This was a very important weekend in the history of Eastern Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine and Russia — for those (including journalists) who believe that religious traditions and symbols matter as much as statements by government officials and headlines in Western media.
At the center of the drama, of course, was the city of Kiev, as it is known in to Russians and many Ukrainians, and Kyiv, as it is known to many Ukrainians, as well as officials in the United States and the European Union.
Here’s the quotation I keep thinking about, drawn from a historian (and Orthodox priest) I interviewed for a 2018 column that ran with this headline: “A thousand years of Orthodox history loom over today’s Moscow-Istanbul clash.” That quote: "Kiev is the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church is Kiev." From this point of view, the churches of Ukraine and Russia are brothers, connected by centuries of shared history — good and bad — and Orthodox tradition.
The crucial issue, in many ways, is one the press seems to think is secondary — the future of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, the font of Orthodox spirituality in the Slavic world.
Let’s start with two short wire-service reports and, along the way, I will point readers to some crucial documents that add more depth and clues as to what is happening. First, from the Associated Press:
KYIV, Ukraine — The leaders of the Orthodox churches in Ukraine that were affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church have adopted measures declaring the church’s full independence and criticizing the Russian church’s leader for his support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Orthodoxy, the largest religious denomination in Ukraine, is divided between churches that had been loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate and those under a separate ecclesiastical body.
The council of the Moscow-connected body, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, on Friday said it “condemns the war as a violation of God’s commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill!’ ... and expresses disagreement with the position of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia regarding the war in Ukraine.”
It also adopted charter changes “indicating the full self-sufficiency and independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”
Note, in the lede, the assumption that simply saying that this has happened means that it has happened, as in the “leaders of the Orthodox churches in Ukraine that were affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church.”
Now, the official declarations (click here for details) made by the leaders of the oldest Orthodox body in Ukraine — usually called the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) — are very serious and they were accompanied by changes in WORSHIP that, for the Orthodox, are even more important than words on paper. The UOC is different than the new-born Orthodox Church of Ukraine, created in late 2018 by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, with the backing of the U.S. and EU.
Here is a piece of a summary by a conservative Orthodox source:
The [UOC] Council issued a number of resolutions, including a condemnation of the fratricidal war, disagreement with [Moscow] Patriarch Kirill’s position on the war, what’s necessary for there to be any dialogue with the schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine,” and declarations of the increased independence of the UOC.
Notably, the possibility of the UOC making Chrism [consecrated oil] was discussed. In the Russian tradition, making Chrism is typically seen as one of the foremost signs of autocephaly, although this was not only the case. Chrism was made for centuries in both Moscow and Kiev, and in fact in other diocesan centers. Chrism was last made in the Kiev Caves Lavra in 1913.
This brings us to a Reuters report about a potential clash between the UOC and the new OCU that, literally, could end up in a clash between monks and Ukrainian police or troops. This short story is a perfect example of how Western media see this story.
The key: Journalists continue to assume that the ecumenical patriarch is a kind of Eastern pope who can act alone to make major changes in global Orthodox life, as opposed to being the first among equals — with Orthodox tradition stressing that the leaders of the ancient patriarchates seek unity in a councilor manner when dealing with big issues. The Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) is not one of the ancient churches, but it — in terms of members — it is the world’s largest Orthodoxy flock.
So here is the Reuters story: “Demand by Orthodox Church of Ukraine over monastery could widen rift.” I will then note a few key phrases in this report:
KYIV, May 24 (Reuters) — The Orthodox Church of Ukraine is seeking permission from the government to take over a building on the grounds of a historic monastery in Kyiv, a move likely to widen a rift with a separate Ukrainian church that adheres to Moscow.
The sprawling Kyiv Pechersk Lavra complex is a Ukrainian cultural treasure and the headquarters of the Russian-backed wing of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church known as the Moscow Patriarchate.
Ukrainians and Russians are predominantly Orthodox Christians, but Ukrainian church leaders have been at odds with Russia since the Orthodox Church of Ukraine was formed in 2018, ending centuries of Russian stewardship over Ukraine's largest church.
Some churches, including the Pechersk Lavra, chose to remain loyal to Moscow, a decision that has led them to be ostracized by much of Ukrainian society since Russia's Feb. 24 invasion.
Ukraine's Orthodox Church said in a statement that a synod had decided to ask the church's primate to press the government to transfer to it "one of the churches of the Upper Lavra and some of its premises for use in worship and monastic activities". There was no immediate reaction from the Moscow Patriarchate.
To say that the Lavra is a “historic monastery” is a great understatement. It was founded in 1051 and has, ever since, been seen as the spiritual heart of Slavic Christianity. Thus, the oldest Orthodox church in Ukraine — the UOC — is based there.
The last paragraph is especially important: Who is the “church’s primate” who is being asked to take the monumental step of DIVIDING this monastery, creating a competing body of monks on this site that — I cannot stress this too much — is much, much more than a “cultural treasure” or a single “church.”
Again the key is that the story assumes, as its foundation, that the new OCU is the canonical Orthodox body in Ukraine. I also assume that this request for action was sent to the ecumenical patriarch, not to the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church who are, for the monks, their superiors (based on centuries of tradition).
What happens if the Ukrainian government attempts, by force, to seize part of the sprawling Lavra complex?
