The process of preparing to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church is reaching a practical level. This caused a lot of negative emotions among representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the UOC-MP. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Patriarch Bartholomew were accused of the “heresy of papism”, interference in the affairs of other Local Churches and almost preparing a new pan-Orthodox schism. Such aggressive accusations could not go unanswered by the Mother Church – the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Cerkvarium is grateful to Bishop Job (Geche), Archbishop of Telmi, for providing detailed explanations regarding the most painful issues that trouble Orthodox believers.

Cerkvarium: Vladyka, the Moscow Patriarchate insists that only the canonical part of a Church can ask for autocephaly, and everything else is “legalization of schism.” But all the newest autocephalies arose as a result of separation exclusively from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and this was very difficult and painful. Are there any generally accepted rules regarding how, who and when can ask for autocephaly? After all, Constantinople has the most experience in this matter.

Archbishop Job: If you study the history of the Orthodox Church from texts and documents, and not from created myths and false historiography, it is clear that absolutely all modern autocephalies were proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Even if we take the history of the Orthodox Church in Russia, we see that its autocephaly was self-proclaimed in 1448, when Metropolitan Jonah was elected in Moscow independently, without the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is interesting to emphasize that The Tomos of autocephaly was never given to the Orthodox Church in Russia! In 1589-1590, Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II simply normalized the situation, raising this see to patriarchal dignity, despite the fact that the Moscow bishop was allowed to “be called” a patriarch, provided that he must remember the Ecumenical Patriarch and consider him “as his head and first ", as stated in the charter.

The later autocephalies, which were proclaimed in the 19th and 20th centuries, were all proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Greece (1850), in Serbia (1879 and raised to the patriarchate in 1922), in Romania (1885 and raised to the patriarchate in 1925), in Poland (1924) , in Albania (1937) in Bulgaria (1945 and raised to the patriarchate in 1961), in Georgia (1990), and in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (1998). Each of these proclamations was associated with a political factor, and autocephaly was proclaimed as a way to ensure the unity of the Church both within each of these countries and unity between Local Churches.

Apart from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in the history of the Orthodox Church no other Local Church has proclaimed autocephaly. Is it true, Orthodox Church in Russia can claim that it proclaimed the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Georgia (1943), in Czechoslovakia (1951), and in America (1970), but these autocephalies were not recognized by the fullness of the Orthodox Church, because the Orthodox Church in Russia is not has such prerogative to grant autocephaly. Therefore, these three Churches themselves turned to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the provision of a Tomos of autocephaly. Over time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate normalized the situation by proclaiming the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Georgia (1990) and in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (1998).

Archbishop Job: In my opinion, yes! If autocephaly had been proclaimed in Ukraine immediately after the declaration of its independence in 1991, 30 years of painful and harmful schism that began in 1989 could have been prevented. And this was the position of the entire episcopate of the UOC-MP, which decided immediately after the declaration of independence of Ukraine at its council in November 1991: “the council believes that the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will help strengthen the unity of Orthodoxy in Ukraine and eliminate the autocephalous schism that has arisen; to counteract Uniate and Catholic expansion, will serve to reconcile and establish harmony between currently warring faiths, to unite all nationalities living in Ukraine, and thereby contribute to strengthening the unity of the entire Ukrainian people.” This resolution is signed everyone without exception the then bishops of the UOC-MP, including Bishop of Chernivtsi and Bukovina Onufry - the current Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine. By the way, they often forget (or deliberately hide) that the so-called “Kharkov Cathedral”, who elected Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) of blessed memory to the Kyiv Metropolitan See in place of Philaret (Denisenko), repeated this position, addressing Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow in 1992 with the following words: “We are confident that the vital question of gifting The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of canonical autocephaly, with the help of God and the efforts of the new Primate, will successfully advance in the unity of the entire Ukrainian flock with new energy, with renewed vigor in the bright hope that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the near future will receive the desired canonical autocephaly.”

Cerkvarium: The Russian Orthodox Church constantly accuses Constantinople of the “heresy of papism.” But within the Moscow Patriarchate itself, the doctrine of the “Third Rome” is very popular, according to which the Russian Orthodox Church itself should take first place in the Diptych. What can Constantinople do with these imperial ambitions of the Russian Church?

Archbishop Job: The theory of Moscow as the “third Rome” is neither an ecclesiological doctrine nor a prerogative of canonical (church) law. This myth was invented by the Pskov elder Philotheus at the beginning of the 16th century. But the Orthodox Church does not live by myths. The history of the Orthodox Church does not know the “first” and “second” Rome, but only the “old” (Rome) and the “new” (Constantinople). There is no third place here. The Orthodox Church lives, in addition to the Holy Scriptures, on the basis of the doctrine and canons of the Ecumenical Councils. It clearly and clearly states that only these two historical departments received special rights and prerogatives during the time of the Ecumenical Councils. Which Orthodox Christian today can claim to have supreme power over the Ecumenical Councils in order to change their decisions? In fact, every Orthodox bishop, during the confession of faith before his episcopal consecration, promises to always observe not only the doctrine but also the church rules of the Ecumenical and local councils that oblige him.

Cerkvarium: Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) of Volokolamsk said in one of his interviews: “Unlike the Roman Church, in the Orthodox Church there has always been another system of local Orthodox churches, each of which is independent and no one is subordinate to each other.” And at the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is placed on the same level as others. How correct is this understanding of the system of local churches? What are the limits of interference by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the affairs (problems) of other local churches?

Archbishop Job: Regarding the accusation by some people of Constantinople of the “heresy of papism”, it must be recalled that in Holy Scripture The Apostle Paul compares the Church of Christ to a body of which Christ is the presiding officer and of which we are members (see Eph. 5:23, 30; Col. 1:18). But for us, Orthodox, the Church is not something abstract, like Protestants, but something very concrete - a divine-human organism consisting of specific people. Therefore, according to Orthodox church law, the head of the local Church is a specific person - a bishop. And according to the 34th Apostolic Canon, the bishops of the regional Church must recognize whoever is first among them, and recognize him as their head, and do nothing important without his knowledge. This rule has always been applied to Universal Church, because our Orthodox Church is the only one, it is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", and not some kind of confederation of separate independent churches, as we see in Protestantism. Since the Church is one, one body - the body of Christ - then there is one head in It. The Church is not a multi-headed monster! Therefore, in the charter by which the Moscow see was raised to the level of patriarchs in 1590, it is said that the Moscow bishop must recognize the Apostolic See of Constantinople as “its head and first,” as other Orthodox patriarchs do. To renounce this means not only to lose these privileges that were given to the Moscow See by the patriarchal acts of Constantinople, but also to depart from the Orthodox teaching about the Church in accordance with the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Scriptures.

Cerkvarium: What special privileges or functions does the Ecumenical Patriarch have within the framework of coordination?

Archbishop Job: The Ecumenical Patriarch is not just one of the patriarchs in the Orthodox Church. He is not only “first among equals.” By the way, the Latin formula “primus inter pares” is not found anywhere in Orthodox church law, where, on the contrary, it speaks of “seniority of honor” (prezvia timis), which indicates hierarchy or at least order. Having this "seniority of honor" according to sacred canons, The Ecumenical Patriarch, as the “head” and “first” in the Orthodox Church, must ensure the unity of the Local Churches and coordinate them. This was visible in the twentieth century in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church and in the coordination of Local Churches in inter-Christian dialogue at the world level. Based on its role - to ensure the unity of the Local Churches and coordinate them, the Ecumenical Patriarchate proclaims the autocephaly of the new local Churches, as has already been said. In addition, according to the 9th and 17th rules of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, The Ecumenical Patriarch has the right to accept appeals (ekkliton) from clergy and bishops (including other Local Churches).

He also has the right to establish stauropegias (including on the territory of other Local Churches).

