Paul Goble
Staunton,
September 9 – Many in Moscow are reacting hysterically to Constantinople’s
moves to grant autocephaly to the Kyiv Patriarchate, but instead of getting angry
and making all kinds of threats, Pavel Tikhomirov says, Russians should be soberly
assessing the situation and recognizing what they can and cannot hope to do.
The
reality is, the assistant to the editor of the Russkaya narodnaya liniya portal says, is that “a large part of the
Ukrainians will never go to a Moscow Patriarchate church. This I bad and
offensive to all of us who believe in the reality of the realization of the ideals
of the Russian world, but this is the case” (ruskline.ru/news_rl/2018/09/08/teper_poezd_uzhe_ushyol/).
“For a political
Ukrainian – and the number of such people is constantly growing – the Russian
world is simply ‘neo-Sovietism’ masked by new names,” Tikhomirov says. Many Ukrainians aren’t committed to Western
liberalism or market ideas, but the social state they want would be one very
different from that which existed in Soviet times.
According to the commentator, “we
Russian patriots feel shy about speaking on this subject. We somehow conflate
the Russian world with the USSR and now we are receiving the fruits of this
conflation. Everything here is completely logical.” The Moscow Patriarchate had
a change to escape from this, but it didn’t take it.
“A quarter of a century ago,” Tikhomirov
says, “Russian Orthodoxy could have been viewed as the bearer of the idea of
pre-revolutionary Russia. This didn’t please everyone, but this was an
alternative both for Ukrainian nationalists and communists. But now Russian Orthodoxy
is viewed entirely differently.”
For many Ukrainians now, his contacts
among the Orthodox in Ukraine say, “the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow
Patriarchate is a purely ‘KGB’ structure.” Tikhomirov says that they should
recognize that Kyiv has used church structures too, but regardless of that
fact, “now the situation has changed” in Ukraine against the ROC MP.
“And so, very many of our straying
ex-brothers will never come to our churches,” the commentator continues. It is
impossible to heal the split – [at least] with our forces.”
In this situation, Tikhomirov says,
the Universal Patriarchate has begun to create a structure “in which various Ukrainians
splits will join … a kind of analogue to the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church
which will exist in parallel to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow
Patriarchate.”
(For
an introduction to the complex history of Orthodox churches in Estonia in the 20th
and 21st century, see the article at estonica.org/en/Eastern_orthodoxy_in_Estonia_%E2%80%94_a_brief_overview_of_religious_controversy/History_of_the_controversy/
and the sources cited therein.)
Moscow could have
sent its own exarchs to Ukraine and won over many Ukrainians but certainly not the
majority. But the Russian church and government weren’t willing to get only
part of a loaf; they wanted it all, Tikhomirov says. And now they are left with
a situation in which they will not get much at all.
In Ukraine, “the train has already left” the
station; and Moscow has been left behind.
In response, Russians should consider the
situation in a sober fashion. On the one
hand, Russian Orthodox can only be glad that some Ukrainian faithful will go to
church and gain access to the mysteries, even if it is not a Russian church and
even if the Russian church has misplayed the situation.
And on the other, Tikhomirov concludes, “the
time has come for our brothers from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow
Patriarchate to draw conclusions and make a choice.” They also should approach this with sobriety
rather than in an emotional and alarmist way.
No comments:
Post a Comment