by Rev. Dr. Nicholas Denysenko
The creation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) has inspired a number of hypotheses on who initiated the event. Past president Petro Poroshenko, Patriarch Filaret, and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew are usually identified as the architects of Ukrainian autocephaly. There is also a chorus of voices that attributes the creation of the OCU to the American government. Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, recently claimed that the OCU is an American creation, and that the USA desires to create a schism in global Orthodoxy. Lavrov made his claim immediately after Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev’s trip to the United States.
Hilarion was scheduled to meet with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on October 22. Coincidentally, Metropolitan Epifaniy (Dumenko), the primate of the OCU, was set to meet Pompeo the next morning. Hilarion’s meeting with Pompeo was cancelled after the secretary assigned a deputy to represent him at the meeting (Hilarion declined). Pompeo’s meeting with Epifaniy took place as planned, and Pompeo expressed America’s support for the new church.
Is this enough evidence to verify that the US government created the OCU? If not, what do these meetings and statements mean, and what are their implications for American ambitions in Ukraine and Russia? Continue reading
by His Eminence Metropolitan Ignatius of Demetrias (Volos, Greece)
The following are excerpts from the intervention of His Eminence Metropolitan Ignatius of Demetrias, Chairman of the Synodal Committee for Inter-Orthodox and Inter-Christian Relations, during the Extraordinary Session of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece (12th October 2019).
The Synodal Committee for Inter-Orthodox and Inter-Christian Relations, which I am honored to chair, explicitly followed the mandate of the Standing Holy Synod of the Church of Greece. In this light, I would like to summarize the prevailing perspectives during the Committee’s discussions, drawing your attention to the following five points:
- The Ukrainian Orthodox people
As His Beatitude pointed out in his opening address, we are concerned with the Orthodox people of an independent state, which Ukraine constitutes today. We are dealing with millions of Orthodox faithful, who have historically suffered from policies of either Poland or Russia. Therefore, our focused discussions on the validity of Ordinations and the stance of Bishops must take into account the existence of millions of believers for whom we are responsible. Continue reading
by Mother Abbess Theoxeni
The Order of Saint Andrew the Apostle will soon be publishing a collection of essays titled The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukraine Autocephaly: Historical, Canonical, and Pastoral Perspectives. The collection will include twelve papers by eminent clergy and laity related to the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. We are pleased to offer our readers an exclusive preview by Mother Abbess Theoxeni: “The Voice of Silence: A Monastic Voice on the Ukrainian Question.”
“Evil is erroneous judgment concerning the conceptual images of things.” – Saint Maximus the Confessor (Chapters on Love, 2.17)
The decades-long schism in Ukrainian church life has created polarization not only between ecclesiastical jurisdictions, but also in the hearts of the people.
Saint Maximus described erroneous judgment concerning the conceptual images of things as evil. Similarly, a mistaken assessment of the complicated situation that has prevailed for many years in Ukraine has led to an accumulation of many evils, producing deep social division and a rift in the ecclesiastical body with countless tragic consequences.
In the Orthodox Church we pray “for the welfare of the holy churches of God and the union of all [people],” and we invoke the unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit. This means that the Holy Spirit is to be found in unity and that the gifts of the Holy Spirit activate unity. How indeed can there be unity when we do not live in accordance with those gifts which Saint Paul names as “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Galatians 5.22)? Continue reading
His Grace Bishop Maxim (Vasiljevic) | српски
In European cities, the period of anticipation of the joyous feast of Christmas has turned into a commercial and consumerist custom. Why are we so far away from an authentic approach to the feast?
There will always be a number of those who see in Christmas another opportunity to evoke the past and traditionalism, which returns to the past by “protological” mindset. Man aspires to archetypes. However, I would say that those who are faithful among us are also responsible for the commercialization of Christmas. We have begun to look for symbolism in the “past” (the cave, the fire, and such) by conjuring up the atmosphere of the Bethlehem cave. We have contributed to directing the meaning of the holiday to the past, and not the future. The entire event of the Birth of Christ—by which, as we know, the New Testament begins—is in the sign of future events: the God-child has come to save the human race, but its salvation is not completed by the incarnation of God alone, but by the events that follow, such as the Resurrection and Pentecost. This perspective requires another set of eyes and logic far from an archetype point of view but instead from an “eschatotype”. With such a perspective, Christmas is connected not with a romantic winter night, but with a startling desire for salvation from death.
The thought of a Polish writer Stanisław Jerzy Lec, which goes: “the most difficult time for the truth is the one in which everything can be truth”, seems to be valid for our time as well? Continue reading