The Historical Relationship of Russia and Ukraine

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou 

 

Prologue

Almost three years ago, in the year 2019, I read an interesting book that referred to the relations between Russia and Ukraine in history and I wrote an article to present it.

This article titled "Russia and Ukraine" was then posted on the website of our Sacred Metropolis, from where other websites took it.

Because this issue is very relevant nowadays, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I bring it up again to show the negative relations between Russia and Ukraine over time to our days.

However, the resistance of the Ukrainian people to the Russian invasion confirms the research carried out by the author of this book, as well as its conclusions.

The Shameful Oath the African Clergy Have Made to the Patriarchate of Moscow

The Russian invasion of the Patriarchate of Alexandria under the pretext that about 100 clergy in Africa want to belong to Moscow, has also produced … oaths!

We quote an "Oath" signed by these clergymen, who declare that they are joining "voluntarily" with Moscow without any "personal financial gain", but with the "sole purpose" of saving their soul which is in "spiritual danger" from the moment the Patriarchate of Alexandria recognized the Autocephaly of the Church of Ukraine, which for Moscow is still a "schism".

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 13)

...continued from part twelve.

* Only the fact of the mutual kiss between Onufry and Epiphanius, and the smiles from both sides, on an official Ukrainian national holiday, shows that direct channels of communication and mutual communion are maintained. I do not know to what extent the two current local Churches communicate. However, I was surprised by this obvious indication of communion.

Ecclesiastical History has a number of strange examples that are not compatible with the canonicity of the Apostolic Tradition and the Apostolic Succession. They are well known, but it is worth listing a few.

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 12)

 ...continued from part eleven.

* By the late Germanos Verykopoulos, a Bishop of the Old Calendarists, was ordained the late Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, a submissive of two zealots of Mount Athos, but of the stature of the venerable Joseph the Hesychast. In the 42 years of his priestly life, he always saw with his sense of sight divine Grace cover over the Holy Gifts (only once he did not see it). When, with the help of God, they returned to communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and commemorated the Patriarch, he began to see more clearly this mystery of the perceptible presence of divine Grace. Previously, as long as he was attached to the zealots, he saw it dimly, as he himself said and catechized.

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 11)

...continued from part ten.

* Let us proceed to the recent "threats" of the political arrogance of our Russian brothers. Indirectly they are talking about the appropriation of the Old Calendarist factions of Greece. This was not directly said by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, but inferred, in an interview with a Russian channel, which was immediately published in a Greek website, on the eve of our own Hierarchical Session. For so long this was not said, because other more elitist methods of pressure were being employed by the Metropolitan among the Greek Hierarchy and the ecclesiastical body. Now, on the verge of a discussion and a possible decision, this intimidation by the Russian Metropolitan and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Muscovite Church is also being planted!

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 10)

Archbishop Petru of Bessarabia

...continued from part nine.

* Let us proceed to some of their other movements, which show a purely political and secular sense of the mystery of the Church. They recently awarded Irinej of Bačka of the Serbian Patriarchate the title of Honorary Doctor at the Theological Academy of St. Petersburg. They have published numerous photographs on the internet, insisting in every way to influence the public opinion in Greece that they also have theological academies, which are accepted by the other Churches, and that they have something that measures a mature scientific theological education in their country.

* The bearers of the Muscovite ecclesiastical policy (from 1948 onwards, as the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos writes) do not hesitate to cooperate even with Catholic priests. Initially, the Minister of Foreign Affairs presented a distinguished Catholic theologian clergyman at the Theological Academy of Moscow as a distinguished scientist (until this point, I present no blame), and the next day at the Divine Liturgy he was received as a protopriest who co-liturgized with Orthodox clerics. In other words, they promote advanced practices in inter-Christian relations without fundamental barriers.

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 8)

 

...continued from part seven.

* Regarding the deposing and excommunication of Filaret, these double convictions were imposed in excess of all canonical sensitivity. He did not violate matters of faith, but matters of order. Why then did they impose an excommunication? For the same canonical offense that they imposed his deposing, and (because Filaret insisted) they also imposed the excommunication. However, an excommunication is imposed on matters of faith, not on matters of canonical and moral deviance. How then did they impose double penalties for the differentiation of Filaret?

This is somehow aimed at the ecclesiastical fullness of 15,000,000 people who followed Filaret - bishops, clergy, monks and laity. It was done in order to force either him or his ecclesiastical faction to bow their necks, for reasons of pastorally fencing off the rest of the people of Ukraine, and for the exaltation of the splendor of Moscow. We have everywhere an authoritative rationale and practice, as I emphasize again and again. A rationale and practice of new Regulations in the ecclesiastical space, outside and above the Holy Synods of Orthodoxy. And they rest on the compulsorily granted autocephaly and patriarchal value of the 16th century, which they expand at their pleasure in extent and depth. We have something like a new Orthodoxy, as if the inter-patriarchal ancient Apostolic Orthodoxy had disappeared, and they are rebuilding a new structure and rational Orthodoxy. It is similar to a secular political change.

