, which the Ecumenical Patriarch, according to him, gives by his Act immediately after the creation of a single Orthodox Church.”
An interesting detail in this report is about Metropolitan Meliton announcing that “the Ecumenical Patriarchate has a ‘secret’ list of UOC-MP bishops, according to which 70% of UOC-MP bishops support the independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Moscow Patriarchate.
The same document stated that the Patriarch was convinced that “Ukraine, as a state with a population of 50 million, has the right to a single Autocephalous Orthodox Church.” This was stated by the Patriarch during the talks between Constantinople and Moscow.
Regarding these negotiations, the Patriarch noted that “for the first time, the issue was raised at the negotiating table before the Moscow Patriarchate during the talks of the two Patriarchates on the Estonian Orthodox Church, held in Zurich late March 2000.” During those talks, another meeting was scheduled “on the issue of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, with participation of six parties: Ecumenical Patriarchate, Moscow Patriarchate, three Ukrainian denominations, and Government of Ukraine. It was scheduled for July 2000. Before that meeting, another working meeting of representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Russia, and the UOC-MP was set to be held.
“At the wrap-up of talks, the Ecumenical Patriarch stated he firmly adhered to the position that Ukraine should have a single Autocephalous Orthodox Church and at the same time Ukrainian Orthodoxy should receive autocephaly in accordance with canon law,” the document reads.
To implement the announced plan, Constantinople created a number of joint commissions involving representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, all branches of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, and state authorities. In particular, commissions worked on the issue in the 2000s. However, they didn’t help resolve the difficult situation, which worsened the same year. The main reason for the defeat of the Commissions’ work was the position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which always tried to either slow down the process or disrupt it altogether.
One of the reasons for the aggravation was the jubilee “Council” of the UOC-MP episcopate, which took place in the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra on July 28, 2000. The hierarchs then appealed to the president, Moscow Patriarch Alexy, and His All-Holiness not to interfere in their affairs. According to them, “the split in Ukraine can be overcome by internal efforts only. This is really an internal affair of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because the vast majority of people who have gone into schism are violators of church discipline.”
The appeal was composed in such an outrageous tone that Patriarch Bartholomew delivered an immediate response. It is noteworthy that it was sent to Moscow Patriarch Alexiy II, whom His All-Holiness asked to pass it directly to Metropolitan Volodymyr. Such a gesture testified that Patriarch Bartholomew at that time did not recognize Bishop Volodymyr as Primate of the independent Church, but only as a bishop of the Russian Church. Metropolitan Volodymyr himself is mentioned in the letter “His Eminence Metropolitan of Kyiv.”
Also in the letter, Patriarch Bartholomew stressed that “the gathering of bishops in the Lavra is just a meeting, not a Council or Synod,” because it does not recognize the UOC-MP status of the Church, only considering them a set of dioceses with the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine.
The letter clearly states that the problem of church division in Ukraine has lasted since the onset of the 20th century, that is, for almost 90 years, and it “not only was not cured by the efforts of the church leadership of this suffering people, but in recent days has become even more widespread, continuing to do so in such a way that the Orthodox Church has become generally the object of ridicule and harm, unable to ensure its unity, as well as community among its members. ”
Separately, Patriarch Bartholomew noted that “the unfortunate split of the Ukrainian people on the territory of the Ukrainian State remains a problem that has not been resolved by either by the state or the local church leadership for almost nine decades. So the time has come for the whole Church to be a mediator in addressing this problem. ”
He explained to Metropolitan Volodymyr and other bishops the essence of the agreements reached between the representatives of Constantinople and Moscow “on joint cooperation – with each other and with the Orthodox in Ukraine – to find a way to end the schism and achieve unity sought so much by the Orthodox people of God in Ukraine.”
The essence of the letter was that the Ecumenical Patriarch exposed the position of the episcopate of the MP in Ukraine as contrary to the instructions of the Savior, not on the desire of good for the Church. The patriarch pointed to the fact that for so many years the MP bishops themselves had done nothing fruitful for unity. And when the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the Mother Church, starts doing something, they oppose and protest. That is why the patriarch writes that “they themselves shall be to blame for new divisions and clashes because they do not accept the contribution of their brothers from Constantinople and Moscow as good, although they themselves have not been able to heal the divisions for more than 90 years.”
It should be noted that all the steps and actions of the Ecumenical Throne and, in particular, Patriarch Bartholomew, were based on church canons, with a deep study of the historical experience of the two Churches. Respected theologians and researchers had worked on them. Their research works were carefully listened to at the meetings of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Thus, according to Metropolitan Elpidophoros, ahead of Patriarch Bartholomew’s visit to Kyiv in 2008, two professors of canon law spoke at the Synod: Metropolitan Panteleimon (Rhodopoulos) of Tyroloi and Serention and Vlasio Fida. In the report, the focus was on the violation by the Moscow Patriarchate of the terms of the Act of 1686, which allegedly transferred the Kyiv Metropolis to Moscow’s control.
Metropolitan Panteleimon carefully studied the document, which only gave a Moscow Patriarch the right to ordain a Metropolitan of Kyiv. At the Synod hearing, he noted that during the adoption of this decision by the Ecumenical Patriarch, one of the main demands was made: “When a Metropolitan of Kyiv performs the Divine Sacrament (i.e. the Divine Liturgy) in this diocese, he shall first of all mention the honorable name of His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch, as he is the source of good that spreads throughout the world and is the source of all things.”
He proved once again that “the Kyiv Metropolis was not handed over to the Moscow patriarch by patriarchal and synodal decision – it was only a permission that was given to a Moscow Patriarch to ordain the elected local metropolitan, provided that the Ecumenical Patriarch is remembered first, which testifies to dependence.”
Also, the professor noted that “permission for ordination was granted based on the appeal of Russian rulers Ivan, Peter, and Sophia, and therefore its abolition will take place based on the appeal by President of Ukraine, the country already independent of Russia.”
Thus it can be seen that canons and history were on the side of Constantinople, but Patriarch Bartholomew still tried to resolve this issue peacefully, without going into conflict with the ROC. Therefore, the issue was also discussed during the meeting, held in the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, between Patriarch Bartholomew and the head of the ROC, Patriarch Alexiy II.
During the meeting, Patriarch Bartholomew stressed that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the Mother Church, observed with concern and sadness the ongoing split in Ukraine and wished it speedy healing.
His All-Holiness also reminded the Moscow Patriarch that he had repeatedly asked the ROC to continue bilateral talks on the Ukrainian issue, which had been interrupted by the latter, to send his delegation to Phanar to discuss the Ukrainian problem, but the answer was ‘No.’
In general, it should be noted that the Ukraine issue was never removed from the agenda in Constantinople. The active phase of its solution unfolded after the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine in 2014 and the statements of Moscow Patriarch Kirill that the ROC would never release its grip of the Ukrainian Church. After that, Phanar decided not to procrastinate in resolving the issue.
Thus, summarizing what’s been said, it is worth noting a few important aspects:
- The Ecumenical Patriarch never denied Ukraine’s right to have its own independent Church. On the contrary, he reaffirmed this idea in every possible way;
- The Ukrainian church issue was carefully studied by highly educated theologians with the Patriarchate of Constantinople;
- Constantinople gave the ROC every opportunity to resolve the conflict peacefully;
- Constantinople acted in strict accordance with the Orthodox canons, taking into account the historical experience of relations between the two Churches.
