Volodymyr Bureha, Candidate of Theology, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Professor at the Kyiv Theological Academy of the UOC
In recent decades, global Orthodoxy has been engaged in intense discussions concerning possible mechanisms for the establishment of new autocephalous Churches. These discussions have shown that, on the one hand, there are no fundamental differences among Local Churches in understanding the essence of the institution of autocephaly. However, on the other hand, there is no unity in global Orthodoxy regarding the procedure for granting autocephaly. Today, several differing views on the potential mechanisms for creating new autocephalous Churches coexist in Orthodox theology and canon law1.
In this presentation, I will attempt to reflect on the factors that influence the creation of new autocephalous Churches and how this relates to the current status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
The understanding of ecclesiastical independence has changed significantly in different historical periods. For example, the canons of the First Ecumenical Council present all metropolises as canonically independent. As the renowned Byzantine canonist Patriarch Theodore Balsamon wrote, “in ancient times, the metropolitans of all provinces were autocephalous (ὅτι τὸ παλαιὸν πάντες οἱ τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν μητροπολῖται αὐτοκέφαλοι ἦσαι) and received consecration from their own synods.”2 Clearly, in the 4th century, independent metropolises existed at least within the bounds of imperial dioceses—there were 12 such dioceses at the beginning of the 4th century, increasing to 15 by the century’s end. However, in the 5th–6th centuries, almost all these metropolises came under the authority of the five major patriarchates, forming the so-called Pentarchy.
The modern understanding of autocephalous Churches took shape over the past two centuries. Since the 19th century, it has become the norm to grant autocephaly to Churches within national states. This has influenced perceptions of which factors are decisive in the formation of new autocephalous Churches. Today, the following are generally regarded as such factors:
- The political independence of the region seeking autocephaly;
- The national identity of that region; and
- Its geographical remoteness from the Mother Church.
I would even argue that the factor of state independence plays a decisive role in the creation of new autocephalous Churches. As soon as a new independent state appears on the world map, the question of its ecclesiastical independence inevitably arises. This was the case in the 19th century with Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria, and in the 20th century with Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Albania. At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, the factor of political independence became decisive in discussions surrounding the autocephaly of the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine and North Macedonia.
However, in the second half of the 20th century, in addition to the three aforementioned factors, several additional elements began to be mentioned, which may also influence the process of achieving ecclesiastical independence.
Here I deliberately refer to Patriarch Alexy I of Moscow (Simansky, 1877–1970), who in 1948, in his address at the meeting of Primates and representatives of the autocephalous Churches, attempted to formulate these additional factors. In his view, the first additional factor justifying the proclamation of autocephaly could be a threat to the purity of the Orthodox faith emanating from the leadership of the Mother Church. The second additional factor, according to Patriarch Alexy, was the dependence of the Mother Church on a state authority that espoused anti-Christian views, thereby endangering both the kyriarchal Church and all of its constituent parts.3
Let us recall that in 1948 the 500th anniversary of the autocephaly of the Moscow Metropolis was being celebrated. Thus, Patriarch Alexy based his address primarily on the experience of the Church in the Muscovite state of the 15th century. In 1439, the Church of Constantinople entered into union with the Roman See. As a result, Moscow regarded Constantinople, its Mother Church, as a threat to the preservation of the purity of the Orthodox faith. Consequently, the metropolis in Moscow began striving for full independence “from the Greek Church, which was then shaken.”4 Additionally, in 1453, Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Turks. The Byzantine Empire was replaced by the Ottoman state, ruled by a Muslim sultan, who also held authority over the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This introduced another important factor: the appointment of metropolitans to Moscow would henceforth have to be approved by a non-Christian ruler. This was clearly unacceptable to the secular authorities in Moscow and contributed to the final separation of the Moscow Metropolis from the Church of Constantinople.
