An Interview with Archbishop Iona (Cherepanov)

Born and raised in Kyiv, Archbishop Iona (Cherepanov) of Obukhiv is abbot of the Ukrainian capital’s Trinity St. Jonah’s Monastery, home to some 35 monks. The community is renowned for its youth work: Over 150 teenagers and young adults attend weekly discussion meetings with the monks, and these gatherings have inspired Molodost’ Neravnodushna [Russian: Youth Is Not Indifferent, www.molodost.in.ua], a volunteer movement active in hospitals, old people’s homes, and orphanages across Ukraine. Archbishop Iona has chaired the youth outreach department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) since 2010. The East-West Church Report met Archbishop Iona at Trinity St. Jonah Monastery in mid-October. The original conversation took place in Russian. 

How do you view the prospect of autocephaly for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? 

If Ukraine were a civilized country, there would be nothing bad about autocephaly. But on an economic and social level–and most importantly, on the level of relations between state and society–Ukraine is currently at the stage of so-called banana republics. 

We fear that if autocephaly is granted to schismatics and a portion of our parishes, or if an Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is created here, the state authorities will begin to interfere actively in church life, both directly and indirectly through the radical nationalist groups under their control, and in this way take churches, monasteries and other property away from people. This is already being discussed openly, both by state officials and leaders of the schismatic movement. If similar processes were taking place in a free country–in the USA or the countries of Old Europe–it would be unpleasant but not tragic. In these countries different religious groups coexist peacefully and the state recognizes and respects every group. But what we see here is an order to turn everyone into a state church. 

All manner of people other than Orthodox believers are engaged in this autocephaly: the government of the USA is concerned about it; the government of Ukraine–which consists of non-church people; people of the Greek Catholic faith, and schismatics. But among believers autocephaly is deemed necessary only by a very small group of parishioners who are active on the Internet. Most don’t need autocephaly at all. 

Within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) several hierarchs publicly support the possibility of canonical autocephaly, however, including Metropolitan Oleksandr (Drabinko) and Metropolitan Simeon of Vinnytsia. Is there a possibility of specifically canonical autocephaly in which the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) determines the direction of development? If so, what percentage would support that possibility?  

It is a minority, that’s for certain. I have said why Ukraine can’t have an independent church right now. As soon as a church gets independence from some external center, it immediately becomes dependent upon the local political center. History has testified to this on multiple occasions. The goal of those now trying to obtain autocephaly is to completely subjugate the church to the state, to make the church compliant and manageable. Once the ideology of Communism collapsed, the state no longer had a unifying ideology, and there is clearly a desire in this country to create some kind of state church dependent upon political trends. And this is being pursued by completely non-church people and forces–we are not talking about salvation or repentance, we are talking only about achieving personal political goals. 

The idea of autocephaly is totally compromised by its executors and ideologists. We know from church history that whatever the hierarchs may decide, there is still the question of how it is received by the people of the Church, who, in the first instance, are oriented not on politics or beautiful words, but on spiritual authority. Thank God, we don’t have a single person of high spiritual authority who even closely sympathizes with autocephaly. Starting with Metropolitan Onufry and ending with monks and nuns in monasteries, and spiritual people. 

Metropolitan Onufry always asks: “Why do we need to change the Church? Are our sacraments insufficient, do we not have services? May we not repent or arise spiritually after a fall? What do we need? What will we gain by having autocephaly?” 

Is the figure of Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko) of the Kyiv Patriarchate key to the impasse in this situation? 

Filaret is key to the fact that the situation has continued as the status quo for rather a long time, because he is feared and not liked by anyone. The Constantinople Patriarchate knows who he is, and the breakaway Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, and our Church–no one  wants to be together with him. Even some of our bishops who would like to be autocephalous–on no account do they want to be together with Filaret. Our Metropolitan Sophrony of Cherkassy, for instance, has spoken about that. So there is unlikely to be any real unification while Filaret is alive. 

Of course, there are also sincerely believing people with Filaret who are truly lost, but for the most part supporters of the Kyiv Patriarchate are people for whom nationality is more important than Christ.

A year ago Filaret submitted a letter of repentance to Moscow. 

To this day no one understands what that was. It was completely unclear. On the one hand there was a letter and a commission created, but the next day Filaret said he never signed anything–that it was a provocation and no one was going to repent. I was at the Bishops’ Council in Moscow when that letter was received, and there was great joy that there might finally be some kind of contact. But one elderly metropolitan who knows Filaret well said, “Don’t believe it.”

Have the exarchs appointed to Kyiv by the Ecumenical Patriarch consulted with anyone from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)? 

Common decency–to say nothing of church canons– dictates that such visits should be agreed beforehand, not after we have been informed about them. So Metropolitan Onufry has refused to meet with these exarchs as with uninvited guests. 

For you this was entirely unexpected? 

Yes, it was an arbitrary decision by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Our hierarchs have noted with regret that when things were difficult for the Greek Church during Ottoman rule and other oppression, the Russian Church helped however it could, but when things were difficult for the Russian Church–as under the Communists–the Greek Church immediately took the side of the persecutors. The Ecumenical Patriarch recognized the Renovationists and their deposition of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow in the 1920s. And now, as soon as things become difficult, they respond to the assistance our church gave over centuries with ingratitude. 