Archbishop Job: Cerkvarium: To what extent can we trust the speakers of the Russian Orthodox Church that they have mass support for their position on Ukraine among the primates and episcopates of other Local Churches? How can one interpret the statements of the heads of other Greek churches regarding the fact that Ukraine is the exclusively canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church? Is there a pan-Orthodox consensus on this matter? In your question, the main thing is to distinguish between two things: firstly, the recognition of the UOC-MP, headed by Metropolitan Onufry of Kyiv and All Ukraine, and secondly, the issue of jurisdiction over Ukraine. Regarding the first point, it is clear that among the three Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine in this moment

Regarding the second point, it must be emphasized that church jurisdiction over Ukraine belongs exclusively to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. When the Orthodox Church in Russia received the status of a patriarchate in 1589-1590, the Metropolis of Kiev (in the Polish-Lithuanian state, with a see in Kyiv) remained under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. After the left-bank Ukraine was annexed to the Muscovite state after the Pereyaslav Rada (1654), at a time when there were constant wars between Turkey and the Muscovite state (since 1676), and after the Kiev See, which remained vacant for a long time (since 1681), the Patriarch of Moscow illegally installed Gideon Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky at the request of Hetman Ivan Samoilovich (in 1685), then finally, in 1686, the Patriarch of Moscow received from the Ecumenical Patriarch Dionysius IV only permission to consecrate the Metropolitan of Kyiv, who had to continue to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch and remain his exarch. It turns out that due to political circumstances, the Kiev Metropolis fell only into the administration of the Orthodox Church in Russia, but there was not a single transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to Moscow in 1686, as, by the way, the Tomos on the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Poland (1924) emphasizes. It says that this autocephaly is granted “listening to the loud voice of the canonical duty that is imposed on our Holy Ecumenical Throne by caring for the Holy Orthodox Churches, which are in a difficult situation; seeing that history also testifies in favor of this (after all, it is written that the alienation from our Throne of the Metropolis of Kiev and the Orthodox Churches of Lithuania and Poland dependent on it, as well as their integration into the Holy Church of Moscow, from the very beginning were not carried out at all in accordance with the legal canonical prescriptions; also, what was jointly declared regarding the complete church self-sufficiency of the Kyiv Metropolitan, who bore the title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Throne, was not observed.”

Based on this, since Ukraine is no longer part of Russian Empire(and the Soviet Union), and since there has been a church schism going on for almost 30 years, due to which millions of people are outside the canonical Church, and which the Orthodox Church in Russia (that is, the Moscow Patriarchate) is still unable to cope with, The Ecumenical Patriarchate is obliged to take appropriate measures in accordance with its prerogatives in order to ensure church unity. At the same time, it should be emphasized that he does not interfere in the affairs of someone else’s local Church, but acts on his canonical territory - on the territory of the Kyiv Metropolis.

Cerkvarium: Concerning the constant threats of disruption of Eucharistic communion. Let’s imagine that Ukraine receives autocephaly, and the Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize it. What's next? As Callistus (Ware) said, one cannot “abuse the Eucharist,” that is, blackmail with the cessation of Eucharistic communion. How can a break in Eucharistic communion affect the ecclesiastical identity of the Russian Church?

Archbishop Job: I agree with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia regarding the “abuse of the Eucharist.” It is necessary to stop Eucharistic communion for important, dogmatic reasons, and not because of whims. We often hear threats from representatives of the Orthodox Church in Russia that a schism will come worse than in 1054. Anyone who knows church history well knows that the so-called great schism of 1054 is also a big myth. The anathematization of each other by Rome and Constantinople was the result of the unsuccessful decision to end the Eucharistic communion between the two Churches at the beginning of the 11th century due to the addition of the “filioque” in the Creed. Because of this addition, Constantinople suspected that Rome had changed its faith. The question was dogmatic. Therefore, by the way, today the dialogue that is being conducted between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is a dialogue of a theological nature. Now, regarding the issue of schism and autocephaly in Ukraine: everyone knows that this problem is not a theological issue, and there is no need to accuse anyone of heresy. Therefore, threats to break Eucharistic communion if Ukraine receives autocephaly are most likely an abuse of the Eucharist.

Cerkvarium: Moscow also threatens that if Ukraine is granted autocephaly, there will be almost a bloodbath here. Does Constantinople have a plan on how to build an autocephalous Ukrainian Church peacefully and without war? How to prevent narrowing religious rights and the freedoms of those who want to remain subordinate to Moscow, and how to prevent a total redistribution of church property?

Archbishop Job: As Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gallia recently emphasized in an interview, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate does not threaten and is not under threat. Mother Church has shown that she cares about reconciling disputes and overcoming schisms and in no case wants new ones to appear.” Autocephaly of Ukraine is proposed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate not as a weapon for war, but as a medicine to cure the church schism that has been going on for almost 30 years. As we mentioned, this medicine was offered to the Moscow Patriarch by the entire episcopate of the UOC-MP back in 1991 and 1992. As we have shown, during the twentieth century, the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the basis of his prerogatives, always ensured the unity of the local Orthodox Churches, and therefore proclaimed a series of new autocephalies as a way to ensure the unity of the Church both within each new local Church, and the unity between all Local Churches. The role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is to serve the unity of the Orthodox Church.

Cerkvarium: The Russian Orthodox Church insists that granting autocephaly to Ukraine is an undermining of pan-Orthodox unity. Refusal to participate in All Orthodox Council– isn’t this undermining such unity?

Archbishop Job: Today, in the Orthodox Church, they very often talk about conciliarity, forgetting that there is no conciliarity without primacy. Unfortunately, many Orthodox Christians, in the fight against papism, borrowed Protestant arguments and completely abandoned primacy. But the sacred church canons clearly state that there can be neither a Synod (or Council) without the first, nor a first without the Synod (Council). This is very well formulated in the 34th Apostolic Canon, which says that bishops must recognize the one who is first (protos) among them and consider him the head (mullet) and not do anything important without his consent, but the first cannot do anything do without everyone's consent. “For in this way there will be unanimity (homonia), and God the Lord will be glorified by the Holy Spirit.” But within the framework of conciliarity, church canons emphasize that the first (protos) has the responsibility to convene a Synod (or Council), while the others have the obligation to take part in it. For example, the 19th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council emphasizes that bishops who ignore the convening of the Synod without reason must be corrected. Today, the refusal in the Orthodox Church to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as the “first” and as the “head”, and to assert that the Orthodox Church is not the only Church, but rather some kind of confederation of independent local (or even national) Churches, contradicts precisely the spirit of Orthodox ecclesiology and conciliarity, and therefore does not help in any way to come to unanimity, to resolve conflicts and to heal schisms, but on the contrary, it contributes to the fragmentation of Orthodoxy and the aggravation of conflicts and splits.

Cerkvarium: Thank you, Master!

November 1, 2013 by the General Assembly of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe The Ecumenical Patriarchate has elected Archimandrite Job (Gecha) as the new Archbishop of Eucarpia. He was elected in the first round and received 109 out of 191 present. 40 delegates cast a blank or invalid ballot. Other candidates were Archimandrite Vissarion (Komzias) (33 votes) and Hieromonk Mikhail (Anishchenko) (9 votes).

Archimandrite Job, in the world Igor Vladimirovich Gecha, was born on January 31, 1974 in Montreal (Quebec, Canada). Graduated from the Institute of St. Andrew in Winnipeg and the University of Prov. Manitoba (Canada) (1996). Ryasophorus (09/28/1996). Hierodeacon (09/29/1996). Moved to France. He became a monk at the monastery of St. Anthony the Great in France (Metochion of the Athos Simon-Peter Monastery) (05/27/1998). Archdeacon (1999). In 2003, he transferred from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada under the omophorion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Exarchate-Archdiocese of Orthodox parishes of the Russian tradition in Western Europe under the omophorion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Hieromonk (06/20/2003). Graduated from the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. He serves at the Sergievsky Metochion in Paris. In 2003, he defended his doctoral dissertation in theology at the Paris Catholic Institute and the St. Sergius Institute on the topic “The Liturgical Reform of Metropolitan Cyprian of Kyiv.” Teacher church history and church charter at the St. Sergius Institute (professor since 2004). Dean of the parishes of the Archdiocese in Spain (2003-2004). Member of the editorial board of the diocesan journal "Diocesan Bulletin of the Archdiocese of Orthodox Russian Churches in Western Europe" (EVAPRTSZE) and its French-language edition "Messager diocesain: Archeveche des eglises orthodoxes russes en Europe Occidentale" (2003-2006). Hegumen (01/09/2004). Archimandrite (07/18/2004). Member of the Diocesan Council of the Archdiocese (2004-2010). Member of the commission for relations with the Moscow Patriarchate (2004). He taught liturgy at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute, at the Institute for Higher Studies of Orthodox Theology at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambesy-Geneva (Switzerland) and at the Catholic Institute in Paris. From December 2005 to December 2007 Dean of the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. Member of the St. Irenaeus group of international dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church (2003). Member of the Committee for Dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church in France (2005). Member of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) (2006). Member of the Kyiv Religious and Philosophical Society. Member of the Society of Oriental Liturgy.

Details All news September 14, 2018 Views: 4385 Local churches

The Patriarchate of Constantinople responds to the reproaches of the Russian Orthodox Church

The process of preparing to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church is reaching a practical level. This caused a lot of negative emotions among representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the UOC-MP. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Patriarch Bartholomew were accused of the “heresy of papism”, interference in the affairs of other Local Churches and almost preparing a new pan-Orthodox schism. Such aggressive accusations could not go unanswered by the Mother Church – the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Cerkvarium is grateful to Bishop Job (Geche), Archbishop of Telmi, for providing detailed explanations regarding the most painful issues that trouble Orthodox believers.