In the 1960s, Professor Alexander Bogolepov (1886–1980), who lived in the United States, analyzed Patriarch Alexy’s address and sought to give these additional factors a universal dimension, applying them to the North American Metropolis. Professor Bogolepov pointed out that after the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, the Moscow Patriarchate fell under the control of an atheistic political regime. He wrote: “The pressure of the communist regime on the Russian Church proved even stronger than the former pressure of the Muslims on the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” Thus, submission to the ecclesiastical center in Moscow posed a real threat to the canonical structure of the North American Metropolis, its freedom of faith, and even the purity of Orthodox belief. Indirectly, the Metropolis was being brought under the control of an atheist Soviet government, which waged a conscious campaign against the Church. In this situation, the North American Metropolis “had no alternative but to establish a system of governance completely independent from the Moscow Patriarchate.”5 This laid the foundation for the formation of an autocephalous Church in North America and Canada.
In this way, Professor Bogolepov, building upon the ideas of Patriarch Alexy I, articulated another extremely important supplement to the traditional criteria for the creation of new autocephalies. In the 20th century, one of the factors for establishing new independent Churches became the desire to break free from the control of totalitarian states that had subordinated the leadership of the Mother Churches. Developing Bogolepov’s thesis, one could argue that if a state in which the Mother Church resides forms an authoritarian or totalitarian political regime that subjugates ecclesiastical governance, then Church territories located in other states not only have the right but also the obligation to separate from the Mother Church. Such separation allows for the preservation of the Church’s canonical order and internal freedom.
Professor Bogolepov’s theses are especially relevant in today’s Ukraine. We see that the Orthodox Church in Russia has fallen under the complete control of an authoritarian state, which is actively transforming into a classic dictatorial regime. The Russian government has launched a war against Ukraine. This war is being conducted using openly criminal methods and aims not only to conquer Ukraine but to eradicate Ukrainian national identity itself. In this context, both Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and many other Russian bishops and priests have repeatedly expressed their full support for the Russian military aggression against Ukraine.
In such circumstances, we must apply the very criteria described by Professor Bogolepov. For me, it is entirely obvious that the Church in Russia, which today fully supports military aggression, constitutes a direct threat to the canonical order and freedom of the Orthodox Church on the territory of Ukraine. And this threat alone is sufficient grounds for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to terminate its canonical subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate.
I will express one more point that is especially important to me. I believe that Patriarch Kirill’s de facto support for the military aggression against Ukraine and even his designation of this aggression as a “holy war” constitutes a moral crime. Justifying Russian militarism is in direct contradiction to Gospel morality. Therefore, Patriarch Kirill has simply lost his legitimacy as a spiritual pastor.
Church canons exist to help implement the moral norms enshrined in the Gospel within the life of the Church. Therefore, canons must be subordinate to the norms of Christian morality. If a Church hierarch publicly supports actions that contradict Christ’s commandments, he loses his legitimacy even without reference to specific conciliar canons. For this reason, I believe the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the spring of 2022 not only had the right to separate from the Moscow Patriarchate, but was directly obliged to do so in order to preserve the purity of Orthodox faith and morality, and to safeguard its dignity and internal freedom.
I believe that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church should build its identity on this very foundation today. This approach corresponds both to the norms of Christian ethics and to the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church.
- See more: Дамаскин (Папандреу), митр. Автокефалия и способ её провозглашения // Дамаскин (Папандреу), митр. Православие и мир. Исследовательский центр Священной Обители Кикку, Кипр; Изд. Ливани — Нэа Синора, 1994. С. 245-258.[↩]
- Ράλλης Γ. Α., Ποτλῆς Μ. Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συνόδων, καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων. Τόμος Δεύτερος. Ἀθήνῃσιν, 1852. Σ. 171.[↩]
- Деяния совещания глав и представителей автокефальных Православных Церквей. М., 1949. Т. 1. С. 10-15.[↩]
- Деяния совещания… Т. 1. С. 13.[↩]
- Bogolepov A. Toward an American Orthodox Church. Crestwood, 2001. P. 98-99.[↩]