www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News UOC-KP Orthodox Head Writes to New Russian Patriarch on Ukrainian

UOC-KP Orthodox Head Writes to New Russian Patriarch [risu.org.ua]

Any thoughts on how this will be received?

I would say: not well. If I am not mistaken, on 11 June 1992, the Hierarchical Council of the Russian Orthodox Church defrocked Filaret (Denysenko) and then excommunicated him in 1997, for fomenting a schism. He is therefore, in the eyes of the Moscow Patriarchate, merely a disobedient monk. His religious body is not only not recognised as autocephalous by any other Orthodox Church, but is seen to be in schism. Perhaps rather than lecturing Patriarch KYRILL, he should be reaching out in humility seeking to put an end to the schism he created.

This may seem harsh to some, but it is the rerality of the situation as seen by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Fr David Straut

Actually, the Moscow Patriarchate even attempted to deprive Filaret of monasticism - they refer to him as "Michael Denysenko".

This reminds me of the schism within Serbian Orthodoxy which broke out in the nineteen-sixties; the Patriarchal Serbian Church took pains to refer to Bishop Dionisije as "Mr. Dragoljub Milovjevic". But thirty years later, the time came for reconciliation, by the wise archpastoral discernment of Patriarch Paul and Serbia and with the assistance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. There was no talk of "re-ordaining" Dionisije's clergy, or even of Metropolitan Irinej, who had succeeded Dionisije. The reconciliation was accomplished by mutual forgiveness and the restoration of Eucharistic communion.

Sooner or later, something similar will happen in Ukraine.

Fr. Serge

Well said.

Surely all the parties involved should be reaching out in humility to put an end to the schism, which serves no good purpose.

Fr. Serge

Fr Serge speaks for many of us I'm certain .

Reconciliation has to come by way of action from both/ all sides

No doubt. But this letter does not appear to be the beginning of it.

Fr David Straut

What Patriarch Filaret is clearly saying is that Moscow should just give the Ukrainians autocephaly without consulting the UOC-MP, and without taking into account the sentiments of its followers.

If you ask me, that is just as offensive as the Orthodox Churches telling Rome to force Byzantine Catholics to choose between the Latin Rite and Orthodoxy.

Dear Father David,

I don't often speak or write in defense of Patriarch Filaret, and this is not one of those rare occasions. The most that I am suggesting is that an attempt to impose a one-sided settlement (which at least the two major protagonists are attempting to do do) is unlikely to succeed.

We may find it useful, or at least amusing, to remember that it was the Moscow Patriarchate that passed Filaret off as an "expert on Orthodox canon law". He was a creature of Moscow, and turned on his creators. To that there is, perhaps, a certain rough justice! But that consideration, while true, is not going to solve the schism of the present moment.

So all I can suggest for the moment is prayer and patience.

fraternally in Christ,

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Serge:

Wasn't it the then-Metropolitan Filaret who also egged on the Soviets to continue the vicious persecution of the UGCC in Ukraine during the 1960's up until c. 1988?

I think if for instance an Auxiliary bishop of say St. Louis, formed a new Archdiocese of St. Louis and declared himself Archbishop of it, taking a sizable portion of parishes and people with him... I think we can imagine the reaction.

Indeed it was! He also did such interesting things as suspending one priest for preaching in Ukrainian, and another for encouraging young people to come to church.
Whatever else about Filaret, he is certainly versatile.

Fr. Serge

Dear Father Serge,

I do not dispute at all that the problems in Ukraine will not and cannot be solved without humility and self-examination on all sides and the extension of forgiveness by all. This, I believe, is evident.

Schisms like this might be better termed 'ruptures in fraternal love.' Sadly, they abound in Orthodoxy, from Old Ritualist Schism, to the 19th Century "Bulgarian Schism," to the schisms associated with the Calendar change, to the 20th century divisions between the Russians within and outside Russia, to the situations in the Ukrainian, Moldovan, and Baltic Churches, to the mess we have with Macedonia and Montenegro.

I wish that depostition and defrocking were much rarer than they are. It does seem to be rather nonsensical to depose a bishop or priest from his office, only to reinstate him later, or to somehow extend validity to his (illicit, and presumably invalid) sacramental acts even post-mortem.

Hey, here's a new and untried idea. How about having a Bishop who would be an impartial arbiter of ecclesiastical disputes, a Vicar of Christ, so to speak, whose word and decisions, guided by the Holy Spirit, would be so respected that he could solve all these problems.

Fr David

Nice idea, Father! It isn't "untried", though. There is actually an ongoing experiment on that very same idea, with headquarters in Vatican Hill, inside the City of Rome. You might even want to join

I think that there are two extremes here.

On one hand, in the Orthodox Church, there has been a needless tendency to go into schism over matters that, for all their relative importance, would scarcely
justify rending apart the unity of the Church.

On the other hand, in the Catholic Church in the 20th century, the tendency has been to keep official unity at all costs, even when that unity no longer signified any real unity of faith. Can it not be said that, since the 1960's, many parts of the Catholic Church have been schismatic in everything but name? Just think of the Diocese of Linz, and of the many "Catholic" parishes in the Netherlands where homosexual couples are openly blessed to live together.