Archpriest Nikolai Danilevich: Tomos became the spiritual "Berlin Wall" for Ukrainian Orthodoxy

Archpriest Nikolai Danilevich: Tomos became the spiritual "Berlin Wall" for Ukrainian Orthodoxy Протоиерей Николай Данилевич: Томос стал духовной «берлинской стеной» для украинского Православия print version November 30, 2019 16:44 Archpriest Nikolai Danilevich, Deputy Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, gave an exclusive interview to the Apostrof website . - I would like to start the conversation with the important event of this year, namely the recognition by the Hellas Church , and after it by the Patriarchate of Alexandria , of the autocephaly of the “Orthodox Ukrainian Church” (hereinafter PCU). What is the official position of the UOC on this issue? - The final official position will be formed by the Synod of our Church, which has not yet met since the events you mentioned. Currently, there is a statement from the Department for External Church Relations of the UOC, which states that this decision was a stab in the back of the canonical UOC. After all, the churches you mentioned earlier recognized our Church as the only canonical, and now they have taken a diametrically opposite position. At the same time, we expressed gratitude to the metropolitans, priests and laity of the Church of Greece, who opposed the recognition of the PCO, and there were many of them. Ten bishops expressed their disagreement publicly, but in reality those bishops who are against the recognition of the PCO in the Greek Church, at least half. They are just silent. - Fear? Or why? - There are various reasons. Firstly, the Greek Church is half dependent on Constantinople. How? It has 80 metropolitans, of which 36 depend on Constantinople almost directly: they are administratively governed by the Synod in Athens, but the Constantinople Patriarch, whom they commemorate during the service, influences their election. This is historically the case. By the way, there was information that from Istanbul even the archbishop of Athens Jerome was threatened - if he does not recognize the PCO, then these 36 dioceses will be completely taken to Constantinople. Thus, we see that the PCUs were recognized by the satellites of the Patriarchate of Constantinople , that is, the same Greeks, only in other Churches. That is, the second reason is the pressure from Fanar itself (the district in Istanbul where the residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople is located is the “Apostrophe” ). The third reason is Greek solidarity. They are trying to support their Patriarch, even if he is not right. On October 12, 2019, many bishops of the Greek Church, when leaving the cathedral, which actually agreed with the recognition of the PCO, on the sidelines said literally like this: “We understand that it is wrong to recognize the saints and excommunicated, but we must help our Patriarch [Constantinople]”. For the Greeks, the Patriarch of Constantinople is to some extent a sacred person who reminds them of the glorious times of the Byzantine Empire, where the Greeks played a major role. It must be understood that the Greeks in Africa, namely in Alexandria and in Constantinople, are the remnants of those Greeks who remained there after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire. By the way, in Istanbul there are only 650 people living there now. The Ecumenical Patriarch, in fact, does not mean universal, but the patriarch of the empire, the Byzantine empire, which no longer exists. They just translated the title from Greek and mislead people. The fourth reason is the pressure of the Greek state, because the Greek Church has a connection with the state at the constitutional level, and, in fact, is the state Church. Bishops and priests in Greece receive salaries not from the Church, but from the state. The Greek state also finances the Alexandrian Patriarchate. And this means that they are dependent on the state. The last but very important reason is the pressure of the United States of America. This is also evident from the fact that the US ambassador to Greece, Jeffrey Payette, has recently met with the majority of the metropolitans of the Greek Church and continues to do so. Over the past year and a half, American ambassadors have begun to regularly meet with the heads and representatives of almost all the Local Orthodox Churches. The last such meetings are with the Patriarchs of Bulgaria and Serbia. This is confirmed by many official messages and photos that are easy to find on the Internet. In addition, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo welcomed the PCU with the creation, and the US Senate even published a whole resolution on this subject. And the other day a cherry on the cake was the message that on the second day after the announcement by the Jerusalem Patriarch Theophilos of November 21 of the initiative for an All-Orthodox meeting in Jordan to resolve the crisis in Orthodoxy, the Ambassador Jeffrey Payette, already mentioned by us, is meeting with the Archbishop of Athens Jerome , who after the meeting declares that will not go anywhere. And he clarifies that he will not go until Patriarch Bartholomew from Istanbul tells him about this. It is surprising why no other country pays such attention to the Orthodox processes in Ukraine, and America, which is the majority of the Protestant-Catholic country where the Orthodox belong to minorities, so openly supports the PCO? Agree, this causes certain suspicions. - What is the interest of the States? - I think that for the USA, Greece and Ukraine have value, rather, as an outpost in the confrontation with Russia, but now in the spiritual sense. If before the United States fought with Russia in the political, military, information and economic spheres, now the confrontation has passed into the church sphere. We in Ukraine need to clearly understand this. Understand our real place in these confrontations. We are a battlefield. Unfortunately. This is a big problem for the Church itself. The interference of political and geopolitical factors