Ukraine: Breakthrough for Orthodox Unification?

Representatives of both churches recognised that there is already inter-communion between priests, and a similar relationship is under discussion at an episcopal level. Although there are a number of points of disagreement, a joint commission is working to resolve them. The agreement, which was signed at the residence of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Istanbul and has been circulated in the national media, sets out the aims of the negotiation process: `We, representatives of two Orthodox Ukrainian Churches, having met at the Ecumenical Patriarchate: Metropolitan Andrei of Lviv and Sokal and Archbishop Daniil of Rivne and Ostrih of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate; and Metropolitan Mefodiy of Ternopil and Podilsk and Bishop Makari of Lviv of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, in the presence of Metropolitan Kostyantyn (Buggan) of Irinupolis from America, have, following an exchange of views and opinions, and recognising the obligation and necessity of uniting with each other in order to achieve as an end result one united Ukrainian Orthodox Church, resolved the following:

1. Both sides have declared that there are no ideological differences between them as far as Orthodox theology is concerned.

2. Representatives of the two churches, the UOC-KP and the UAOC, should meet in Kyiv to discuss the details and prospects for full unification of our two churches, as a first step towards unification of all Orthodox believers in Ukraine.

3. To form a joint commission of the two churches, made up of: Metropolitan Andriy of Lviv, Archbishop Daniil of Rivne, Bishop Dimitri of Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky, Metropolitan Mefodiy of Ternopil, Metropolitan Andriy of Ivano-Frankivsk and Bishop Makari of Lviv, to discuss the details that may arise in the course of unification of the two churches, the UOC-KP and the UAOC.'

According to the agreement `the commission will work under the aegis of Archbishop Vsevolod of Skopelos (of the Ecumenical Patriarchate), who will keep the Ecumenical Patriarchate regularly informed of the results of the commission's work. Both sides are obliged to realise the above-cited resolutions.' Speaking from Lviv on 10 July, the same day bishops of the UAOC and UOC-KP met in Kyiv (see separate KNS story), Bishop Makari told Keston he regarded the key issue as `inter-communion between the bishops'. He said that Metropolitan Mefodiy and Archbishop Andriy represented the UAOC at the meeting. He had not attended because, he said, `he did not agree with the ban imposed by the UOC-KP on those priests who had moved over to the UAOC'. He said that if Patriarch Filaret did not lift the ban, he would withdraw his candidature for the joint commission. On the same day, the secretary to Metropolitan Andriy of the UOC-KP), Father Vladimir Bachinsky, confirmed to Keston that a dialogue had developed between the churches and also that, on 24 June, a meeting had taken place in Ternopil as scheduled. In his opinion, there were currently no obstacles to unification of the churches. Bishop Makari and Father Vladimir confirmed that priests of the UAOC and the UOC-KP were practising inter-communion, which is also confirmed by the UAOC Patriarchate.

Bishop Makari sees an obstacle to the creation of a single church in the anathema pronounced on Patriarch Filaret. `We in the UAOC have not anathematised anyone, and if the Ecumenical Patriarch can lift the anathema, then there will be no other obstacles.' After a period of waiting for the development of an active dialogue (see KNS 16 March 2001) there was an initial visit to Kyiv between 26 and 28 May of this year of a joint delegation of the Moscow and Ecumenical Patriarchates, as well as its previous meeting in the Swiss town of Zurich, in April. The delegation from Kyiv was made up of Archimandrite Athenagoras (Peckstadt), and an interpreter, hieromonk Illarion (Rudnik) from the Ecumenical Patriarchate; archpriest Nikolai Balashov, secretary for inter- Orthodox relations in the Russian Orthodox Church, and Pyotr Lagovsky of the Department of External Church Relations from the Moscow Patriarchate. Although meetings with representatives of the UAOC and the UOC-KP took place in hotel rooms where members of the delegation were accommodated, Archbishop Ihor Isichenko of the UAOC thought that `there had been a virtual recognition of the Ukrainian churches by participants in the talks', although, in an e-mail to Keston on 5 June, he noted that this `had not been referred to in the official press releases of the Moscow Patriarchate'.

All those interviewed by Keston, including Archbishop Ihor, were united in the view that a united Ukrainian Orthodox Church should be `independent and equal with all the Orthodox Churches throughout the world'. `Although,' writes Archbishop Ihor, `representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate have carefully tried to propose autonomous status for the future church, this suggestion was immediately turned down by representatives of the Ukrainian churches.' Recently, Father Vladimir and Bishop Makari confirmed that the Moscow Patriarchate was not taking any role in the unification process. However, the Moscow Patriarchate did take part in the subsequent meeting that took place in Zurich from 12 to 14 July, being represented by Metropolitan Kirill, the head of the Department for External Church Relations, and Father Nikolai Balashov. The UAOC and UOC-KP were represented by two bishops each, the UOC-MP by one bishop (Metropolitan Ahafanhel of Odessa), with Metropolitan John of Pergamon and Metropolitan Meliton of Philadelphia representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Several sources told Keston that the presence of Viktor Bondarenko, the chairman of the Ukrainian government's State Committee for Religious Affairs, was vetoed by the Russian Orthodox Church. One source told Keston on 20 July that as a compromise, the ROC agreed to give three regions in western Ukraine - Lviv, Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk - to the UOAC and grant it autocephaly, and then to discuss the issue - as it was put - of unification over the next 20-30 years.

Patriarch Filaret (according to the source) is out of question for the ROC and was not defended by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The next meeting is to take place at the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Bondarenko is also reportedly trying to take part. Archimandrite Athenagoras Peckstadt, who was part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's delegation, told Keston from Belgium on 24 July that `no decisions had been taken at the meeting except to continue the dialogue and to take the next steps'. He declined to reveal the content of the discussions, but confirmed that the next meeting will take place `at the end of the summer'. `The ideal solution for all the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine is the creation of a single, autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine,' Archimandrite Athenagoras stressed. `This is what the Ecumenical Patriarch desires to see in the nearest future.' Keston also sought comments from Metropolitan Meliton about the course of the unification process, but he did not respond.

Source: Keston Institute http://www.keston.org