Cerkvarium: Vladyka, the Moscow Patriarchate insists that only the canonical part of a Church can ask for autocephaly, and everything else is “legalization of schism.” But all the newest autocephalies arose as a result of separation exclusively from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and this was very difficult and painful. Are there any generally accepted rules regarding how, who and when can ask for autocephaly? After all, Constantinople has the most experience in this matter.

Archbishop Job: If you study the history of the Orthodox Church from texts and documents, and not from created myths and false historiography, it is clear that absolutely all modern autocephalies were proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Even if we take the history of the Orthodox Church in Russia, we see that its autocephaly was self-proclaimed in 1448, when Metropolitan Jonah was elected in Moscow independently, without the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is interesting to emphasize that The Tomos of autocephaly was never given to the Orthodox Church in Russia! In 1589-1590, Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II simply normalized the situation, raising this see to patriarchal dignity, despite the fact that the Moscow bishop was allowed to “be called” a patriarch, provided that he must remember the Ecumenical Patriarch and consider him “as his head and first ", as stated in the charter.

The later autocephalies, which were proclaimed in the 19th and 20th centuries, were all proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Greece (1850), in Serbia (1879 and raised to patriarchate in 1922), in Romania(1885 and raised to the patriarchate in 1925), in Poland(1924), inAlbania(1937) in Bulgaria (1945 and raised to the patriarchate in 1961), in Georgia (1990), and in Czech Republic and Slovakia(1998). Each of these proclamations was associated with a political factor, and autocephaly was proclaimed as a way to ensure the unity of the Church both within each of these countries and the unity between the Local Churches.

Apart from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in the history of the Orthodox Church no other Local Church has proclaimed autocephaly. True, the Orthodox Church in Russia can claim that it proclaimed the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Georgia (1943), in Czechoslovakia (1951), and in America (1970), but these autocephalies were not recognized by the fullness of the Orthodox Church, because the Orthodox The Church in Russia does not have such a prerogative to grant autocephaly. Therefore, these three Churches themselves turned to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the provision of a Tomos of autocephaly. Over time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate normalized the situation by proclaiming the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Georgia (1990) and in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (1998).

Archbishop Job: In my opinion, yes! If autocephaly had been proclaimed in Ukraine immediately after the declaration of its independence in 1991, 30 years of painful and harmful schism that began in 1989 could have been prevented. And this was the position of the entire episcopate of the UOC-MP, which decided immediately after the declaration of independence of Ukraine at its council in November 1991: “the council believes that the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will help strengthen the unity of Orthodoxy in Ukraine and eliminate the autocephalous schism that has arisen; to counteract Uniate and Catholic expansion, will serve to reconcile and establish harmony between currently warring faiths, to unite all nationalities living in Ukraine, and thereby contribute to strengthening the unity of the entire Ukrainian people.” This resolution is signed everyone without exception the then bishops of the UOC-MP, including Bishop of Chernivtsi and Bukovina Onufry - the current Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine. By the way, they often forget (or deliberately hide) that the so-called “Kharkov Cathedral”, who elected Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) of blessed memory to the Kyiv Metropolitan See in place of Philaret (Denisenko), repeated this position, addressing Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow in 1992 with the following words: “We are confident that the vital question of gifting The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of canonical autocephaly, with the help of God and the efforts of the new Primate, will successfully advance in the unity of the entire Ukrainian flock with new energy, with new strength in the bright hope that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will receive the desired canonical autocephaly in the near future.”

Cerkvarium: The Russian Orthodox Church constantly accuses Constantinople of the “heresy of papism.” But within the Moscow Patriarchate itself, the doctrine of the “Third Rome” is very popular, according to which the Russian Orthodox Church itself should take first place in the Diptych. What can Constantinople do with these imperial ambitions of the Russian Church?

Archbishop Job: The theory of Moscow as the “third Rome” is neither an ecclesiological doctrine nor a prerogative of canonical (church) law. This myth was invented by the Pskov elder Philotheus at the beginning of the 16th century. But the Orthodox Church does not live by myths. The history of the Orthodox Church does not know the “first” and “second” Rome, but only the “old” (Rome) and the “new” (Constantinople). There is no third place here. The Orthodox Church lives, in addition to the Holy Scriptures, on the basis of the doctrine and canons of the Ecumenical Councils. It clearly and clearly states that only these two historical departments received special rights and prerogatives during the time of the Ecumenical Councils. Which Orthodox Christian today can claim to have supreme power over the Ecumenical Councils in order to change their decisions? In fact, every Orthodox bishop, during the confession of faith before his episcopal consecration, promises to always observe not only the doctrine but also the church rules of the Ecumenical and local councils that oblige him.

Cerkvarium: Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) of Volokolamsk said in one of his interviews: “Unlike the Roman Church, in the Orthodox Church there has always been another system of local Orthodox churches, each of which is independent and no one is subordinate to each other.” And at the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is placed on the same level as others. How correct is this understanding of the system of local churches? What are the limits of interference by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the affairs (problems) of other local churches?

Archbishop Job: Regarding the accusation by some people of Constantinople of the “heresy of papism,” it must be recalled that in the Holy Scriptures, the Apostle Paul compares the Church of Christ to a body, of which Christ is the president, and of which we are members (see Eph. 5:23, 30; Col. 1:18). But for us, Orthodox, the Church is not something abstract, like Protestants, but something very concrete - a divine-human organism consisting of specific people. Therefore, according to Orthodox church law, the head of the local Church is a specific person - a bishop. And according to the 34th Apostolic Canon, the bishops of the regional Church must recognize whoever is first among them, and recognize him as their head, and do nothing important without his knowledge. This rule has always been applied to the Universal Church, because our Orthodox Church is unique, it is the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” and not some kind of confederation of separate independent churches, as we see in Protestantism. Because the Church one, one body - the body of Christ - then in Her there is one head. The Church is not a multi-headed monster! Therefore, in the charter by which the Moscow see was raised to the level of patriarchs in 1590, it is said that the Moscow bishop must recognize the Apostolic See of Constantinople as “its head and first,” as other Orthodox patriarchs do. To renounce this means not only to lose these privileges that were given to the Moscow See by the patriarchal acts of Constantinople, but also to depart from the Orthodox teaching about the Church in accordance with the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Scriptures.

Cerkvarium: What special privileges or functions does the Ecumenical Patriarch have within the framework of coordination?

Archbishop Job: The Ecumenical Patriarch is not just one of the patriarchs in the Orthodox Church. He is not only “first among equals.” By the way, the Latin formula “primus inter pares” is not found anywhere in Orthodox church law, where, on the contrary, it speaks of “seniority of honor” (prezvia timis), which indicates hierarchy or at least order. Having this “seniority of honor” according to the sacred canons, the Ecumenical Patriarch, as the “head” and “first” in the Orthodox Church, must ensure the unity of the Local Churches and coordinate them. This was visible in the twentieth century in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church and in the coordination of Local Churches in inter-Christian dialogue at the world level. Based on its role - to ensure the unity of the Local Churches and coordinate them, the Ecumenical Patriarchate proclaims the autocephaly of the new local Churches, as has already been said. In addition, according to the 9th and 17th canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Ecumenical Patriarch has the right to accept appeals (ekkliton) from clergy and bishops (including other Local Churches).

He also has the right to establish stauropegias (including on the territory of other Local Churches).

Archbishop Job: He also has the right to establish stauropegias (including on the territory of other Local Churches).

Regarding the second point, it must be emphasized that church jurisdiction over Ukraine belongs exclusively to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. When the Orthodox Church in Russia received the status of a patriarchate in 1589-1590, the Metropolis of Kiev (in the Polish-Lithuanian state, with a see in Kyiv) remained under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. After the left-bank Ukraine was annexed to the Muscovite state after the Pereyaslav Rada (1654), at a time when there were constant wars between Turkey and the Muscovite state (since 1676), and after the Kiev See, which remained vacant for a long time (since 1681), the Patriarch of Moscow illegally installed Gideon Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky at the request of Hetman Ivan Samoilovich (in 1685), then finally, in 1686, the Patriarch of Moscow received from the Ecumenical Patriarch Dionysius IV only permission to consecrate the Metropolitan of Kyiv, who had to continue to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch and remain his exarch. It turns out that due to political circumstances, the Kiev Metropolis fell only into the administration of the Orthodox Church in Russia, but there was not a single transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to Moscow in 1686, as, by the way, emphasizes Tomos of autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Poland(1924). It says that this autocephaly is granted “listening to the loud voice of the canonical duty that is imposed on our Holy Ecumenical Throne by caring for the Holy Orthodox Churches, which are in a difficult situation; seeing that history also testifies in favor of this (after all, it is written that the alienation from our Throne of the Metropolis of Kiev and the Orthodox Churches of Lithuania and Poland dependent on it, as well as their integration into the Holy Church of Moscow, from the very beginning were not carried out at all in accordance with the legal canonical prescriptions; also, what was jointly declared regarding the complete church self-sufficiency of the Kyiv Metropolitan, who bore the title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Throne, was not observed.”

