Dialogue began between the autocephalous Church and the Orthodox Church that recently separated from the Moscow Patriarchate. There are still points of disagreement. Personalisms could derail the rapprochement process. Greek Catholics watch with interest.
Moscow () – In kyiv, in the Metropolitan Palace of the historic Saint Sophia Cathedral, the first official dialogue meeting was held between the delegations of the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church (PZU) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. (UPZ), which recently broke off relations with the Russian Mother Church, without yet defining its legal-ecclesiastical status.
The meeting, which lasted three hours, could be held thanks to the mediation of the State Service for Questions of Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience (GESS), as announced on social networks by the priest of Pzu Andrej Dudčenko: “It was good to see old friends and meeting new ones,” added the cleric. The meeting brought together 21 priests from the two jurisdictions, and the dialogue was moderated by the leader of the GESS, Elena Bogdan.
The objective of the colloquium was “above all, to highlight what unites, which is much more than what divides” the two national Churches. It was recognized that they have “a common faith and common theological, liturgical and canonical traditions”, as well as a common history in which, however, “we differ in the assessment of certain events”, for which it is necessary to review and reread all the religious history of Ukraine.
Above all, what unites the two communities today is the condemnation of the “destructive position” of the Moscow Patriarchate, which supported the Russian war in Ukraine. For the rest, “there are many common problems”, since both Churches have arisen from the separation of the Russian one. The deficient preparation of the clergy and the bishops was highlighted, and an “excess of Byzantinism” in the almost exclusive emphasis on ritualism and in the attributions given to the authorities of the civil power.
In conclusion, all agreed on the “need to revive the tradition of kyiv, both in the liturgy and in ecclesiastical art, in architecture and in the formation of the clergy and the episcopate”, recalling the great legacy of the Mogilian Theological Academy, dating back to its founder, Metropolitan of kyiv Peter Mogila, in the early 17th century.
At least the priests of the two groups agreed that “it is essential to refrain from using mutually hostile language.” Since 1992, when Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko) decided to separate from Moscow by proclaiming himself Patriarch of kyiv, tensions between the two jurisdictions have never been absent. The two sides clashed over churches and monasteries, accusing each other of treason and heresy. Moscow’s new estrangement does not automatically erase these long-standing and often highly personal hostilities.
Although at the recent Synod of Feophany the UPZ Church declared that it no longer considers itself linked to the Moscow Patriarchate, it did not take any position against the “brothers” of the PZU. Many bishops, priests, monks and faithful are resolutely opposed to a meeting. Some remain faithful to Russia, as is obviously the case in the occupied areas of Donbass, not to mention the annexed Crimea, which has declared its full return to the Moscow Patriarchate. In many other cases, despite opposition to the Russian invasion, there remain mixed feelings of loyalty to tradition and enmity towards the other side.
It should be noted that the parishes of the UPZ double the number of those of the PZU (12,000 compared to 6,000, more or less). However, Moscow has been clever enough to double and even triple many churches in recent years, to accentuate the historical superiority of the pro-Russians. The issue of overseas parishes, which change jurisdiction even more easily than those on home soil, remains unresolved. In the background is the interested gaze of the Greek Catholics, who share the same traditions as the Orthodox, and are willing to participate in an even broader dialogue on the national integration of Christianity of the Byzantine tradition.
Add Comment