[limpoporanique]

2005.04.06 RUSSIAN CHURCH: Perplexity in Moscow over Constantinople's
Canonical Claims to Ukraine
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
DEPARTMENT FOR EXTERNAL CHURCH RELATIONS
Office of Communication

Press-release, 06.04.2005
<http://www.mospat.ru/text/e_news/id/8954.html>http://www.mospat.ru/text/e_news/id/8954.html
Church news
Perplexity in Moscow over Constantinople's Canonical Claims to Ukraine
During his meeting with Ukrainian President Victor Yuschenko on March 26,
Archbishop Vsevolod (Maidansky) of Skopelos, Cicago-based representative of
the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Patriarchate of Constantinople),
declared Constantinople's canonical claims to Ukraine. His statement was
distributed by the Religious Information Service of Ukraine and then
published at the official website of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the
USA. This statement has provoked serious perplexity in the Russian Orthodox
Church.
The statement reads, 'The position of the Mother Church, the Patriarchate
of Constantinople, is that her daughter - the Moscow Patriarchate -
consists of that territory which it encompassed to the year 1686. The
subjugation of the Kyivan Metropolia to the Moscow Patriarchate was
concluded by Patriarch Dionysios without the agreement or ratification of
the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Great Church of Christ'.
Commenting the mass media reports, Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, the Moscow
Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Secretary for
Inter-Orthodox Relations, noted in his interview to Tserkovny vestnik that
on the face of it the text raised serious doubts if the Ukrainian
journalists conveyed Archbishop Vsevolod's statement correctly.
'Archbishop Vsevolod of Skopelos participated in the negotiations on the
Ukrainian problems on several occasions and never challenged the validity
and canonicity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is a self-governed
part of the Moscow Patriarchate', Father Nikolay stressed.
'I also know that during his visit to Ukraine Archbishop Vsevolod
considered it his primary duty to pay a visit to His Beatitude Metropolitan
Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine. However, the fact of the official
publication by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA leaves no room for
doubt. Besides, we have learnt from the press release issued in the USA
that Archbishop Vsevolod had official meetings with the former Metropolitan
Philaret of Kiev, who was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church, and with
a representative of the so-called 'Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox
Church'. Moreover, the Primate of the canonical and universally recognized
Ukrainian Orthodox Church was ranked on a par with a member of an
uncanonical schismatic group and an anathemized person. It appears to mean
that for Archbishop Vsevolod there is no substantial difference between
them. There is an impression that His Eminence is now guided by a new
approach, rather then the conception that was worked out by previous
consultations between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow
concerning a settlement of the Ukrainian church problem. I do not know how
it is possible to combine this new approach with the statement Archbishop
Vsevolod made during his meeting with Metropolitan Vladimir that the
Patriarchate of Constantinople stands invariably for settling the problem
of schism on the basis of church canons'.
Speaking about the published statement by Archbishop Vsevolod, Father
Nikolay pointed out that similar statements were already voiced in the past
and represented nothing new or peculiar. 'Ukrainian schismatics, in their
attempts to sow discord between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and
Moscow, alleged also before that the Orthodox Church of Constantinople
considers Ukraine to be its canonical territory. To put an end to the
misunderstandings the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
issued on August 8, 2000, an official statement describing these
allegations as 'completely erroneous' and the publications reproducing them
as 'based on incorrect information'. At that time the Patriarchate of
Constantinople expressed regret that the attempts to spread such rumors
'not only cause division but also conflict between Christians and they
misrepresent and distort the virtuous intentions of those who have
sacrificed and labored for the restoration of the unity of Christians''.

Archpriest Nikolay Balashov reminded the readers that Patriarch
Bartholomaios of Constantinople, during his visit to the Russian Orthodox
Church in 1993, stated officially that 'the Ecumenical Patriarchate
recognizes only one canonical Metropolitan of Kiev - His Eminence Vladimir,
Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine'. 'That is why', emphasized Father
Nikolay, 'it is so difficult for us to believe that the statement
Archbishop Vsevolod made in Kiev really reflects the official position of
the Patriarchate of Constantinople', adding that an appropriate inquiry has
already been sent to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
'From the historical point of view', said the DECR Secretary, 'the
published statement causes no less amazement. The Decree of His Holiness
Patriarch Dionysios of Constantinople was signed by all the Holy Synod
members including the Metropolitans of Chalcedon, Nikodemia, Lycia,
Thessaloniki and others - altogether 20 hierarchs. Besides, this decision
was approved by His Holiness Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem, who also
issued a confirming decree. Moreover, in his special official letter to the
bishops and all the Orthodox living in Poland, Patriarch Dositheos told
them to obey the Moscow-appointed Metropolitan Gedeon of Kiev, 'who is
accepted and recognized by all the patriarchs as a true and authentic
metropolitan'.
The documents confirming this are kept with care at the Russian State
Archives of Ancient Acts and well known to the scholarly community from
studies by famous Russian historian N. F. Kapterev published in the late
19th - early 20th century. These facts have never been challenged by other
researchers, even those with no special liking for Moscow. For instance,
Prof. I. I. Ogiyenko, a well-known Ukrainian historian (later the head of
the unrecognized 'Autocephalous Ukrainian Church in Canada'), in his study
'Ukrainska Tserkva: Narisi z istorii Ukrainskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi',
confirms that the envoys from Moscow and Kiev came back home with 'all the
necessary acts signed by the whole council'.
Archpriest Nikolay Balashov said on conclusion, 'It is not clear what
purpose is pursued by this attempt to rewrite the historical documents
which have not been challenged by anybody for three centuries and which are
recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches. Is it to cast a shadow on
the previous Primates of the Churches of Constantinople and Jerusalem and
their sacred thrones so that the traditional respect that the Slavic
faithful have for them may be belittled?'
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
DEPARTMENT FOR EXTERNAL CHURCH RELATIONS
Office of Communication
Address: 22, Danilovsky val, St.Danilov monastery, DECR,
113191 Moscow,
Russia
Internet: <http://www.mospat.ru>http://www.mospat.ru
E-mail: commserv@mospat.ru