Based on this, since Ukraine is no longer today part of the Russian Empire (and the Soviet Union), and since it has been undergoing a church schism for almost 30 years, due to which millions of people are outside the canonical Church, and with which the Orthodox Church is still in Russia (i.e. the Moscow Patriarchate) is unable to cope, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is obliged to take appropriate measures in accordance with its prerogatives in order to ensure church unity. At the same time, it should be emphasized that he does not interfere in the affairs of someone else’s local Church, but acts on his canonical territory - on the territory of the Kyiv Metropolis.

Cerkvarium: Concerning the constant threats of disruption of Eucharistic communion. Let’s imagine that Ukraine receives autocephaly, and the Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize it. What's next? As Callistus (Ware) said, one cannot “abuse the Eucharist,” that is, blackmail with the cessation of Eucharistic communion. How can a break in Eucharistic communion affect the ecclesiastical identity of the Russian Church?

Archbishop Job: I agree with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia regarding the “abuse of the Eucharist.” It is necessary to stop Eucharistic communion for important, dogmatic reasons, and not because of whims. We often hear threats from representatives of the Orthodox Church in Russia that a schism will come worse than in 1054. Anyone who knows church history well knows that the so-called great schism of 1054 is also a big myth. The anathematization of each other by Rome and Constantinople was the result of the unsuccessful decision to end the Eucharistic communion between the two Churches at the beginning of the 11th century due to the addition of the “filioque” in the Creed. Because of this addition, Constantinople suspected that Rome had changed its faith. The question was dogmatic. Therefore, by the way, today the dialogue that is being conducted between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is a dialogue of a theological nature. Now, regarding the issue of schism and autocephaly in Ukraine: everyone knows that this problem is not a theological issue, and there is no need to accuse anyone of heresy. Therefore, threats to break Eucharistic communion if Ukraine receives autocephaly are most likely an abuse of the Eucharist.

Cerkvarium: Moscow also threatens that if Ukraine is granted autocephaly, there will be almost a bloodbath here. Does Constantinople have a plan on how to build an autocephalous Ukrainian Church peacefully and without war? How to prevent the narrowing of religious rights and freedoms of those who want to remain subordinate to Moscow, and how to prevent a total redistribution of church property?

Archbishop Job: As Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gallia recently emphasized in one interview, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate is not threatened and is not under threat. Mother Church has shown that she cares about reconciling disputes and overcoming schisms and in no case wants new ones to appear.” Autocephaly of Ukraine is proposed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate not as a weapon for war, but as a medicine to cure the church schism that has been going on for almost 30 years. As we mentioned, this medicine was offered to the Moscow Patriarch by the entire episcopate of the UOC-MP back in 1991 and 1992. As we have shown, during the twentieth century, the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the basis of his prerogatives, always ensured the unity of the local Orthodox Churches, and therefore proclaimed a series of new autocephalies as a way to ensure the unity of the Church both within each new local Church, and the unity between all Local Churches. The role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is to serve the unity of the Orthodox Church.

Cerkvarium: The Russian Orthodox Church insists that granting autocephaly to Ukraine is an undermining of pan-Orthodox unity. Isn’t refusal to take part in the Pan-Orthodox Council an undermining of such unity?

Archbishop Job: Today, in the Orthodox Church, they very often talk about conciliarity, forgetting that there is no conciliarity without primacy. Unfortunately, many Orthodox Christians, in the fight against papism, borrowed Protestant arguments and completely abandoned primacy. But the sacred church canons clearly state that there can be neither a Synod (or Council) without the first, nor a first without the Synod (Council). This is very well formulated in the 34th Apostolic Canon, which says that bishops must recognize the one who is first (protos) among them and consider him the head (mullet) and not do anything important without his consent, but the first cannot do anything do without everyone's consent. “For in this way there will be unanimity (homonia), and God the Lord will be glorified by the Holy Spirit.” But within the framework of conciliarity, church canons emphasize that the first (protos) has the responsibility to convene a Synod (or Council), while the others have the obligation to take part in it. For example, the 19th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council emphasizes that bishops who ignore the convening of the Synod without reason must be corrected. Today, the refusal in the Orthodox Church to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as the “first” and as the “head”, and to assert that the Orthodox Church is not the only Church, but rather some kind of confederation of independent local (or even national) Churches, contradicts precisely the spirit of Orthodox ecclesiology and conciliarity, and therefore they do not help in any way to come to unanimity, to resolve conflicts and to heal schisms, but on the contrary, it contributes to the fragmentation of Orthodoxy and the worsening of conflicts and schisms.

Cerkvarium: Thank you, Master!

Yesterday, November 1, Archimandrite Job (Gecha) was elected the new head of the so-called “Russian Archdiocese”. The general meeting was chaired by Metropolitan. Gallic Emmanila held a vote, as a result of which Fr. Job (Gech) received 109 votes out of 151. Other candidates: Fr. Mikhail (Anishchenko) and Archimandrite Vissarion received 9 and 33 votes, respectively.

Today the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople approved this choice. O. Job will now be elevated to the rank of archbishop with the title “Telemesian”.

Father Job (Gecha) speaks before the meeting of the Archdiocese.

The so-called “Russian Archdiocese”

The “Russian Archdiocese” arose as a result of a number of schisms and betrayals of the Russian Church, committed under the leadership of his successors.

In 1930, Metropolitan. Eulogius becomes subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which establishes the “Temporary Exarchate of the Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople in Western Europe.”

In 1945, Metropolitan. Eulogius with his jurisdiction returns to the Moscow Patriarchate, and in 1946, after his death, the “Evlogians” return to the subordination of Constantinople.

Major works

Le typikon decrypte: Manuel de liturgie byzantine (2009)

La reforme liturgique du metropolite Cyprien de Kiev: L’introduction du typikon sabaite dans l’office divin (2010)

Liturgy as a Way of Evangelization (2011)

The Hesychast Spirituality of the Russian Monastic Tradition (2012)

The Typikon Decoded: An Explanation of Byzantine Liturgical Practice (2012)

Dialogue on the granting by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church and the appointmentAndfor this purpose, his exarchs in Ukraine, opposition to this from the Moscow Patriarchate and their break in concelebration with the hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Lately are one of the main topics that never cease to be discussed in Ukrainian society and the media. There are a lot of rumors and incompetent comments being spread. To find out first-hand what is really happening, we turned to a direct participant in this process - the famous Orthodox theologian and the hierarch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Archbishop Job (Gech) of Telmis (Geneva, Switzerland). He was born in 1974 in Montreal (Canada) into a Ukrainian emigrant family. Doctor of Theology, Professor at the Institute of Higher Studies in Orthodox Theology at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambesy (Switzerland) and the Catholic University of Paris (France), permanent representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the World Council of Churches in Geneva, co-chairman of the Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. With the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, he was one of the main speakers of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in Crete on June 19 - 26, 2016. He speaks six languages: English, French, Greek, Ukrainian, Russian and Italian. He has a deep understanding of Ukrainian church history. He defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic “The liturgical reform of Metropolitan Cyprian of Kyiv (1330 - 1406).”

- Vladyka Job, as you know, the Ecumenical Patriarchate decided to send its representatives (exarchs) to Ukraine to negotiate with representatives different parts Ukrainian Churches on the possible granting of autocephaly. However, the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate took this step extremely critically, declaring that this was an “illegal invasion of the canonical territory” of Moscow and even announced the termination of concelebration with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Please comment on how fair Moscow's statements are? Was the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate really illegal and non-canonical?

Archbishop Job: I would like to immediately reassure everyone that there was and is no talk of any “invasion into someone else’s canonical territory.” Moreover, it is not about creating a split or legitimizing it. On the contrary, as Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has repeatedly stated, the Church of Constantinople, as the Mother Church, strives to find optimal canonical ways to heal and overcome the existing situation in Ukraine church schism. It is for this purpose that representatives (exarchs) of the Ecumenical Throne were appointed to begin dialogue and search for such possible paths. For the state of division that has existed in the Ukrainian Church for almost 30 years is not natural. Thousands of Orthodox parishes and millions of Orthodox believers in Ukraine, through this schism, have all this time been outside unity with the Ecumenical Orthodox Church, deprived not only of Eucharistic unity with their Orthodox brothers in faith, but also deprived of the main thing - salvation in the bosom of the canonical Church. This, of course, cannot but cause pain and anxiety for the Mother Church.

