The article was written within the framework of the joint project of the Sophienbruderschaft and the German foundation Renovabis, “Modern Ukrainian Orthodoxy: Debunking Myths for the Sake of Reconciliation among the Orthodox in Ukraine and the Consolidation of Ukrainian Society.” The Sophienbruderschaft may not share the positions of the authors; likewise, individual opinions expressed by representatives of the Brotherhood within the framework of the project may not represent the consolidated position of the Sophienbruderschaft.
Priest Serhii Barshai, UOC, Sophienbruderschaft
Within the episcopate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, a person has finally appeared who publicly stated that autocephaly is a desirable status for any Church (including the Ukrainian one). Such a person was the rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Archbishop Sylvester Stoichev.
In general, within the UOC environment it was never customary to conduct any serious discussions on the topic of autocephaly as applied to one’s own structure. Despite the supposedly positive attitude of the late Primate, Metropolitan Volodymyr Sabodan, such a development for the Church was allowed only with certain “buts” that in fact made it impossible. The situation really looked like a search for reasons not to achieve something, rather than a search for possibilities to realize it. The only exception was Metropolitan Sophronii Dmytruk of Cherkasy and Kaniv, who always defended the urgent necessity of autocephaly for the UOC. But he, unfortunately, reposed back in 2020.
Any discussion on this topic was cut short by arguments such as “it is necessary, but not timely,” “people will not understand this,” “the very word autocephaly frightens people,” “we Orthodox must first unite among ourselves—and only then,” and so on.
Arguments against our autocephaly were also heard “from across the border.” However, even our domestic opponents of it recognized their absurdity. At the very top (including from the mouth of the Primate) it was said that today the UOC has an optimal (or even ideal) status, that it has all the features of an autocephalous Church and is not limited in any way in its governance.
But such claims underwent a serious test after the appearance in Moscow of a new church leader—Kirill Gundyaev. Under him, no one spoke seriously anymore about the UOC’s “factual autocephaly.” This topic sounded even less in the public space under the new Primate of the UOC, precisely when the need for full—rather than ghostly “factual”—independence for the UOC became more than obvious.
And today, in the twelfth year of the war with Russia, the UOC hierarchy still refrains from discussing this painful issue. Accordingly, naturally, no one from the episcopate risks raising such a topic either. Although time has already shown that it will not “go away” on its own; rather, being left hanging, it is capable only of becoming more complicated, causing more and more problems both for individual believers and for the Church as a whole.
Yet finally, the silence “about this” was broken—and not by someone in an imaginary altar-server’s corner or in a kitchen, but by an archpastor, and moreover the rector of a leading church educational institution. On the Vinnytsia YouTube channel “Dumka na kameru” (“Thought on Camera”) (hosted by the priest Roman Makar), in a podcast on the topic “What future awaits the UOC? Autocephaly or schism?” Archbishop Sylvester voiced thoughts that were simply revolutionary for a UOC hierarch.
“Autocephaly is the normal mode of existence for any local Church. Any local Church must necessarily desire autocephaly; it is the natural desire of every local Church to exist in this way,” the bishop answered the first question about what autocephaly is, in his view.
At the same time, the archbishop considers the existence of opponents of an “autocephalous” development within the UOC entirely normal: “I cannot imagine a situation where, условно говоря, out of one hundred percent of the episcopate or clergy, one hundred percent would be in agreement and would look at everything the same way, even on one topic. Besides, the people are only in favor.” All the more so because, as the bishop reminded, no sociological polls on this issue have ever been conducted. “In the Church there are and it is necessary that there be different opinions. This is normal for the existence of a church community… I am for having consensus, but consensus can be achieved only when there is a minimum. A minimum, so that we have the opportunity for bishops with bishops, and bishops with priests and the people, to exchange opinions.”
When the host asked why bishops or priests often cite, as a serious reason, the alleged unwillingness for autocephaly among parishioners, the guest noted: “I often hear priests I know: ‘my people are against it.’ And I say: ‘Of course they are against it, because for thirty years you told them that autocephaly is the road to hell. And now you want to say something else. How will they react?’”