Now, I want to note another crucial event that took place this weekend. Once again, this was a moment that took place in a Divine Liturgy — the kind of event the press tends to avoid. But this is the kind of action that, to the Orthodox, means everything.
Once again, this is from a conservative Orthodox news source. I have placed some passages in bold text:
His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine commemorated all the primates of the Local Churches with whom the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is in communion during the Liturgy at the Kiev Caves Lavra today.
Thus, Met. Onuphry didn’t commemorate His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia as the hierarch over him, but rather read the diptychs according to the practice of the primates of the autocephalous Local Churches.
Previously, as the head of an autonomous Church within the Moscow Patriarchate, Met. Onuphry commemorated His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia as the primate of the Local Russian Church, while Pat. Kirill commemorates the heads of the other Local Churches.
At 1:16:25 in the video below, the deacon commemorates “Orthodox Patriarchs,” followed by Met. Onuphry, and His Grace Metropolitan Pavel of Vyshgorod, the abbot of the Kiev Caves Lavra.
At 1:31:25, Met. Onuphry begins reading the diptychs of Orthodox primates during the Great Entrance, as would the primate of a Local Church. In this commemoration, he prays for Pat. Kirill as a primate with whom he is in communion.
His Beatitude didn’t commemorate Patriarchs Bartholomew of Constantinople or Theodoros of Alexandria, or Archbishops Chrysostomos of Cyprus or Ieronymos of Greece.
In other words, Metropolitan Onuphry is not appealing to Istanbul. He is appealing to Moscow to recognize the older Ukrainian body as independent. Also note that this liturgy is taking place in one of the churches of the Kiev Lavra.
My commentary: I would say that Onuphry is appealing to the Orthodox patriarchs at the global level, seeking assistance in reconciling the claims of the patriarchs in the giant Russian church and the tiny church in Turkey (and its brother churches in the giant Greek Orthodox Church).
Can there be reconciliation between the old UOC and the new OCU, with its roots in splinter churches in Ukraine? I believe this will require input from other patriarchs. Remember: The ecumenical patriarch is not an Orthodox pope, even if the U.S. and E.U. believe that he is a pope.
Now, here is one more document. This is long, but important. This is drawn directly from the UOC legal department and concerns the Lavra. The bold text is from the original document:
On May 23, 2022, the “OCU” Synod has decided to “establish a religious organisation called the “Holy Dormition Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra (male monastery) of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (“Orthodox Church of Ukraine”) that is to be included in the jurisdiction of the religious association known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (“Orthodox Church of Ukraine”). “It also decided to “apply to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine with a request that one of the churches of the Upper Lavra in addition to some of its premises be transferred to this new “Holy Dormition Kyiv-Pechersk UOC“ (“OCU”) with the intention that they will used for prayer services as well as for monastic activities“.
Note that the OCU’s appeal to PROPERTY in the Lavra was made to the Ukrainian government.
Now, back to the response from the older UOC:
In this regard, first and foremost , we emphasise that by attempting to establish an “OCU” male monastery at Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, the Synod of the “OCU” is actually duplicating the name of the legitimate male monastery of the UOC, which is currently operating at Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra.
This decision also confirms the aggressive policy of church looting which has been perpetrated by the “OCU” , at Holy Synod level, ever since the beginning of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine; and which consists of the illegal seizure of churches and religious organisations that belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC).
The practice of creating parallel church structures with similar or identical names was introduced during the time of Filaret (Denysenko) in order to raid the property of other religious communities.
Filaret is a reference to a hierarch who — after being excommunicated by the UOC — played a major role in the birth of the new OCU. Back to the document from the leaders of the Kiev Lavra and their superiors:
Since the 90’s, through the efforts of worshippers and monks of the UOC male monastery, the, churches and monks` cells as well as liturgical life at the Holy Dormition Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra have been restored; a process which is continuing to this day.
According to statistics from the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (DESS), as of January 1, 2021, the network of monasteries of the “OCU” consists of 79 monasteries, including 233 monks ; that`s a total of 2.9 monks per monastery. This information indicates that at present, the “OCU” does not need to establish additional monasteries, as there are practically no people willing to live a monastic life in the “OCU”, and the vast majority of the “OCU” monasteries exist only nominally on paper.
In this regard, it may be safe to conclude that the decision of the “OCU” Synod to establish a male monastery is simply yet another attempt to establish an artificial monastery, which is not aimed at organising monastic life, but instead simply poses a potential threat of exacerbating religious hatred.
That’s the view of the UOC, which — as I noted — is seeking independence from Moscow, but not through the claims of authority of Constantinople.
As I have said before, Orthodox leaders do not move quickly. This is, literally, a Byzantine conflict.
But, in this case, it appears that Onuphry is making an urgent appeal for help, seeking a path to a church in Ukraine that would be seen as independent by all of Orthodoxy. This means standing up to Moscow, as well as to Istanbul, Washington, D.C., and Brussels.
Stay tuned. Will the Ukrainian government, and the world’s press, call for a settlement based on the actions of police and troops? How would Moscow — the government, as opposed to the church hierarchy — respond to an attempt to seize part of the holy Kievan Lavra?
FIRST IMAGE: A photo of part of the Lavra of the Kievan Caves, drawn from the official UOC statement about this monastic conflict.