All these years, the Church of Constantinople watched with pain as its daughter, the Ukrainian Church, suffered from internal division. The Ecumenical Patriarchate hoped that this problem would be cured by internal means and forces, constantly praying for this and never prayerfully forgetting about the long-suffering Ukrainian Orthodox people. But the events of the last 30 years, especially after 2014, clearly demonstrate that the Orthodox Church in Ukraine cannot independently cope with the problem of schism and unite with internal forces alone, since external political factors and influences stand in the way of this, in particular from the neighboring Russian states. And for the latter, apparently, the most important thing is not to promote the unification of the Ukrainian Church, but to maintain its political influence in Ukraine through the Church. Here we see other goals, the achievement of which requires the use of other means. This is probably why the Orthodox Church in Russia, under the influence of some political factors, does not have the opportunity to ensure the unity of the Orthodox believers of Ukraine, does not seek to conduct a dialogue with those who for some reason find themselves outside the canonical church fence, and therefore does not seek to find the optimal means of canonical oikonomia for the return of these faithful to the fold of the Universal Church. The latest statements of the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate only confirm this once again. For for the sake of their own political ambitions, they decided not only to break with part of the Orthodox flock in Ukraine, but also to break with Ecumenical Orthodoxy. This is very dangerous, sad and painful. After all, this is a non-canonical path that does not serve to heal the schism, but, on the contrary, contributes to the development of schism and schism.

We hope that this hasty and uncanonical decision of our Russian brothers will be canceled and dialogue will be restored, because it is impossible to cause a schism and tear apart the Body of Christ because of political ambitions. At the same time, in this situation, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the Mother Church, is all the more simply obliged to be with its Orthodox sons and daughters in Ukraine, who for almost 30 years have been constantly asking for canonical shelter and help overcome schism. This is her direct canonical responsibility as the Mother Church. It is precisely this concern for the fate and salvation of the Ukrainian Orthodox flock that prompted the latest decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to appoint its representatives (exarchs) in Ukraine, who on the spot could help begin an effective dialogue between various parts of the still divided Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

- Please tell me how historically and canonically justified is the decision of Constantinople to appoint its own exarchs in Ukraine? Were there already similar canonical-historical precedents? And again, isn’t this an “invasion of someone else’s canonical territory”?

Archbishop Job: Right away, in order to remove all speculation around artificial reproaches of “invasion of someone else’s canonical territory,” I note that the territory of Ukraine has never been the canonical territory of any other Local Orthodox Church, except the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Kiev Metropolis canonically and historically, from the moment of its creation from the time of the first Kyiv Christian princes Askold, Olga and Vladimir and for more than 700 years, was a metropolis within the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And even after the transfer in 1686 of part of the Kyiv See in the sub-Russian territories under the temporary guardianship (government) of the Moscow patriarchs, Ukraine always remained a canonical territory Church of Constantinople.

Regarding the historical precedents for the appointment of exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine, many such examples from history can be cited. In order not to go far, let us turn to the twentieth century that is closest to us. Since the lands of Galicia and Transcarpathia, even at the beginning of the twentieth century, were considered the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a member of the Synod Russian Church Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev, in order to exercise guardianship over the Orthodox flock in these Ukrainian lands, wrote a request for permission and blessing to the Ecumenical Patriarchs, and even asked for this purpose to grant him the title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Galicia and Transcarpathia. And this Russian hierarch was endowed with this title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Galicia and Transcarpathia in 1910 by the charter of the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III. Later, this title of Exarch was confirmed for him by the Ecumenical Patriarch Herman V (1913 - 1918).

As we see, at the beginning of the twentieth century. The Russian Church itself asked to appoint its bishop as Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Ukrainian lands, and then she did not consider this “an invasion of someone else’s canonical territory.” Therefore, it is not clear on what basis has the Synod of the Orthodox Church in Russia now changed its position and is trying to deny the Mother Church the right to appoint exarchs to the territory that historically and canonically has always been the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

It is worth adding here that the institution of exarchs (representatives) of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine has long had a stable tradition. When in 1596 part of the episcopate, headed by the Kyiv Metropolitan, fell into schism from the Church of Constantinople and entered into a union with Rome, two bishops remained faithful to Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Patriarchal Throne - Gideon of Lvov and Mikhail of Przemysl. Therefore, the Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius (Pigas) appointed Bishop Gideon (Balaban) of Lvov as his exarch in Ukraine and Locum Tenens of the Kyiv Metropolis. At the same time in Ukraine, Archdeacon Nicephorus (Cantacuzene) was also appointed exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who presided over the anti-union Orthodox Council in Brest and contributed to the preservation of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. For this, he was accused by the union bishops and Polish authorities of spying for Turkey, which is why he was arrested and imprisoned in Malborg Castle, where he died in 1599. In 2001, the Synod of the UOC (MP) glorified this Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch as one of the holy martyrs. Therefore, we have not only historical precedents for the appointment of the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch to Ukraine, but also revered saints among them.

Another famous exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine was the successor of Gideon (Balaban) at the Lviv See - Bishop Jeremiah (Tisarovsky, +1641). Along with the title of Bishop of Lvov, Jeremiah inherited from Gideon the title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the position of locum tenens of the Kyiv Metropolitan See. From 1610, he remained the only Orthodox bishop in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for 10 years, until 1620, when Patriarch Theophan III of Jerusalem, with the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch, restored the Orthodox hierarchy in Ukraine and ordained the new Metropolitan of Kyiv Job (Boretsky). Since then, the Kyiv Orthodox metropolitans began to invariably bear the canonical title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, which they were obliged to bear even after the temporary transfer of the Kyiv see in 1686 under the temporary guardianship (vicerarism) of the Moscow patriarchs.

By the way, in addition to the rights of the exarch, the Ecumenical Patriarchs also granted at that time a number of Ukrainian monasteries and brotherhoods the status of stauropegia, that is, they transferred them to direct subordination to the Ecumenical Throne. In particular, stauropegians from the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine were used Kiev-Pechersk Lavra(since 1589), Lviv Assumption Brotherhood (since 1589), Kiev Epiphany Brotherhood (since 1620), Manyavsky Skete (since 1620), Lutsk Holy Cross Brotherhood (since 1623). These acts of the Mother Church on patriarchal stauropegia in Ukraine were not repealed.

- Thank you, now it is clear that the appointment of exarchs in Ukraine is the canonical-historical prerogative of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But what did it all look like after 1686? Is it true that even after this date the territory of Ukraine was not “the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate”?

Archbishop Job: Exactly. Ukraine was and remained, even after 1686, the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate alone. After joining in the middle of the 17th century. On the left bank of Ukraine, as part of the Moscow state, the Kiev Church found itself divided into parts between various warring countries (Russia, Poland and Turkey), which is why in Kyiv for a long time they could not choose a single metropolitan. In this difficult situation The Ecumenical Patriarch, in order not to completely leave the Ukrainian flock without archpastoral care, part of the Kyiv Church in the territories subject to Russia in 1686 transferred under temporary guardianship (vicarship) to the Patriarch of Moscow, so that he could help install a metropolitan in Kyiv and other dioceses of the Left Bank Ukraine (Hetmanate). bishops. At the same time, an important condition remained the requirement that Kyiv metropolitans and in the future they remained autonomous from Moscow as exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarch and always remembered his name at all services. That is, this was in no way a transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchs. Since such a transfer would be anti-canonical, since in the charter establishing the Moscow Patriarchate the limits of the canonical possessions of the Moscow Patriarchs were recognized within the boundaries of the Moscow State of 1589. And these borders did not in any way include the Kiev Metropolis, which included Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Poland under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

That is, it was similar to how 66 years earlier, in 1620, with the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople Timothy II, Patriarch Theophan III of Jerusalem ordained in Kyiv Orthodox Metropolitan and bishops, that is, he restored the Orthodox hierarchy in Ukraine. But at the same time, we are not saying that since then the Kiev Metropolis has become dependent on the Jerusalem Patriarchate. The same thing happened in 1686. After all, in Constantinople they could not even think that the Moscow Church-daughters would violate the agreements and try to forcefully abolish the canonical jurisdiction of the Mother Church of Constantinople in Ukraine. Therefore, later, after the collapse of the Russian Empire, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in a separate tomos of November 13, 1924, in order to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Poland, was forced to declare the act of 1686 non-canonical and invalid.

- Was it easy to subordinate part of the Kyiv See to the Russian Church?

Archbishop Job: These actions constantly stumbled over the resistance of the Ukrainian Orthodox clergy. It is enough to recall such outstanding Ukrainian saints as Sylvester Kosov, Joseph Nelyubovich-Tukalsky, Varlaam Yasinsky, Joasaph Krokovsky, Varlaam Vonatovich, Theophylact Lopatinsky, Arseniy Matsievich, Varlaam Shishatsky and many others who suffered a lot from the uncanonical actions of the Russian government and the leadership of the Russian Church.