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 7)

...continued from part six.

* As is confessed by the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Alexandria (Nikephoros of Kinshasa), the Russians in various African countries are seeking the right of Russian priests to liturgize in the Russian Embassies of Africa. This is a stark demonstration of unbridled hegemonism and expansionism. They achieved the authorization of the Patriarch of Alexandria for a few countries of Africa, something like exarchies, and now they want to expand more, something like a Super-Patriarchate!

It seems that they succeeded in Cyprus, with the authorization of the Church of Cyprus, they spread even into occupied Cyprus, even though they solemnly lie and deny any connection with some Russian missions of clergy to the land of occupied Cyprus. However, they also have a relationship and they promote the action of such groups on Cypriot soil.

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 6)

 ...continued from part five.

I will now dwell on some other historical facts, in order to give rest, or rather strain, to your frustration.

* The Ukrainian titular patriarch Filaret (who co-ordained Kirill), who was a fellow candidate for Patriarch with the late Patriarch Alexy, was punished two or three times by the religious policies of the Russian Patriarchate, which serves the Russian Federation policies. Regardless of the much-publicized Russian "other", primarily and mainly the dynastic political-religious criteria prevailed.

On the other hand, if such a prominent executive hierarch proved - always against the Russians - to be so prone to an obsession with power, surely this is taken into account in the origin/quality of his ordination, in the origin/quality of his theology, the origin/quality of the beginning of his ecclesiastical rise, the origin/quality of his piety: by the Russian Patriarchate, the Patriarchate that "dominates the clergy" from within and is attempting to fearlessly export its merchandise of religious authoritarian goods in Ukraine and in so many arbitrary autocephalies and autonomies and finally in all of Orthodoxy.  

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 4)

...continued from part three.

[5th Great Historical Error]

Within the Russian hegemony (politically justified, but ecclesiastically problematic and theologically ill) stands the ecclesiastical question of Ukraine. The Ukrainian issue has many roots, but it is treated by Russia as their own field of action.

The Russians, who have caused so many autocephalies, have for many decades refused to take such a step in Ukraine (albeit anti-canonically). This is because they want besides vast Ukraine also neighboring Moldova and beyond this Abkhazia and Ossetia as an ecclesiastical space of power, because they ultimately serve political plans, the Russian policy of expansion, the Great Russian Idea.

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 3)

...continued from part two.

[4th Great Historical Error]

In the second half of the 19th century we have a gigantic growth of Pan-Slavism, in the Balkans and in Eastern Europe, which is gradually spreading to the West (as official organizations and formal consular tools throughout the West). Pan-Slavism was and is a "tool" of Russian expansionism, a tool of foreign policy.

The small Permanent Russian Synod (and from 1941/42 the new Moscow Patriarchate together with the Small Synod) was inoculated with Pan-Slavism. What the ecclesiastical Kremlin diplomats are now trying to attribute to the suffering Ecumenical Patriarchate of All Orthodoxy with a thousand and two methods is, in essence, their expansive Russian selves, it is a "self-confession".

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 2)

...continued from part one.

Let us look very briefly at some very erroneous historical steps that have gradually provoked a genetic mentality of bigotry and fueled expansionist tactics in our Russian brothers.

[1st Great Historical Error]

The Russians took the autocephaly by blackmailing (almost imprisoning) the then Ecumenical Patriarch for a year, in times of suffering of the Mother Church. This is the first big error of their ecclesiastical history. We had a test of power and coercion of the daughter against the Mother Church. And this error the self-appointed judges do not want to admit publicly.

Explanations and Clarifications of Ecclesiastical History and the Deontology of the Ukrainian Issue (Part 1)

 By Metropolitan Demetrios of Goumenissa, Axioupolis, and Polykastron

An artificially-made great tension has been incited in regards to Ukraine. Ukraine, however, within Inter-Orthodoxy is something like a smokescreen. In our humble opinion, as a Body of Hierarchs in the Holy Spirit, we must definitely clarify in our consciences two things: behind the Ukrainian issue there is hidden (1st) the hegemony of the Russian Church, and (2nd) its steadily expansive actions (the "Great Idea" of the Russians and its applications in the depths of time). And, instead of our Russian brothers apologizing for these two, they are turning towards regional issues (where the responsibility lies primarily with themselves).

Interview With Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol on Issues Concerning the Pandemic, Vaccination, His Personal Battle With the Coronavirus, and his Stance on Ukraine

The following interview was conducted by philenews.com with Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol. Having recently suffered with the coronavirus, the interviewer asks him a series of controversial questions regarding this issue, and being one of the Hierarchs of Cyprus who disagreed with how the Archbishop of Cyprus handled the issue of Ukraine, he clarifies his stance.  

You got sick in March 2021 with the coronavirus. How did you experience the adventure?