in the church situation is becoming very noticeable. And this is understood in the Local Churches. The other day, Anastasiy, the authoritative in the Orthodox world, Archbishop of Albania, supported the Patriarch of Jerusalem regarding pan-Orthodox discussion of the Ukrainian church issue. In his statement, he, incidentally, said that "the church events of the outgoing year created a new reality, with the clear intervention of geopolitical interests." Our Church is categorically against any external or internal state influences on church life. This only complicates the life and mission of the Church. This is one of the reasons why our Church did not want and does not want to take part in these games with the Tomos, which we have observed over the past year and a half. - And then what is the role of Russia in the struggle for church influence in Ukraine? “I understand your question.” Our Ukrainian Orthodox Church is often accused of allegedly wanting to be with Moscow, supporting the interests of the Russian Federation, the “Russian world”, etc. But this is not so, this is not true. As His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry said , when he was asked a similar question, "we are not building any Russian world, we are building the peace of God." This is important to understand. The church is separated from the state, both Ukrainian and Russian, and from the American, by the way. And the Church must be out of politics. Therefore, for the UOC, it is not Moscow that matters, not political issues, but church issues, questions of preserving the canonical order in the Church. These things must be understood and separated. At the same time, I would very much like that in the future Ukraine would not be anti-Russian, just as Russia would not be anti-Ukrainian. After all, both peoples suffer from this. But this is a mutual process, efforts are needed from both sides. The church and priests should call for peace and reconciliation, and not for war and confrontation. It is written in the gospel. This is what we are trying to do. There is no tension between the church people of our countries, the conflict exists only between politicians, between states. In my opinion, reconciliation could be started from the “information world”. We must stop in the media to pump hysteria against each other. We must move away from radical views and statements on both sides. - What reaction should be expected from other patriarchates? Will the already announced decisions of the Greek and Alexandrian Churches be a signal for them? - The situation with the proclamation of autocephaly of the PCU contradicts both the canons and the traditions of the Orthodox Church. This has never happened in church history. I mean, the presence of priestly and episcopal dignity is recognized for those who do not have it at all. And this is understood in the Local Churches. Therefore, even those Churches that identify with the erroneous actions of Phanar and recognize the PCO are forced to do this not because it is correct from the church point of view, but because they are subjected to external pressure. I am very unpleasant to talk about these things for an external audience, but people need to know the truth, because it has already come out. Thus, the answer to your question depends on whether other Churches are subject to external pressure or not. But in any case, churches that do not recognize the PCO will still remain until some kind of common Orthodox decision is made. It should be said frankly, now world Orthodoxy has not just entered the zone of turbulence, it faces the threat of a split. And the reason for this is the action of Constantinople. If here, in Ukraine, everything was done according to the canons and laws of the Church, then no one in the Orthodox world would have questions. But since the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine actually created a parallel hierarchy, having founded a parallel Church, introduced people into the bosom of the Church who in reality do not have priests and episcopal ordinations - this raises, to put it mildly, many questions in other Local Churches. Now in Ukraine there are two metropolitans of Kiev. It’s like two presidents in one state. But this is wrong! Why is our UOC opposing the PCU? Because the PCU was created on the basis of the UAOC and the UOC-KP, which were once parts of our Church. Speaking in secular language, in the early 1990s, processes of church separatism took place in Ukraine. The UAOC was separated from the UOC in 1989, and then the UOC-KP in 1992, and now these units, which then left us, claim to be called the Local Church of Ukraine. Such an absurdity took place in the Ukrainian church community. But the worst part is that this absurdity is being served and promoted as the norm today. Therefore, these wrong things should be corrected. - You mentioned the initiative of the Primate of the Church of Jerusalem, who invited the First Hierarchs to Jordan to discuss the issue of “maintaining unity in the Eucharistic communion”. What will this discussion give? Will it finally help to find harmony in the relations of the Orthodox? - Yes, this is a very positive and encouraging gesture. We hope that at the present crisis moment this voice will be heard and if not all, then a significant number of Church leaders will have the will to come there. And then the Ukrainian church issue will either be resolved, or the ways to resolve it will be outlined. At least this is a chance to solve the problem. There are no other options yet. And the voice of the Albanian Archbishop Anastasius, who also speaks for the Pan-Orthodox Conference, increases the chances that it can still take place. - What issues should be raised there? - The Ukrainian question, first of all. That is, what to do with the PCU and how to solve the church schism in Ukraine, since the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople only led to even bigger problems - not only in Ukraine, they created a pan-Orthodox crisis. And also, on occasion, other issues relevant to Orthodoxy may be raised.