It was also quite interesting to learn whether there are criteria today that are necessary for obtaining such a status. The bishop presented the contemporary view on this question among Greek and Slavic theologians. These should include, in particular, territorial independence, national distinctiveness, a sufficient number of bishops or candidates for the episcopate, a developed network of educational institutions and monasteries and brotherhoods.
Of course, in the Ukrainian case all these factors are present. But if, say, the first two can somehow be defined, then what can be considered a sufficient number of bishops, educational institutions, or monasteries remains unclear. Moreover, one could say that contemporary church experience has completely nullified such criteria.
Can one, for example, consider the network of educational institutions sufficiently developed in the Polish Church (with its two educational institutions), or in the Albanian, Jerusalem, and the Churches of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, which have only one educational institution each? Or is the number of bishops sufficient for an autocephalous Church in Albania (seven persons) and in the Czech Lands and Slovakia (six)? All the named Churches exist in countries where the Orthodox population constitutes a tiny fraction. And if the Jerusalem Church, as autocephalous, has an ancient history, the other three are young autocephalies. Despite their small numbers and proportional correspondences within their countries, certain historical events nevertheless led to their receiving autocephalous status, and they have already taken shape as such, proving that to carry out the mission worthily today it is not necessary to be numerically powerful.
In this context it was interesting to hear from the archbishop also, perhaps shocking for some, but nevertheless an obvious fact: “To think that something can happen without politics or without political influence is an illusion. We do not live in a vacuum, and this needs to be understood. National Local Orthodox Churches arose as a result of the combination of the desires of the state, the political sphere, the people, and the church hierarchs.
And whether we want it or not, there will always be different models of interaction between the Church and the state—from, conditionally speaking, the classic symphonia to classic French secularism. One needs to understand that politics influenced, influences, and will influence church life one way or another. There is real history. And real history is this: it is not always of quality, it is not always useful, it is not always correct, but nevertheless this factor was present.”
Here it will indeed be appropriate to recall that both the ancient Greek Churches and the younger ones (including the Russian Church) gained autocephaly not without the active participation of their states.
Another important, though not obvious to many, point that the guest emphasized at the end of the conversation was that “today the Orthodox world is completely different from what it was thirty years ago… all hierarchs of all local Churches understand: the Ukrainian church question requires great attention, a serious approach, and a systemic solution. And even the global situation—geopolitical and cultural—has changed over these years. Now everything that happens in Ukraine is perceived by all local Churches not as a local problem of ‘some bishop who broke away from subordination,’ but as an issue that concerns the entire Orthodox world.
Today absolutely everyone understands: the Ukrainian question cannot be solved only by prohibitions or extreme methods. Because thirty years have shown their complete ineffectiveness.”
When the host asked how the balance in relations between the Church and the country’s leadership should be built, given that “we have quite difficult relations,” the bishop answered: “First, we need to hear one another… the state is not going anywhere from us and we are not going anywhere from the state either… we remain living in Ukraine; this is our country; we are its citizens. Therefore, I am sure: the state is not going anywhere and we are not going anywhere from the state. We need to look for some options for communication and mutual understanding. I do not see another path.” Today, perhaps, for a UOC hierarch even to say this much is already not little, because it is clear to everyone who does not hear whom today (the state or the Church), and who is hiding from dialogue and from solving problems.
It seems that the current unpleasant processes taking place around and within the UOC nevertheless add courage to its hierarchs and prompt them at least not to remain silent about things that previously it was not customary to talk about. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church did not differ earlier in its activity in voicing its position on pressing issues either. In recent years, when the voice of the Church became especially needed, its leadership, on the contrary, isolated itself from the outside world and even from its own flock.
This time Bishop Sylvester seemingly did nothing unusual—he simply spoke in a studio. However, the questions asked of him, and especially his answers, have today become a truly revolutionary breakthrough in the informational armor into which the Church has been driven by its leadership.