Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
Patriarchate took such an extremely critical step, stating that it was an
“illegal invasion of the canonical territory” of Moscow, and even
declared a cessation of concelebration with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. Would you please comment on the truthfulness of
Moscow’s statements? Was the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
really unlawful and non-canonical?
All these years, the Church of Constantinople, with pain, watched her
daughter, the Ukrainian Church, suffering from internal division. At the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, we hoped that this problem would be cured by
internal means and forces, constantly praying for this and never praying
without forgetting the long-suffering Ukrainian Orthodox people. But
the events of the last 30 years, and especially after 2014, clearly testify
that the internal forces of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine cannot alone
overcome the problem of the schism and unite, as it is hindered by
external political factors and influences, in particular, by the neighboring
Russian state. And for the latter, apparently, the most important thing is
not the promotion of the unification of the Ukrainian Church, but the
preservation through the Church of its political influence in Ukraine.
Here we see other goals whose achievement requires the use of other
means. Probably because of this the Orthodox Church in Russia, under
the influence of some political factors, is not able to ensure the unity of
2
the Orthodox faithful of Ukraine, does not seek to dialogue with those
who for some reason are outside the canonical church borders, and
therefore does not seek to find the best means of the canonical economy
for the return of these faithful in the bosom of the Universal Church. The
latest statements of the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate only confirm
the latter. For now, for the sake of their own political ambitions, they
went not only to break off from part of the Orthodox flock in Ukraine,
but also broke from Universal Orthodoxy. It is very dangerous, sad and
unpleasant. This is a non-canonical way, which does not serve to heal
the schism, but on the contrary, grows the split and the schism.
3
- Can you please comment on the decision of Constantinople to
appoint its own exarchs in Ukraine from a historical and canonical
rationale? Have there already been such canonical historical
precedents? And if yes, is this not “an invasion of another's canonical
territory”?
4
order to not go too far, we may turn to the close 20th century. Since the
lands of Galicia and Transcarpathia were still considered to be the
canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the beginning of the
20th century, the Metropolitan of Kiev, Anthony (Khrapovitsky), a
member of the Synod of the Russian Church, for the purpose of
exercising care over the Orthodox flock in these Ukrainian lands, wrote
requesting the permission and blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarchs,
and even requested for this purpose to give him the title of Exarch of the
Ecumenical Patriarch in Galicia and Transcarpathia. And with this title
of the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Galicia and Transcarpathia,
this Russian hierarch was endowed with the Charter of Ecumenical
Patriarch Ioakim III in 1910. Later, this title of the Exarch for him was
confirmed by Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos V (1913 – 1918).
5
precedents for the appointment of the Exarchs of the Ecumenical
Patriarch in Ukraine, but also have revered saints among them.
Archbishop Job: That’s right. Ukraine was and remained, even after
1686, the canonical territory only of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After
Left-bank Ukraine joined the Moscow State in the middle of the 17th
century, the Kievan Church was divided into parts between different
6
rival countries (Russia, Poland and Turkey), which is was why they
could not choose a single Metropolitan for a long time in Kiev. In this
difficult situation, the Ecumenical Patriarch, in order not to leave the
entire Ukrainian flock without archpastoral care, part of the Kievan
Church in the territories subordinate to Russia were transferred to the
Moscow Patriarchate in 1686 for temporary guardianship, in order to
help him put a metropolitan in Kiev and bishops in the other dioceses of
Left Bank Ukraine (Cossack Hetmanate). At the same time, the principle
requirement was that the Metropolitans of Kiev continued to remain
autonomous from Moscow as Exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarch and
that they would commemorate his name without exception at all divine
services. That was in no way the transfer of the Metropolis of Kiev under
the authority of the Moscow Patriarchs. For such a transmission would
be anti-canonical, since in the letter of establishment of the Moscow
Patriarchate the limits of canonical influences of the Moscow Patriarchs
were recognized at the borders of the Moscow State in 1589. And these
limits did not in any way include the Kievan Metropolis, which
included, under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Poland.
7
Ukrainian hierarchs as Sylvester Kosov, Joseph Nebulovich-Tukalsky,
Barlaam Yasinsky, Ioasaph Krokovsky, Barlaam Vonatovich,
Theophylact Lopatinsky, Arseny Matseevich, Barlaam Shyshatsky, and
many others who suffered a lot from the non-canonical actions of the
Russian government and the leadership of the Russian Church.
