Ukraine

A lot of news, in the mainstream press and on Orthodox sites, about Patriarch Kirill’s current visit to Ukraine. The best analysis I’ve seen so far is from Andrei Zolotov Jr. of Russia Profile. Zolotov says that Kirill and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew “appear to have reached some agreement on Ukraine, which has not been revealed to the public.” From the article:

For an outsider who is not familiar with the intricacies of Ukrainian history, it is not easy to understand the complexity of the church situation in Ukraine. Over the centuries, the heirs to Prince Vladimir’s baptismal font have repeatedly found themselves in different states and different Churches, while the numerous wars that have rolled over this part of Europe inevitably turned out to be civil wars for the ancestors of those who make up the people of Ukraine today. It was only within the framework of the Soviet Union that Ukraine’s current borders were set. When the Soviet Union disintegrated and Ukraine became an independent state, a complicated and as of yet unfinished process of forming a united Ukrainian nation began. There are few other places in the world where the religion factor would play such an important role both in the day-to-day life of the people and in the identity of the nation. That is in Ukraine, the Church is an object of colossal political pressure, often directed at breaking the spiritual and historical ties. As a result, the Orthodox Christians in Ukraine are presently divided into at least three church groups and live next door to Greek Catholics, or Uniates, — Christians who abide by the Byzantine Rite while belonging to the jurisdiction of the Vatican.

Patriarch Kirill repeatedly emphasizes that he is coming to Ukraine with a pastoral visit, to worship on the holy sites of this land and pray for the unity of the Church, for the unity and well-being of the Ukrainian people, who are presently living through a difficult economic and political crisis, and for the unity of all nations tracing their history back to the Kievan Rus – and that is not only Ukrainians, but Russians and Belorussians as well. The Moscow Patriarchal See identifies itself as a successor to the ancient Kievan See. It is not a political visit, Church officials say. The Patriarch is coming to his flock. Continue reading →

From the Religious Information Service of the Ukraine:

MOSCOW—Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) expressed confidence that foreign structures will not interfere with church problems in Ukraine. In particular, they mean the Constantinople Patriarchate, which, according to the ROC representatives, the Ukrainian authorities hoped to engage in the establishment of a national church separate from the Moscow Patriarchate.

“They (Constantinople Patriarchate) understand well that Ukraine is an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church, that there exists spiritual unity of nations – Russians, Ukrainians, Moldovians, Belarusians,” noted the head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archbishop Ilarion (Alfeiev) of Volokolamsk, at a press conference in Moscow about the visit of the head of ROC to Istanbul in early July.

News.ru reports that in the archbishop’s opinion, the very tone of the past negotiations shows that the Constantinople Patriarchate “does not envisage stabs in the back,” and gives hope that no “negotiations, aimed at supporting the schism” will be conducted. The archbishop noted that “no documents in this regard were signed” but the very “climate” of the negotiations implies a respectful attitude. Continue reading →

A quick roundup: Andrei Zolotov, Jr., Chief Editor of Russia Profile and Deputy Director of the RIA Novosti Foreign Service, says that the recent Chambesy conference organized to discuss the “diaspora” resulted in Constantinople making concessions to Moscow. A report in the Kyiv Post says the patriarchs are putting on “a united front” despite the fact that they were to discuss the “sensitive issue of the churches in Ukraine and Estonia during the three-day visit to Turkey.” The Greek news service ANA says “Patriarch Bartholomew underlined the need for unity within the Orthodox Church in order to meet the challenges of the times.” Kathimerini reports that “the outcome of the meeting is keenly awaited by senior clerics both in Moscow and at the Vatican.”

Full text of Zolotov’s analysis follows:

A three-day visit by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia to Istanbul is more than just his first official trip abroad as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church or than his first visit to the Patriarch of Constantinople, also known as Ecumenical Patriarch.

The Moscow Patriarchate is serious about dramatically improving relations between the two most influential Orthodox Sees, switching from smoldering rivalry and at times explosive conflict to closer cooperation.