By the way, within the Left Bank part of Ukraine (Hetmanate), it was after the events of 1686 that such an intra-church movement as “wandering” or “wild priests” gained new strength. Its essence was that Ukrainian Orthodox parishes on the Left Bank, not wanting to recognize the power of the Moscow Patriarchate, they invited priests ordained in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Right Bank Ukraine or in Moldo-Wallachia to serve. Throughout the entire 18th century. Russian secular and ecclesiastical administrations brutally persecuted this movement and its representatives, catching and imprisoning such “non-canonical” priests. But despite this, until the very end of the 18th century. Believers from Left Bank Ukraine risked their lives to go to Moldo-Wallachia to receive priestly ordination from the bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, bypassing the Russian synodal administration. And the hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate have never actually refused such requests from Orthodox believers from Left Bank Ukraine.

A little-known fact - in 1724, Metropolitan George of Iasi, together with other Moldavian bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, without the consent of the Russian Synod, ordained Archimandrite Epifaniy, assistant and head of the office of Kyiv Archbishop Varlaam (Vonatovich), as Bishop of Chigirinsky. The letter presented by Epiphanius, written on behalf of Archbishop Varlaam to the Moldovan Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, indicated the dissatisfaction of Ukrainians with the withdrawal of the Kyiv Metropolis from the jurisdiction of Constantinople, the introduction of the “Spiritual Regulations” and synodal administration, as well as the reduction of the Kyiv metropolitans to the rank of archbishops.

Having received the ordination as Bishop of Chigirinsky from the hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Epiphanius returned to Ukraine, where he launched active work and ordained 14 priests and deacons. He was arrested by Russian authorities several times, but each time he managed to escape from prison. It is known that he served within the Liberties of the Zaporozhian Army. During his next exile to Siberia in 1733, Bishop Epiphany, shackled in the forest, was repulsed from the guards by Russian Cossacks-Old Believers and hidden in the Gomel region, in Vetka. However, in February 1735, Russian troops, on the orders of Empress Anna Ioannovna, surrounded Vetka, and Bishop Epiphanius was again arrested. He died in the prison of the Kyiv fortress on April 1 of the same year, and was buried near the Church of St. Feodosia in the Kiev-Pechersk fortress.

More interesting fact, during 1759, in the Zaporozhye Sich, Bishop Anatoly (Meles) of Meletinsky, appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarch Kirill V, acted as an independent bishop, who, with the support of the Zaporozhye Cossacks and without the permission of the Russian Synod, led the Zaporozhye churches for a whole year and commemorated the Ecumenical Patriarchs. For this he was arrested by the Russian authorities and exiled to Siberia, where he served his sentence for about 9 years. According to many researchers, Bishop. Anatoly (Meles) tried to create a separate autonomous Cossack diocese in Zaporozhye under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

- It is very interesting. You also said that in 1686, only part of the Kyiv Church in the territories subject to Russia was transferred to the tutelage (vicerarism) of the Moscow patriarchs. But what was the situation in other Ukrainian lands that were not part of the Russian state?

Archbishop Job: Exactly. And this is a very important point, which for some reason everyone forgets when they talk about the act of 1686. Indeed, after the transfer of part of the Kyiv See in the sub-Russian territories under the temporary guardianship (administration) of the Moscow Patriarchs, in other territories of Ukraine that were not part of the Moscow state, Orthodox parishes and monasteries continued to remain under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. That is, the act of 1686 concerned the Ukrainian territories of the Hetmanate, which were temporarily included in Russian state, and did not have canonical influence on other Ukrainian territories, in particular Transcarpathia, Bukovina, Podolia, Galicia, Volyn, “Khan’s Ukraine” in the south and Crimea. All these territories continued to remain under the canonical omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

- Can you tell me more about this? Because this fact is almost never written about...

Archbishop Job: Yes. In fact, after 1686, significantly more Ukrainian lands remained under the direct jurisdiction of Constantinople. Thus, in particular, the Lvov diocese did not recognize the transfer to the temporary guardianship of the Moscow patriarchs. Since 1675, the Lviv Orthodox Archbishop was vested with the powers of administrator of the Kyiv Metropolis and the Kiev-Pechersk Archimandry under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After 1686, the Lviv diocese remained under the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This status remained after 1700, when Lviv Archbishop Joseph Shumlyansky, under pressure from the Polish authorities, transferred to the union, and Lviv Orthodox diocese found herself in a widowed position. By 1708, the Lvov stauropegic brotherhood also maintained direct subordination to Constantinople until it was forced to accept the union. However, even after this, Orthodox parishes and monasteries in Galicia remained under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, entrusting temporary guardianship over them to the Bukovinian metropolitans, who were also part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The most famous monastic monastery and center of Orthodoxy in Galicia and the Carpathian region at that time was the Great Manyava Skete, whose brethren, until their violent liquidation in 1785 (that is, another 100 years after the events of 1686), remained faithful to the Ecumenical Patriarchal Throne.

There is one more important fact worth mentioning. June 15, 1791 in Pinsk on the territory Epiphany Monastery The Local Council of the Orthodox clergy and believers of Western Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Poland took place, which went down in history as the “Pinsk Congregation”. 103 delegates from the Orthodox clergy, monasticism and laity took part in the work of the Pinsk Council. It was decided to restore autonomy under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Abbot Belsky Savva (Palmovsky) was elected temporary head of the Pinsk congregation. It was planned to convene a Synod, which would consist of one archbishop with the powers of a metropolitan and three bishops. Also, “permanent and basic norms and rules of organization” of the Orthodox Church of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were developed as an autonomous ecclesiastical jurisdiction, independent of the Russian Synod and recognizing the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch over itself. At a meeting on May 21, 1792, by a majority vote (123 votes in favor and 13 against), the Polish Sejm approved as a constitution the draft of a new organization of the Orthodox Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, proposed by the Pinsk Congregation, under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was endowed with greater rights and freedoms. However, two new sections of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the liquidation of the Polish state led to the fact that Pinsky’s decision Local Council and the Act of May 21, 1792 were practically never put into practice.

It is important to note that Orthodox Ukrainians in Bukovina, Transcarpathia and Galicia remained under the canonical tutelage of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a long time. These lands became part of the Moscow Patriarchate only in the middle of the twentieth century during the years of the Soviet occupation of Western Ukraine, and their forced subordination to Moscow was never recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchal Throne.

- And you also talked about the jurisdiction of Constantinople within the framework of “Khan’s Ukraine” and Crimea. Can you tell us a little more about this?

Archbishop Job: Yes. The ancient Gothic and Kafa metropolis existed in Crimea until the end of the 18th century. remaining part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It consisted of Orthodox Greeks, Bulgarians, Ukrainians and other nationalities of the Crimea and the Black Sea region. It was liquidated by the Russian government in 1788 after the annexation of the Crimean Khanate. However, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has never recognized the legality of subordination to the Russian Synod and the liquidation of these historical metropolises in Crimea.

In addition, the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate invariably extended to Ukrainian Bukovina and the southern (so-called “Khan’s”) part of Ukraine, which was then officially under the protectorate of the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire. Hetman Petro Doroshenko also tried to create a Ukrainian state under the protectorate of the Ottoman sultans, similar to how it was in Moldo-Wallachia. His like-minded person was the Kiev Metropolitan Joseph (Nelyubovich-Tukalsky), who advocated the preservation of the Kyiv Metropolis under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As a result of those attempts by Hetman Doroshenko, according to the Buchach Treaty of 1672, the entire territory of eastern and western Podolia (from Buchach to Bratslav) was ceded from Poland under the Sultan's protectorate. On the territory of Ukrainian Podolia from 1672 to 1699. As part of the Ottoman Empire, there was a Podolsk or Kamenets eyalet (Ottoman - “edge”) with an administrative center in the city of Kamenets (nene Kamenets-Podolsky). After the death of Metropolitan Joseph (Nelyubovich-Tukalsky), the Ecumenical Patriarch Jacob in August 1681 nominated Metropolitan Pankratius for the city of Kamenets, thus establishing the Kamenets Metropolis as part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (in fact, it existed until 1699).