By the way, within the limits of the Left Bank of Ukraine (Hetmanate),
just after the events of 1686, an internal ecclesiastical movement has
gained new force, known as the “wandering” or “wild priests”. Its
essence was that Ukrainian Orthodox parishes on the Left Bank, not
wanting to recognize the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, invited
priests ordained in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to
serve them in the Right Bank Ukraine or in Moldovo-Wallachia.
Throughout the entire XVIII century, the Russian secular and
ecclesiastical administration brutally persecuted this movement and its
representatives, capturing and imprisoning the so called “non-
canonical” priests. But despite this until the end of the XVIII century,
believers from the left bank of Ukraine went to Moldo-Wallachia for a
priestly ordination from the bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
escaping the Russian Synodal Administration at risk to life. And the
hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not actually deny the
Orthodox faithful from the left-bank Ukraine in such requests.
8
fled from prisons. It is known that he served within the territories
controlled by the Zaporozhian Cossacks. During his additional exile to
Siberia in 1733, bishop Epiphanius, wrapped in chains, was taken away
from the guard by the Russian Cossacks, the Old Believers, and hid in
Gomel oblast, in Vietka. However, in February 1735, Russian troops, on
the orders of the Empress Anna Ivanovna, surrounded Vietka, and
Bishop Epiphanius was again arrested. He died in the prison of Kiev
fortress on April 1 of the same year and was buried near the church of
St. Theodosius in the Fortress of the Kiev Caves Lavra.
Another interesting fact was that during 1759 in the Zaporozhian Sich,
the Bishop of Melitene Anatole (Meles) acted as an independent bishop
of the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V. With the support of the
Zaporozhian Cossacks, and without the permission of the Russian
Synod, he headed Zaporozhian churches during a whole year and
commemorated the Ecumenical Patriarchs. For this he was imprisoned
by the Russian authorities and exiled to Siberia, where he was sentenced
for about 9 years. According to many researchers, bishop Anatole
(Meles) tried to create a separate autonomous Cossack diocese in
Zaporozhye under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
- It is very interesting. Yet you said that in 1686, only the part of the
Kievan Church in the territories of the Russian territories was
transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate under the guardianship
(patronage). And what about other Ukrainian lands that were not part
of the Russian state?
Archbishop Job: That's right. And this is a very important point, which
for some reason everyone forgets when talking about the act of 1686.
After all, after the transfer of a part of the see of Kiev in the Russian
territories to the temporary administration of the Moscow Patriarchs, in
other territories of Ukraine, which were not part of the Moscow state,
the Orthodox parishes and monasteries continued to remain under the
omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. That is, the act of 1686
concerned the Ukrainian territories of the Hetmanate, which were
temporarily part of the Russian state, but had no canonical influence on
other Ukrainian territories, in particular, Transcarpathia, Bukovina,
Podolia, Galicia, Volynia, Khan's Ukraine in the south and Crimea. All
9
these territories continued to remain under the canonical omophorion of
the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
- Can you tell us more about it? Because nobody writes about this fact...
Archbishop Job: Yes. In fact, after 1686, much more Ukrainian lands
remained under the direct jurisdiction of Constantinople. Thus, in
particular, the diocese of Lvov did not recognize the transition to the
temporary administration of the Moscow Patriarchs. Since 1675, the
Orthodox Archbishop of Lvov was appointed administrator of the
Metropolis of Kiev and of the archimandria of the Kiev Caves Lavra
under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After 1686, the
diocese of Lvov remained in the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. This status was lost after 1700 when the Archbishop of
Lvov Joseph Shumlyansky under the pressure of the Polish authorities
switched to the union with Rome and thus the Orthodox diocese of
Lvov remained vacant. Under the direct jurisdiction of Constantinople
retained the Lvov Stavropegic Brotherhood until 1708, when it was
forced to accept the union with Rome. However, even after that, the
Orthodox parishes and monasteries in Galicia remained in the
jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, and were temporary
administered by the Bukovinian metropolitans, who were also part of
the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The most famous monastery and the center
of Orthodoxy in Galicia and Subcarpathia was the Great Maniava Skete,
whose brothers remained loyal to the Ecumenical Throne until its
violent liquidation in 1785 (that is, 100 years after the events of 1686).
