Healing the schism?

Why did Metropolitan Filaret write a letter to the Council of Bishops

27 years ago, shortly after the June 1990 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, the locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko) announced the creation of the Kyiv Patriarchate. Metropolitan Filaret, as the oldest member of the synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, became the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne after the death in May 1990 of Patriarch Pimen (Izvekov). He really hoped to take the patriarchal throne in Moscow, but the Council, in the spirit of perestroika and glasnost, was thinking about other candidates for patriarchs. Those who would be able to lead the new course of the church. I, at that time a young teacher at the Moscow Theological Academy, remember those days of June very well.

A number of bishops suggested electing Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh (Bloom) as Patriarch. If this election had taken place, we would certainly live not only in a completely different church, but also in a completely different Russia. But most of the bishops were afraid.

An émigré patriarch, popular throughout the Christian world for his outstanding pastoral theology and his ascetic life, a patriarch who had never dealt with the KGB and rejected Bolshevism from the very beginning—this was something new and terrible.

They preferred to choose their own, but still different - their “home West”. The Baltics were such a “home West” for the Soviet people. And now - a patriarch from Estonia, with a German-Danish surname, who had experience in European country, and then the experience of faithful service to the communist government - this was just the right person. Man "restructuring within the system." They elected Metropolitan Alexy (Ridiger) as Patriarch. Vladyka Anthony peacefully returned to London, but Vladyka Filaret returned to Kyiv “like a roaring lion”, created an independent Ukrainian Church, and became its patriarch. A significant part of the Orthodox parishes followed him. They talked about 25-40 percent. Rebukes, curses, and defrocking from both sides followed. But everything gradually stabilized.

Ukraine lived with three Orthodox churches (the Moscow Patriarchate, the Kiev Patriarchate and the Orthodox Autocephalous Church). Most people of the jurisdiction didn't care. We went to that church, which is closer, in which the priest is better.

But everything changed in March 2014. Russian aggression against Ukraine has split the Ukrainian society. For those who decided to resist aggression, it would be difficult to go to a church where the “Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'” is commemorated. Even in many churches of the ROC-UOC-MP they stopped commemorating him, and they preferred not to talk about ties with Moscow at all. Otherwise, many parishioners will leave. And then a number of Rada deputies suggested that the UOC-MP be considered a "hostile agent", since its control center is located in a hostile state - Russia. With which Ukraine is actually at war.

In the face of very serious upheavals in the church life of Ukraine, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, currently taking place in Moscow, has, admittedly, made a very sensible decision: to give actual independence to the Ukrainian Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. Now the UOC not only elects its own leader, the metropolitan and other bishops, but is also the highest instance of the church court. The court of the Moscow Patriarchate has no power over her. And, which is specially emphasized, it is controlled not from Moscow, but from Kyiv. The Ukrainian Church is now connected with the Moscow Patriarchate “only by spiritual ties,” it was said at the Council.

It would seem that a quarter of a step remains until the complete independence of the Ukrainian Church. But a number of reservations - the Patriarch of Moscow must now be commemorated in all churches, the charter of the UOC-MP must now be approved in Moscow, etc. - minimizes the important decisions made about "only spiritual ties." Legal reservations, alas, remained, and there are many of them. This is what will now be discussed.

And at this dramatic moment, the only surviving candidate for Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' at the 1990 Council (and now the head of the Ukrainian Patriarchate, Metropolitan Filaret, in the world Denisenko) wrote a letter to the 2017 Council, in which he says:

“Over the past years, many chagrins and strife have marred mutual relations between the Orthodox in our countries. May the day come when, according to the word of the divine service of the Paschal celebration, “Let us embrace each other, say, “Brothers!” and to those who hate us we will forgive everything for the sake of the Resurrection. And I, as your brother and co-servant, ask for forgiveness for everything that I have sinned in word, deed and all my feelings, and I also sincerely forgive everyone from the heart. With love in Christ, your brother Filaret. Kyiv. November 16, 2017".

I do not want to discuss the motives that prompted the elderly bishop to write this letter. I want to believe in his sincerity. However, in any case, this message of Filaret, in the conditions of even the independence that is now represented to the Ukrainian Church by the Moscow Patriarchate, opens up the possibility of a quick reunification of the two Orthodox jurisdictions of Ukraine. And after reunification, autocephaly will be a completely natural outcome. And if the church schism is healed, will the healing of the interstate schism not begin?