Thank God, it was an adventure that passed. At the moment I was walking in the unknown, I did not know what would happen because I also have some underlying diseases. I was scared but then I left it in the hands of God. I said my prayer and asked God to do His will.

You were also hospitalized for a few days.

The doctors told me to do that when I was informed that I was infected with the virus. I was told you have to go to the hospital. Their order was imperative because I might not have gone since I was not feeling bad at the time. Fortunately I went early.

Saint Nicholas and the Deliverance of the Drowned Infant

 

Once, in Kiev, on the feast of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb, a multitude of people flocked from all the cities and villages for the feast of the holy martyrs. One Kievan, having great faith in St. Nicholas and in the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb, took a boat and sailed to Vishegorod, to venerate the tomb of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb taking with him candles, incense, and prosphora - everything necessary for a worthy celebration.* Having venerated the relics of the saints and having rejoiced in spirit, he departed for home. When he sailed on the river Dnieper, his wife, holding her child in her arms, fell asleep and dropped the child into the water, and he drowned. His father began to tear his hair, crying aloud:

Transfer of the Terebovlya Icon of the Most Holy Mother of God from Terebovlya to Lvov (1674)

 

October 1 commemorates the transfer of the Terebovlya Icon of the Mother of God from the town of Terebovlya to Lvov in 1674.

 

This icon of the Most Holy Theotokos originally appeared in the principality of Galich during the time of the Terebovlya princes, in the thirteenth, or perhaps as early as the twelfth century. After the decline of the Galich principality in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Roman Catholics tried many times to seize the icon and bring it to their own church.

 

The Orthodox believers of Galich and Terebovlya always prayed fervently before the Terebovlya icon, asking the Mother of God to protect them whenever Russia was attacked by enemy forces, and its citizens were led into captivity. 

Synaxis of the Icon of the Mother of God of Kasperov

 

Synaxis of the Icon of the Mother of God of Kasperov (Feast Day - October 1)

 

This holy icon had been brought to Kherson from Transylvania by a Serb at the end of the sixteenth century. Passing down from parent and child, the icon had come to a certain landowner Mrs. Juliana Ionovna Kasperova of Kherson in 1809.By the time it came into her hands, the icon had decayed significantly.

 

One night in February of 1840 she was praying with tears, seeking consolation in her many sorrows. Looking at the icon of the Virgin, she noticed that the features of the icon, darkened by age, had suddenly become bright and was renewed. Soon the icon was glorified by many miracles, and people regarded it as wonderworking. 

 

Synaxis of the Icon of the Mother of God of Barsky

Synaxis of the Icon of the Mother of God of Barsky (Feast Day - October 1)

 

The Barsky icon is located at the Convent of the Protection of the Mother of God, located in the city of Bar of the Podolsk diocese (present-day Vinnitsa region of Ukraine). This city experienced all the misfortunes of the rule of Catholic Poland in western Russia. Its final accession to Russia took place in 1793.

The Neutral Stance of Cyprus on the Ukrainian Issue

At the end of the Divine Liturgy on Sunday 3 November 2019, Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus made the following remarks after the Church of Russia decided to cut off commemoration of the Church of Greece:

Proposal for Dealing with the Ukrainian Issue

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlassiou

The Ukrainian issue has preoccupied the Orthodox Church in recent times, from 1990 until today, a period of about thirty years. When the Ukrainians formed a state, they too wanted to acquire an autocephalous Church and Patriarchate. The Church of Russia did not give its consent, but only granted increased autonomy. For this reason it also punished those who proclaimed the Ukrainian Church to be an Autocephalous Patriarchate by deposing them. From that time onwards in Ukraine there was a Church that comes under the Church of Russia and another two groups that were schismatic.

I have written twenty articles on this subject. The first was written in 2008, the second in 2014, and the others in the two years 2018 and 2019. In these articles my main concern was the deeper cause of the issue, from which various other issues have arisen from time to time.

In the articles I have written I have tried to accentuate six serious topics. Firstly, the regime of the Church is synodical, but also hierarchical. Synodality cannot be emphasised on its own, without the hierarchical system, because this is a Protestant way of thinking. Secondly, the Autocephalous Church cannot function independently of all the other Churches, as ‘autocephalism’; rather, it is self-administering, but not completely independent. Thirdly, Apostolic Succession is inseparably linked with the Apostolic life and tradition within the mystery of Pentecost. Fourthly, the Church resolves the issues that arise with strictness and economy, and economy is used subject to certain conditions and essential prerequisites. Fifthly, from time to time various ecclesiastical illnesses appear, which I would describe as dysfunctions of the synodical and hierarchal regime of the Church, such as the theory of “the Third Rome”, which aim to overturn the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Sixthly, the document for granting the Tomos of autocephaly to a Church had been agreed at the Pan-Orthodox conferences, but there was a disagreement, for which the Church of Moscow is responsible, about who would sign this Tomos.

It is mainly these six points that concerned me in the articles that I wrote as a Hierarch of a Local Church, but also as a Hierarch of the Church as a whole.