10
ecclesiastical jurisdiction that did not depend on the Russian Synod and
recognized the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch. At a meeting on
May 21, 1792, by a majority of votes (123 votes for, 13 against), the Polish
Sejm approved the constitution proposed by the Pinsk Congregation for
a draft of a new organization of the Orthodox Church in the
Commonwealth, which was endowed with great rights and freedoms in
the state. However, because of the two new divisions of the
Commonwealth and the elimination of the Polish state, the Pinsk Local
Council and the Act of May 21, 1792, had practically not been
implemented in practice.
11
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As a result of Hetman Doroshenko’s
attempts at the Treaty of Buchach in 1672, the entire territory of the
Eastern and Western Podolia (from Buchach to Bratslav) withdrew from
Poland. In the territory of Ukrainian Podolia, from 1672 to 1699, there
was the Podolsky or Kamianetsky Eyalet (from the Ottoman Turkish for
province or governate) within the Ottoman Empire with an
administrative centre in Kamianets (now Kamianets-Podilsky). After the
death of Metropolitan Joseph (Nielubovich-Tukalsky), Ecumenical
Patriarch Jacob nominated Metropolitan Pankratius for the city of
Kamenets in August 1681, thus establishing the Metropolis of Kamianets
as part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which existed until 1699).
12
Olekshy Sich and the Orthodox communities located on the mainland of
the Crimean Khanate.
From 1751 to 1773 Metropolitan Daniel of Braila had his see in Izmail
and in ecclesiastical documents he signed as “Daniel, by the mercy of
God, Metropolitan of Parivlavia, Tomarovsky, Khotyn, the entire coast
of the Danube, Dnieper and Dniester, and of all Khan Ukraine.” The title
was also preserved by the successors of Daniel: Metropolitans Joachim
(1773-1780) and Cyril (1780-1792). This is already 100 years after the 1686
act.
As we see, all these facts testify that the act of 1686 concerned only the
Left-bank part of Ukraine, which was then under the authority of
Moscow and did not actually apply to other Ukrainian territories.
- You said that after the first destruction by the Russian troops of
the Zaporozhian Sich in 1709, the Ukrainian Cossacks, which went
under the protectorate of the Crimean Khan, returned under the
jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And what about the
Ukrainian hetmans Ivan Mazepa and Pylyp Orlyk, who led this first
Ukrainian emigration?
Archbishop Job: They were among the first to return to the omophorion
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Cossacks with them. Despite the
imposition of uncanonical anathemas on Hetman Mazepa by the
Russian Church, the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate did
not recognize them because they were imposed with political motives as
a means of political and ideological repression and had no religious,
theological or canonical reasons. So, upon emigration to Bender, Ivan
Mazepa freely confessed to Orthodox priests of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. It was they who nurtured him on his deathbed, released
him from sins, and then they buried him. His body was laid in the
Orthodox church of the town of Varnitsa, which was under the
jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and subsequently reburied
13
in Galati on the Danube, where the local Metropolitan served a funeral
service for the Hetman in the central cathedral of St. George’s
Monastery. This Metropolitan was a hierarch of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. So, we can say that Ivan Mazepa died as a believer of
Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate!
“The current newly elected Hetman, when the Lord God, mighty and
strong in the battles, will help … to liberate our Motherland, Little
Russia, from the slavish yoke of Moscow, will be bound by duty and
put under obligation to take special care that no alien religion is
introduced into Little Russia, our Motherland … so that the only faith in
the Eastern Orthodox confession, under the obedience of the Holy
Apostolic See of Constantinople, was eternally approved … And for the
greater authority of the Kievan metropolitan throne, which is foremost
in Little Russia, and for a more efficient administration of spiritual
matters, the Almighty Hetman should, after the liberation of our
fatherland from the Muscovite yoke, obtain from the Apostolic See of
Constantinople the original power of an exarch in order thereby to
renew relationship with and filial obedience to the aforementioned
Apostolic See of Constantinople, from which it was privileged to have
been enlightened in the holy universal faith by the preaching of the
Gospel”.
14
renewal of dialogue with the Mother Church, the Ecumenical
Patriarchate.
