"RUSSIA WILL AGREE TO AUTOCEPHALY IN UKRAINE, BUT THERE IS A CATCH"—ZUBOV
by Tatiana Gaizhevskaya
On 31 August, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church (RPTs), Patriarch Kirill, will meet in Istanbul with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. It is reported that the heads of the churches will discuss "bilateral questions presenting common interest."
Are Ukraine and granting autocephaly to its church such a "common interest"? Does Patriarch Kirill have levers of pressure on Patriarch Bartholomew? What does the ideal option for the resolution of the "Ukrainian question" look like for the RPTs?
Russian historian and political leader Andrei Zubov spoke about this and much else in a blitz-interview with Obozrevatel.
--T.G: What do you think: is Ukraine one of the "questions presenting common interest"? If so, could the question of Ukraine be question number one for this meeting?
''A.Z: I think so. Right now in church relations, the Kiev-Moscow-Constantinople triangle is, certainly, the most important thing. And whether autocephaly will be granted and who will grant autocephaly is the primary question.
I consider that, since Patriarch Kirill is a reasonable man, he understands that the autocephaly of the Ukrainian church is an inevitable thing. Sooner or later it will come. And apparently sooner. The question is, as they say, overripe.
The second largest Orthodox country in the world, according to the traditions of the universal Orthodox church, of course, must have autocephaly.
The question is how autocephaly will be created. If it will be created through Constantinople, by means of the creation of some new church, in accordance with Patriarch Bartholomew's idea, with which all Orthodox churches agree—that is one option. To be sure, it is very displeasing not only to Moscow but also to the Ukrainian Church of the Moscow Patriarchate [UPTsMP].
The second option: the Moscow patriarchate grants autocephaly to a part of its own church. And then the other churches of Ukraine join it. For Moscow this is the most proper decision. And at the same time the same goal is achieved: autocephaly.
--Which option do you think Patriarch Kirill is most inclined to?
--That I do not know. But proceeding from its own interests and objective reality, it is this way that would be more correct for the Moscow patriarchate to act.
It would be a mistake to restrain Constantinople from granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian church and then not grant it itself.
I think that a situation has arisen like when . . . Maybe this is not an entirely appropriate image. Nevertheless. A daughter has grown up at home and she is an adult and it is necessary to marry her off. It is better to marry her off than to allow her to run off with somebody on her own.
It is important that Moscow grant complete autocephaly to the Ukrainian church in the correct way. This would be the most proper and necessary decision for Moscow.
--What kind of suggestions do you think Patriarch Kirill is going to Bartholomew with?
--That's the most important thing. To know that. But nobody knows that. So far, as we know, Vladyka Illarion, the minister of foreign affairs of the Moscow patriarchate, has gone around to the local Orthodox churches, trying to persuade them that Ukraine does not need autocephaly. But I know that he has not met understanding in just about any Orthodox church of the world.
Therefore the idea with which he threatened—a new schism, a new "1054," when the Catholic and Orthodox churches split—this is clearly unrealizable, and even rather harmful. It would harm the Russian church itself, which everybody would consider to be schismatic.
To take the path of confrontation with Constantinople and declaring Constantinople to be schismatic if they grant autocephaly to Ukraine is an enormous mistake and a crime against the church.
--Does Patriarch Kirill have levers of pressure on Patriarch Bartholomew?
--No, he doesn't. There are practically no such levers.
The Orthodox world and the Constantinople patriarchate are very irritated that Kirill actually deceived Bartholomew and did not participate in the Pan-Orthodox Council on Crete. It is here rather that it is necessary to restore relations and not put any pressure on.
Recent events: in Greece, emissaries of Moscow tried to sow strife between the Greek church and Constantinople. They did not succeed; they were thrown out, shown the door. Of course, this produced a bad impression in both the Greek church and Constantinople.
Therefore, there is a second topic for these negotiations besides Ukraine. It is the restoration of normal relations between Moscow and Constantinople, which have been spoiled by Moscow's clumsy and incorrect steps. (tr. by PDS, posted 8 August 2018)
Editorial disclaimer: RRN does
not intend to certify the accuracy of information
presented in articles. RRN simply intends to certify the
accuracy of the English translation of the contents of the
articles as they appeared in news media of countries of
the former USSR.
If material is quoted, please give credit to the
publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit
this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please
include reference to the URL,
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.