Ukrainian Byzantine-style autocephaly

Conflict between Moscow and Constantinople on the future of orthodoxy in Ukraine creates a myriad of difficulties. Whatever the solution, the image and the composition of Orthodoxy will be profoundly modified.

The Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople last November 27-29 was the last of the year, and its decisions left many unanswered questions about the burning issues of recent months, from Ukrainian autocephaly to the pastoral care of the Russians in Europe. The style with which these delicate problems are dealt is decidedly "Byzantine", taking one step forward and two steps back, leaving much confusion among the faithful of all the parties involved.

In the days of the Synod, the councilor of the Ukrainian President, Rostislav Panchenko, went to Istanbul, to whom the procedure for the realization of the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church was entrusted. He tried to show optimism, stating that "everything is proceeding according to plan", by December the synod of establishment of the new Ukrainian Church will be held, in which the new primate will be chosen, who will immediately go to Istanbul to receive the Tomos of autocephaly. This scenario, therefore, excludes the patriarch Bartholomew personally going to Kiev to deliver the Tomos.

In fact, the laconic statements of the Constantinopolitan synod reveal willingness to grant the long-awaited certificate of autonomy, but never directly name the official Tomos, nor mention of whether the synod has drawn up a "magna carta" or statute of the Ukrainian Church. This would be an integral part of Tomos, which should be submitted to the approval of the "unifying" synod; therefore it seems that Constantinople is searching for a new "ecclesial model", in which the autonomy of the new Church would be strongly limited by dependence on the same ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople. The spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, Vladimir Legojda, defined this procedure as a "phenomenon against nature", with the sole aim of delaying the entire process in the absence of a clear idea of ​​its definition.

In the Orthodox world there are two historical types of autocephaly, the "ancient" one of the seven councils of the patristic era, and the "national" one inaugurated by the patriarchate of Moscow in 1589, and then extended to the other nations of Orthodox tradition, arising from the collapse of the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires and ofthe same Russian empire. The first patriarchates are of apostolic origin (the "pentarchic" Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) and are not dependent on anyone, while the Orthodox national patriarchates were all established or at least approved by Constantinople, though not without various resistances, both theoretical and practical. Some Churches are not even given the title of patriarch, but are limited to the level of the metropolitan or simple archbishop, like the Greek Church in Athens.

After a centuries-long confrontation between Constantinople and Moscow, the two main centers of world Orthodoxy, the new Ukrainian autocephaly should sanction the prevalence of one over the other, based on canonical decisions and popular consensus, still to be verified. Constantinople wants to reiterate its historical and "theological" primacy, while Moscow claims its role according to the numerical dimension (control over half of the Orthodox in the world) and the historical mission, having defended the purity of the faith despite the medieval oppressions of the Mongols and Turkish, and modern ones of the Soviet regime and Western secularism.

The picture that should originate from the canonical procedure of Ukrainian autocephaly, in any case, would still be quite diversified: even if a part, more or less consistent, of the Orthodox faithful in Moscow passed under the new Ukrainian Church, there would still remain a considerable number of Russophile parishes and dioceses, which instead of being called "Ukrainian Church of the Patriarchate of Moscow" would be called "Russian Church in Ukraine", with related government restrictions applied to "foreign" Churches. The autocephalous Ukrainian Church would then be established, and next to it there would be the "stavropegial" or autonomous institutions of the same ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople. Not to mention the numerous structures of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, which practices the same rite as the Orthodox, located mainly in the western part of the country, which is currently only an interested spectator of the whole affair.

Beyond the times and modalities in which the Ukrainian ecclesiastical puzzle will be solved, or the personality called to realize it as the head of the new Church, the image and composition of Orthodoxy will be profoundly modified, giving rise to a new one not only for the Christians of the East, but for the whole history of the universal Church.

(pictured: The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (left) and the Patriarch of Moscow (right)

• Ukraine
• Russia
• Ecumenical Patriarchate
• Orthodox
• Autocephaly