- And in our time, especially in the 20th century, did the jurisdiction
of the Patriarchate of Constantinople extend to some territory of
Ukraine?
15
successor to the historic Autonomous Metropolis of Kiev-Galicia under
the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Incidentally, the head of the autocephalous
Orthodox Church in Poland, the Metropolitan of Warsaw and all
Poland, was considered as the superior of the Holy Dormition Pochaev
Lavra. During the German occupation, already in 1941, startng from the
Western Ukrainian dioceses under the Orthodox Church in Poland, with
the blessing of its Primate, Metropolitan Dionysius (Valedinsky) of
Warsaw, according to the decree of 24 December 1941, an
“Administration of the Orthodox Church on the liberated Ukrainian
lands” was created, headed by its administrator, Metropolitan Polycarp
(Sikorsky) of Lutsk, who was a canonical bishop of the autocephalous
Orthodox Church in Poland. This administration is often called the
“Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” (UAOC), but this label is
not correct, because it was an extension of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction
of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland in the German-
occupied parts of the Ukrainian lands, on the assumption that the
Church of Poland had received its autocephaly on the basis of the
Kievan Metropolis. The locum tenens of the metropolitan throne of Kiev
at the time was considered to be Metropolitan Dionysius (Valedinsky) of
Warsaw, who was declared as the canonical Primate of the
autocephalous Orthodox Church in the territories of Poland, Ukraine
and Belarus, recognized by the Ecumenical Throne and other Local
Orthodox Churches.
16
Patriarchate, where they remained until the arrival of Soviet occupation
troops.
Archbishop Job: Yes, it was until 1946. And they were forcibly annexed
with the help of the NKVD punitive bodies to the Moscow Patriarchate,
and those who refused, were repressed and destroyed as martyrs for the
faith of Christ. And, importantly, Constantinople has never
17
acknowledged the destruction by the communist regime of the diocese
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Transcarpathia and its accession to
another jurisdiction. This accession was non-canonical and violent. And
it was not 300 years ago, but in 1946.
18
territory” are groundless here, since Constantinople has always had its
canonical structures in different areas of modern Ukraine from 860 and
988 years, and from 1686 until 1946. Therefore, in principle, not only the
act of 1696, but there are also more recent precedents of the spread of the
jurisdiction of Constantinople to various territories of Ukraine.
19
Dimitrios, it was said that the borders of 1593 left the Metropolis of Kiev
in the canonical boundaries of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
There are still a lot of work ahead. We are still at the beginning of this
great historical process, in the path of which there are still many
obstacles. Dialogue is just beginning. Nothing rushed works.
20
ecclesiastical unity and prevent the further remaining of millions of
Orthodox Ukrainians outside the canonical Church. The role of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate is to serve the unity of the entire Orthodox
Church, and not just some of its parts. And since the Orthodox Church
in Ukraine is now divided into several parts, the obligation of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, as Mother Church, through the launch of
dialogue, is to find the optimal means of canonical economy and restore
unity.
It is for this purpose that the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
has sent its envoys (exarchs) to Ukraine, so that they, through frank
dialogue with all parties to the conflict, can help them to understand and
reach an agreement. It is impossible to divide the Body of Christ. It
belongs to Christ, not to Moscow, Kiev or anyone else. There can be no
Church of the “Russian world” or some other. The Ecumenical Church
as the mystical Body of Christ has the right to belong to all who
sincerely seek to be with Christ, regardless of national or political beliefs
and preferences. It’s time to stop all those imperial political speculations
and ambitions. The reality is that there are millions of Orthodox
believers in Ukraine who will never go under Moscow. This is clear to
everyone. And because of that, prevent them to unite with Christ, and to
cut them and deprive them of salvation is not Christian, non-canonical.
We must look for other acceptable ways to solve this problem, using
ecclesial canons, economy and love.
I hope that this is only temporarily and that our brothers from the UOC
of the Moscow Patriarchate will understand the mistake of this path and
open their hearts to dialogue and fraternal unity in Christ. Similarly, the
representatives of the other parts of the Ukrainian Churches, who for the
various reasons are not in unity with the Universal Orthodoxy. After all,
unity in Christ must be our most important goal. Christ Himself
proclaimed: “That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I
21
in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that
You sent Me” (John 17:21). And “by this all will know that you are My
disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).
22