In March 2014 Metropolitan Onufry publicly appealed to Patriarch Kirill to speak out in support of the integrity of the Ukrainian state. By comparison, in the transcript recently issued of the 31 August meeting between Patriarch Kirill and the Ecumenical Patriarch in Phanar, Patriarch Kirill says of Russia and Ukraine: “We have never stopped recognizing that we are one country and one people.” Given this difference in perception, do you think that representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia fully grasp the reality here? 

I think that they are aware of what is happening here. Butwe can influence processeswithin theMoscowPatriarchate– we elect the patriarch, and our hierarchs take part in the Synod–whereas Moscow has no reciprocal action over us. They cannot influence our elections or decisions in any way, even the election of the Metropolitan, to say nothing of dioceses or the appointments of new hierarchs. We are truly significantly more independent than many so-called autocephalous churches, such as the Polish and Czech Churches, or those which strictly depend upon Constantinople. 

Nevertheless, could representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church speak about Ukraine more diplomatically?

First of all, that transcript has not been confirmed as official by either Constantinople or Moscow. It is what is known as a leak, but it isn’t clear how reliable it is, so it cannot be taken seriously. 

Secondly, when Metropolitan Onufry became locum tenens of the Kyiv Metropolia in 2014, he came here from Chernivtsi [a city in far western Ukraine], the periphery, and many steps he took were oriented on the advice of those who were alongside him at that time. And he did try to influence some political situations. But over time he understood that the whole Church must genuinely stand outside politics, because state politics is very fickle. The art of politics is the art of betrayal and deception. So he is engaged purely in church life and helping people as far as he is able. The large exchange of prisoners a year ago, for example, took place with the direct participation of the Church.  

In the final analysis no one listens to the Church, either in Russia or Ukraine; whatever might be said about the Church, politicians do everything in their own way. State policy is so mercurial that if you support or do not support one or other side you can end up in a different political situation in six months’ time. Metropolitan Onufry understood this very quickly. 

He continues to participate alongside representatives of other churches and faiths in the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations, though? He even chaired it in 2014. 

Yes. He or one of our representatives always attends. 

Is it true that Metropolitan Onufry has allowed parishes not to commemorate Patriarch Kirill during services?

Yes. In parishes where commemoration of Patriarch Kirill is awkward, the parish priest may choose to decide not to name the patriarch. But it is not a very widespread practice–it depends upon the region. In western regions perhaps a third of parishes do not name Patriarch Kirill. But I have talked to many priests in Rivne Region, for example, who name Patriarch Kirill on principle. If they stop commemorating the patriarch, they told me, they will be asked, “Why don’t you serve in Ukrainian?” And next, “Seeing as you don’t commemorate the patriarch and you serve in Ukrainian, you’re with us, so let’s go over to the Kyiv Patriarchate.”

Has the practice of serving in Ukrainian been formally accepted, and if so, is it a recent development?

Under the late Metropolitan Volodymyr [Sabodan], parishes where the majority wished to worship in Ukrainian were permitted to do so. This practice has its place, mostly in western regions.

A question regarding property: By law, do historical church buildings belong to the state?

 Parish communities have indefinite use of them.

And monasteries? Are there any rights that may be lost?

In civilized countries the question of real estate is always resolved in a civilized manner. Here, though, the country in many ways still lives as in the Soviet Union, and if the state sees fit, there could be difficulties. They could order the transfer of all historical Orthodox buildings to the newly created Ukrainian Church. Clearly, people will defend and not give up their churches. Of course, this will provoke clashes, because people will be forced out. But the Church survived Soviet power. There were cases when the authorities wanted to close churches–for example, they tried to close Pochayiv Lavra many times, and neither the KGB nor the army nor the police could do anything. 

Who would engage in such attacks now, the state or a different force?  

Over the past four years around 50 churches have transferred to the Kyiv Patriarchate, of which about half went voluntarily–the priests and their flock wanted it–while around half were seized. A technique for how to do this has been devised. It relies upon the fact that there is no precise legal division of the church community and the community of a particular village. If you take a large village with 1,000 residents, 50 of those attend church. This is the church community. They want to pray as they did before. Then a call comes to the village council from higher up in the bureaucracy saying that the church should belong to the Kyiv Patriarchate. Some Kyiv Patriarchate guys come and organize a demonstration of the 1,000 living in the village. They ask, “Do you support Moscow or the Kyiv Patriarchate?” The villagers shout, “We support the Kyiv Patriarchate!” And that’s it; the community has decided that the church should be transferred to the Kyiv Patriarchate. They throw out the people who have always prayed there and the church is transferred to the Kyiv Patriarchate. And the church stands empty because all the believers move to a house or some other premises. 

How would this happen in the case of monasteries?

Monasteries are generally in historical buildings, so the government is able to exert pressure. 

The government is able to exert pressure. And you think this is a real possibility once autocephaly is granted?

Absolutely. There have been many cases of village churches being seized in which the church community didn’t want to leave, and Right Sector, Svoboda or some other nationalist groups came. The police stood by and watched as these groups threw people out of church.