Later, the borders of “Khan’s Ukraine” included Ukrainian lands between the Dnieper and Dniester, which were covered by the protectorate of the Crimean khans and Ottoman sultans. These lands were only nominally part of the Ottoman Empire; there were even no Ottoman settlements here, except for some cities in the south. After the defeat of Ivan Mazepa in the struggle for the independence of Ukraine and the destruction of the Zaporozhye Sich by Peter I, in the period 1711-1734 within the framework of “Khan’s Ukraine” under the patronage of the Crimean Khan in the Aleshki tract, opposite modern city Kherson, a new Zaporozhye Sich (the so-called Aleshkovskaya Sich) operated, the clergy of which were also subordinate to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Since 1712, the Cossack possessions of the Aleshkovskaya Sich spread north to the left tributaries of the Dnieper - the Orel and Samara rivers. That is, all these territories of the modern south of Ukraine not only were not part of the Russian Empire, but also remained under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Therefore, the effect of the act of 1686 did not apply to them in any way.

The lands of "Khan's Ukraine" and Orthodox parishes and monasteries within its borders were part of the Braila Metropolis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Its center was first the city of Braila on the left bank of the Danube. In 1751-1789. the residence of Metropolitan Brailsky became the city of Izmail (now Odessa region, Ukraine). This metropolitanate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate belonged to the lands of Dobrudzha, Budzhaka, Bender, and after the signing of the Buchatsky Peace Treaty of 1672 - the Khotyn bishopric and all Orthodox territories and parishes of Right-Bank and Left-Bank Ukraine, which were under the protectorate of the Ottoman Empire, in particular, “Khan’s Ukraine”, Aleshkovskaya Sich and Orthodox communities located on the mainland territory of the Crimean Khanate.

From 1751 to 1773 In Izmail, the Brail Metropolitan Daniel had a see, who in church documents signed himself “Daniel, by the grace of God, Metropolitan of Proivlavia, Tomarovsky, Khotyn, of the entire coast of the Danube, Dnieper and Dniester, and of all Ukraine Khan.” Daniel's successors, Metropolitans Joachim (1773-1780) and Kirill (1780-1792), also signed this title. That is, this is already 100 years after the act of 1686.

After the second forced liquidation of the Zaporozhye Sich by Catherine II in 1775, many Cossacks moved to territories controlled by the Ottoman Empire, where they founded a new Transdanubian Sich on the banks of the Danube. It existed until mid-19th century, and in churchly recognized over itself the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

As we can see, all these facts indicate that the act of 1686 concerned only the Left Bank part of Ukraine, which was then under the rule of Moscow and practically did not affect other Ukrainian territories.

- You said that after the first destruction of the Zaporozhye Sich by Russian troops in 1709, the Ukrainian Cossacks, which came under the protectorate of the Crimean Khan, returned to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And how did the Ukrainian hetmans Ivan Mazepa and Philip Orlyk, who led this first Ukrainian emigration, feel about this?

Archbishop Job: They were among the first to return under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and with them the Cossacks. Despite the imposition of a non-canonical anathema by the Russian Church on Hetman Mazepa, representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not recognize it, because it was imposed for political reasons, as a means of political-ideological repression and did not have any religious, theological or canonical reasons. So, while emigrating to the city of Bendery, Ivan Mazepa freely confessed to Orthodox priests Ecumenical Patriarchate. It was they who admonished him on his deathbed and absolved him of his sins, and then performed the funeral service. His body was laid in the Orthodox church of the town of Varnitsa, which was under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and subsequently he was reburied in the city of Galati on the Danube, where in the central cathedral of the St. George's Monastery the local metropolitan served a funeral service for the deceased hetman. This metropolitan was a hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. So we can say that Ivan Mazepa died as a faithful Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate!

Very interesting and valuable in this regard is the historical document known as the first Ukrainian Constitution of April 5, 1710. It was a kind of constitutional pact between Hetman Philip Orlik, newly elected after the death of Mazepa, and the entire Zaporozhye Army. So, in the first paragraph of this first Ukrainian Constitution, obligations were spelled out to restore the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the Kyiv Metropolis and the titles of the Kyiv metropolitans as Exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchs. In particular, the constitution of 1710 states the following:

“The current newly elected Hetman, when the Lord God is strong and strong in battle, will help... to liberate our Fatherland, Little Rus', from the slave yoke of Moscow, has and will have to, first of all, take care and stand strong so that there is no heterodoxy in Little Rus', our fatherland , was not introduced from anyone... so that one faith Orthodox of the Eastern confession, under the obedience of the Holy Apostolic See of Constantinople, was forever established... And for even greater weight of the original in Little Rus', the Metropolitan See of Kiev and for convenient spiritual management, has the same Clear Hetman after the liberation of the Fatherland from the yoke of Moscow, check in capital of the Apostolic Constantinople, the Exarchical initial power, so that through it the continuity and obedience of children to the aforementioned Apostolic See of Constantinople, from which the preaching of the Gospel in the holy universal faith was worthy of being enlightened and strengthened, would be renewed.”

So, as we see, in the Constitution of Hetman Pylyp Orlik and the Zaporizhian Army, the first paragraph, as a testament for all subsequent Ukrainian generations, swore an obligation to return the Kyiv Metropolis to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and restore the powers of the Kyiv metropolitans as Exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchs. Therefore, it is not surprising that modern Presidents of independent Ukraine have already tried and are trying to fulfill this covenant by initiating the resumption of dialogue with the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

- And already in our time, in particular in the twentieth century, did the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople extend to any territories of Ukraine?

Yes, in particular in Transcarpathia. And this is a very important point. After all, Transcarpathia is historically and canonically until the arrival of the Soviet occupation forces in the mid-twentieth century. canonically fell within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and this region has never been the “canonical territory” of the Moscow Patriarchate.

At the very beginning of the conversation, we already said how Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), a member of the Synod of the Russian Church, in order to exercise guardianship over the Orthodox flock in these Ukrainian lands, wrote in writing with a request for permission and blessing to the Ecumenical Patriarchs, and also asked for this purpose to be given to him title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Galicia and Transcarpathia. That is, the Synodal Russian Church itself recognized these Ukrainian lands as the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and one of its leading hierarchs used the title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Galicia and Transcarpathia.

On the basis of this historical and canonical law for Orthodox dioceses in the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus occupied by Poland, the Ecumenical Patriarchate on November 13, 1924 issued a Tomos granting autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Poland. This Tomos canceled the act of 1686, which transferred the Kiev See under temporary guardianship (vicarship) to the Moscow Patriarch. The Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarch of 1924 claims that this accession contradicted the canonical rules and the Moscow Patriarchate did not fulfill the requirements stipulated in the act of 1686, according to which the Kiev Metropolis was to retain its rights of autonomy and canonical connection with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Thus, the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland (and, in fact, Western Ukraine and Western Belarus) was proclaimed the successor to the historical autonomous Kiev-Galician Metropolis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. By the way, this included the Holy Dormition Pochaev Lavra, whose sacred archimandrite was considered the primate of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland, the Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland. During German occupation, already in 1941, from part of the Western Ukrainian dioceses of the Orthodox Church in Poland, with the blessing of its primate, Metropolitan Dionysius (Waledinsky) of Warsaw, by Decree of December 24, 1941, the “Administration of the Orthodox Church in the liberated Ukrainian lands” was formed, headed by the administrator, Metropolitan Polycarp of Lutsk ( Sikorski), who was the canonical bishop of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland. This administration is very often called the “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC)”, but this is not entirely true, because it was an expansion of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland in the German-occupied Ukrainian lands, based on the fact that the Church in Poland received autocephaly based on the Kyiv Metropolis. At the same time, Metropolitan Dionysius (Valedinsky) of Warsaw was proclaimed Locum Tenens of the Kyiv Metropolitan See, as the canonical Primate of the autocephalous Orthodox Church on the territory of Poland, Ukraine and Belarus, recognized by the Ecumenical Throne and other Local Orthodox Churches.

- This applies to Ukrainian Galicia, Volyn, Podolia and other lands. But let's return to Transcarpathia...

Archbishop Job: Here the situation developed somewhat differently. After the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ukrainian Transcarpathia fell under the rule of Czechoslovakia. And Orthodox parishes here were canonically included in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a short time at the beginning of the twentieth century. - Serbian Patriarchate. On March 4, 1923, the Council of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, headed by Patriarch Meletios IV, installed a former graduate of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Vladyka Savvatiy (Vrabets, 1880-1959) as Archbishop of Prague and decided that the Orthodox parishes of Transcarpathia were within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Since then, the canonically Ukrainian Orthodox parishes of Transcarpathia have finally been assigned to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, where they were located until the arrival of the Soviet occupation forces.

On November 9, 1939, the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets), reported to Archpriest. Mikhail Popov with a letter that he intends to consecrate him as a bishop or vicar general for Transcarpathia and Hungary. On September 26, 1940, Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets) issued a decree according to which Archpriest. M. Popov was appointed Administrator of the Orthodox Church of Transcarpathia and Hungary under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and he was also granted the rank of protopresbyter. On October 5, 1940, in a letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch Veniamin, Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets) asked to ordain Protopres. M. Popov as bishop for the Orthodox Church of Transcarpathia and Hungary under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, on May 30, 1942, the Germans arrested Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets), he was in the Dachau concentration camp for 3 years (1942-1945). After his release, he was not allowed by the new occupation administration (now Soviet) to carry out his duties, because he refused to break with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Until the end of his life, he was subjected to persecution and pressure from the communist regime, and died on December 14, 1959.