Taking into consideration that the Greek American community constitutes the main political and financial base for the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the official Washington has always patronized this once glorious See in the capital of the Byzantine Empire, which faces many perils in modern Turkey, one could be forgiven for drawing a distant parallel with expectations of a “reset” in the Russian-American relations.

The last serious conflict in relations between Moscow and Constantinople occurred about a year ago around the time of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko tried to involve Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in resolving the issue of the Orthodox schism in Ukraine in a way that could marginalize the Moscow Patriarchate and violate the rights of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under its jurisdiction.

Only intense talks shortly before the celebration made it possible to avoid a disastrous development and the meeting between Patriarch Bartholomew and the late Patriarch Alexy II in Kiev was the beginning of normalizing relations.

Last October Patriarch Alexy took part in a meeting of the heads of Orthodox Churches in Istanbul, but within two months Patriarch Bartholomew was to preside over the funeral service for the Patriarch of Moscow.

“We need to avoid confrontation and conflict and to create a system of mutual trust, because local Orthodox Churches constitute a single family,” said Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department of External Church Relations. Continue reading →

On the Get Relgion blog, Terry Mattingly describes a trip he made to Kiev to speak to Ukrainian journalists “about the challenges of covering religion news in mainstream press.” He looks at the divisions among Orthodox Churches in the Ukraine, which is set against the long running antagonisms that exist between that country and Russia. “You see, right now almost anything can create tensions between Ukraine and Russia,” Mattingly writes. “A ceremony with clergy linked to Moscow would create tensions in some circles. A ceremony without clergy linked to Moscow would create tensions in others. The symbolism has political content either way.” He also writes about his trip to Kiev for his Scripps News column. Here’s how he begins:

Merely saying the forest’s name — Bykivnya — can cause strong emotions for millions of Ukrainians.

This is where the secret police of Soviet strongman Joseph Stalin buried 100,000 of their victims between 1937 and 1941 in a mass grave northeast of Kiev. President Victor Yushchenko did not mince words during his recent speech there, on Ukraine’s Day of Remembrance for Victims of Political Repression.

“Here, at Bykivnya, Stalin and his monstrous hangmen killed the bloom of Ukraine. There is no forgiveness and there will be none,” he told several thousand mourners and, of course, Ukrainian journalists.

The mourners wept, while processing through the site behind Orthodox clergy who carried liturgical banners containing iconic images of Jesus and Mary.

“Because of the national symbolism of this ceremony, the priests there may not be important,” said Victor Yelensky, a sociologist of religion associated with the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences.

“But the priests have to be there because this is Ukraine and this is a ceremony that is about a great tragedy in the history of Ukraine.

“So the priests are there. It is part … of a civil religion.”

This is where the story gets complicated. In the Ukrainian media, photographs and video images showed the clergy, with their dramatic banners and colorful vestments. However, in their reporting, journalists never mentioned what the clergy said or did.

Mainstream media reports also failed to mention which Orthodoxy body or bodies were represented. This is an important gap, because of the tense and complicated nature of the religious marketplace in this historically Eastern Orthodox culture.

It would have been big news, for example, if clergy from the giant Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) — with direct ties to Moscow — had taken part in a ceremony that featured Yushchenko, who, as usual, aimed angry words to the north.

But what if the clergy were exclusively from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchate), born after the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 and linked to declarations of Ukrainian independence? What if there were also clergy from a third body, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, born early in the 20th century?

A rite featuring clergy from one or both of these newer churches also would have been symbolic. After all, these days almost anything can create tensions between Ukraine and Russia, from natural gas prices to efforts to emphasize the Ukrainian language, from exhibits of uniquely Ukrainian art to decisions about which statues are torn down (almost anything Soviet) or which statues are erected (such as one of Ivan Mazepa, labeled a traitor by Russia after his 18th century efforts to boost Ukrainian independence).

Read “Eastern Orthodox Church in Ukraine rent by divisions” on the Scripps News site.