The fate of the Administrator of the Transcarpathian Diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Protopresbyter Mikhail Popov, was even more tragic. On June 13, 1944, he was arrested by the Nazis on suspicion of baptizing Jewish children. At the end of December 1944, Father M. Popov was sent to Germany for forced labor, but during transportation he managed to escape. At the beginning of April 1947, in Budapest, Father M. Popov was arrested by the Soviet NKVD authorities. On September 9, 1947, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison on charges of “anti-Soviet activities.” He was sent to a concentration camp in Vorkuta (Komi ASSR), where he probably died as a martyr for the faith of Christ.

- So it turns out that the canonical structures of the Patriarchate of Constantinople existed in Transcarpathia right up to 1946?

Archbishop Job: Yes, exactly until 1946. And they were forcibly annexed, with the help of the punitive organs of the NKVD, to the Moscow Patriarchate, and those who refused were repressed and destroyed as martyrs for the faith of Christ. And, what is important, Constantinople never, by any act, recognized the destruction by the communist regime in Transcarpathia of the diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its annexation to another jurisdiction. This annexation was uncanonical and violent. And this was not 300 years ago, but in 1946.

A kind of echo of Transcarpathia’s stay under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the autonomous Carpatho-Ruthenian Orthodox Diocese (American Carpatho-Ruthenian Orthodox Diocese), which has survived in the USA to this day and exists as part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Its primate is now the bishop Nissky Gregory(Tatsis).

By the way, it was the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets), on October 19, 1940, at the Kholm Council, together with Metropolitan Dionysius (Valedinsky) of Warsaw, who ordained Fr. Hilarion (Prof. I. Ohienko) as Bishop of Kholm and Podlaski, who later, in exile, headed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada, which is now part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Other outstanding Ukrainian church leader under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was Metropolitan Bogdan of Eucarpia (Shpilka; 1892 - 1965). A theologian by training, in the 1920s he was studying teaching activities in Transcarpathia and was ordained here as a priest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate by Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets) of Prague. In 1936, he was elected bishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America, which was under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Subsequently he became its metropolitan, and was the author of an Orthodox catechism in Ukrainian and English and polemical brochures. The UOC of the USA, which now operates in North America under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, is the heir to both the “Administration of the Orthodox Church in the liberated Ukrainian lands” Met. Polycarp (Sikorsky), and the UOC of America, Metropolitan. Bogdana (Hairpins). Another numerous Ukrainian jurisdiction under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the already mentioned UOC in Canada.

So, as we see, the extension of the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Ukrainian territory and the Ukrainian diaspora has direct historical and canonical continuity. Therefore, all accusations against Constantinople of “invading someone else’s canonical territory” are unfounded here, since from 860 and 988, and from 1686 to 1946, Constantinople always had its own canonical structures in various territories of modern Ukraine. Therefore, it is important to talk not only about the act of 1686, but also about later precedents for the extension of the jurisdiction of Constantinople to various territories of Ukraine.

- How can we explain that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has now begun to remember that Ukraine historically was and is its canonical territory?

Archbishop Job: This is not entirely true. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has emphasized this more than once. Another thing is that while Ukraine was not an independent state and was part of the Russian Empire or the communist USSR, then talking about it was useless. It was a different matter when Ukraine gained state independence... Although, already in the very act of 1686 on the transfer of the Kyiv see to the temporary guardianship (administration) of the Moscow patriarchs, it was noted that the Kyiv metropolitans must recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch and be sure to remember his name at all services and remain Exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And as already mentioned, the Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of November 13, 1924 on the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Poland canceled this act of 1686 precisely because this accession contradicted the canonical rules and the Moscow Patriarchate did not fulfill the requirements stipulated in the act of 1686.

This position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on Ukraine remains unchanged to this day. In a letter to Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow dated January 10, 1991, Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitri wrote: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate recognizes only one canonical Orthodox Church within the boundaries of Your Holy Church established by the Patriarchal and Holy Synod of 1593.”

As is known, “within the boundaries established by the Patriarchal and Holy Synod of 1593”, only the north-eastern dioceses of the Moscow Kingdom (Muscovy) were recognized in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, while the dioceses of the Kyiv Metropolis (Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Poland) “within those established by the Patriarchal and Holy Synod Synod of 1593 Borders” were included in the rights of expanded autonomy within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. That is, in fact, in the letter of the Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrius it was said that the borders of 1593 left the Kyiv Metropolis within the canonical boundaries of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The same position was presented by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the recent Synaxis (Council of Bishops) in Constantinople on September 1-3, 2018. That is, nothing new is said here. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has stood in principle on the position that Ukraine has historically and canonically been and is its canonical territory, and continues to consistently stand on this. Therefore, the indignation of representatives of the daughter Russian Church regarding the position of the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, on this matter is unfounded. And we hope that after a deeper study of this issue, such unfair indignation will pass.

- Vladyka, with your help we have made a useful excursion into our forgotten historical past. But in conclusion, how, under the current circumstances, can the Ecumenical Patriarchate solve such a complex and confusing Ukrainian church problem?

Archbishop Job: Only through prayer, dialogue of love, observance of canons and restoration of historical justice. It is necessary to explore and rethink the past, get rid of artificial myths and distortions of history, correct the mistakes of the past, violation of canons and turn to face the truth. For, as the Holy Scripture says, only “by the work of righteousness will there be peace” (Isa. 32:17).

In my personal conviction, given the current situation in Ukraine, only granting the Orthodox Church in Ukraine canonical autocephaly can help overcome the problems and schisms that exist in it, reconcile, unite and bring it out of the terrible crisis state in which it has found itself over the past 30 years. And this would be the restoration of historical justice.

There is still a lot of work ahead. We are only at the beginning of this big historical process, on the way of which there are still many obstacles. The dialogue is just beginning. Nothing is being done in a hurry here.

And here there is a great responsibility and obligation on the part of the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Let me emphasize once again that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is obliged to take all possible measures in accordance with its canonical prerogatives in order to ensure church unity and prevent the continued presence of millions of Orthodox Ukrainian people outside the canonical Church. The role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is to serve the unity of the entire Orthodox Church, and not just some of its parts. And since the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is now divided into several parts, it is the duty of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the Mother Church, to find, by starting a dialogue, the optimal means of canonical oikonomia to restore unity.

This is exactly why Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and sent its envoys (exarchs) to Ukraine so that in a frank dialogue with all parties to the conflict they would help them find mutual language and come to an agreement. After all, the Body of Christ cannot be divided. It belongs to Christ, and not to Moscow, Kyiv or anyone else. There cannot be a Church of the “Russian world” or any other. All who sincerely strive to be with Christ, regardless of national or political convictions and preferences, have the right to belong to the Universal Church as the mystical Body of Christ. It's time to stop all those imperial political speculations and ambitions. The reality is that there are millions of Orthodox believers in Ukraine who will never go to Moscow again. This is clear to everyone. And not to let them through this to Christ, to excommunicate them and deprive them of salvation, is not Christian, non-canonical. We must look for other acceptable ways to solve this problem, using church canons, economy and love.

It is very unfortunate that representatives of the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate are so far refusing to dialogue with representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other parts of the Ukrainian Churches. Statements about the refusal of such fraternal meetings and dialogue, blackmail with Eucharistic unity and a ban on concelebrating with the hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate only drive them into a dead end and further worsen their canonical position.

I hope that this is only temporary and that our brothers from the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate will understand the error of this path and open their hearts to dialogue and fraternal unity in Christ. So are representatives of other parts of the Ukrainian Churches, which for various reasons are not yet in unity with Ecumenical Orthodoxy. After all, unity in Christ must be ours main goal. Christ Himself bequeathed this: “That they all may be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us” (John 17:21). And “therefore everyone will know that you are Mine.” disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

As His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew said on this occasion: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate is obliged to remind everyone of the conciliarity and universal character of the Church, proclaiming the spirit of reconciliation, which overcomes conflicts and serves the unity of Orthodoxy.” I believe that dialogue is the only right way. After all, as the holy Apostle Paul bequeathed: “There must also be differences of opinion among you, so that those who are most skillful may be revealed among you” (1 Cor. 11:19). And as St. Augustine wrote: “In the main thing there is unity, in the secondary thing there is freedom, in everything there is love.”

The interview was recorded by Igor Mirevsky,

Characteristics of men