The Orthodox Church of Georgia and the perspectives of recognizing: The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine

The Georgian and Ukrainian nations, as well as the Georgian and Ukrainian Orthodox Church traditions, have many things in common. These common features are often associated with Russia, as both the Ukrainian and Georgian nations have tried to break away from both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. This aspiration was frequently reflected in matters of faith. In 2019, the bestowal of the Tomos of Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) by the Ecumenical Patriarch was a remarkable event in the recent history of the Orthodox Church. Some local Orthodox Churches recognized this autocephaly, while others have not yet recognized it. The Orthodox Church of Georgia (OCG) belongs to the latter group. In this article, we discuss the arguments that the OCG and her representatives use to justify their position of not recognizing the autocephaly of the OCU. At the same time, our goal is to outline the prospects for the recognition of the autocephaly of the OCU by the OCG.

Introduction

Nowadays, the issue of Ukraine is one of the widely debated in the world. Ukraine is discussed in the light of military, geopolitical, cultural, social, religious, and many other spheres. For the Orthodox Church and theology, the central issue is the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) and the recognition or non-recognition of this status by the local Churches. Until now, the autocephaly of the OCU is recognized by four local Churches, namely: Constantinople, Alexandria, Greece, and Cyprus. Other churches have not recognized it yet. The Orthodox Church of Georgia (OCG) is among them.

It is true that Georgia, like Ukraine, was forced to be a member of the Russian Empire first, and then of the Soviet Union (which automatically affected the state of the Church). However, the issue of autocephaly for the OCG, unlike OCU, was resolved much more easily for several reasons. In addition to the fact that the OCG had a centuries-old tradition of independence, she also had other details that distinguished her from the OCU. Unlike Tbilisi, Kyiv is considered the main pillar of Russian political ideologies such as ‘Third Rome’, ‘Holy Rus’, ‘Russian World’, etc. Thus, the existence of the Church of Kyiv independently from the Church of Moscow/St Petersburg is fundamentally opposed to Russian imperialism, which the current Russian state and church structures will not accept. Another important moment is related to the period of the Soviet Union. In 1943, Joseph Stalin, in pursuit of his political goals, decided to change the religious policy that had existed until then and openly included the Church in his imperialist paradigm. All this required the special status of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), which would be recognized even outside the borders of the Soviet Union. The first stage of this was the consolidation of Orthodox Church units within the Soviet Union. Thus, in 1943, the Eucharistic union between the Orthodox Churches of Russia and Georgia was restored and later, the ROC chose Sergiy (Stragorodsky) as Patriarch. The OCG was actively involved in the process of legitimizing Patriarch Sergiy. Since 1943, the Orthodox Church has actively participated in international events, and her autocephaly, de facto, has been recognized by all other Orthodox churches. The de jure recognition took place immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union when the Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios I handed over the Tomos to the Patriarch of the OCG—Ilia II. This event was very quickly and joyfully received by the entire Orthodox world; therefore, the recognition of the autocephaly of the OCG did not cause any controversy in the Orthodox world, because it had both a historical background and a convergence of interests on the part of Moscow and Constantinople. In this regard, the autocephaly of the OCU is quite problematic because, on the one hand, there was no autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in past centuries, and on the other hand, Constantinople and Moscow have radically different opinions regarding her status. This polarization is getting deeper in the context of the terrible war waged by Russia in Ukraine and is currently ongoing.

The members of the Holy Synod of the OCG have their own arguments to support their position. This article provides a brief overview of the positions expressed by Georgian bishops and seeks to elucidate the way in which the principle of non-recognition of OCU functions in the thoughts of the Georgian orthodox hierarchy.

Why does the OCG not recognize the autocephaly of the OCU?

The first argument in support of non-recognition belongs to Metropolitan Nikoloz (Pachuashvili) of Akhalkalaki, Kumurdo, and Kars, who, on January 7, 2019, answered the question asked by journalists about the position of the Georgian Church regarding the autocephaly of Ukraine, as follows: ‘We should read the tomos, maybe what is written in this tomos’.^[1] The reality is that time has passed since January 7, 2019, but we still do not know for sure if the bishops have read the Tomos text or, if they have, what conclusions they have drawn from it. I would like to point out that in the Georgian language there are at least two versions of the Tomos of the Autocephaly of the OCU, one of which was translated from the original Greek, and the other from the Ukrainian language.^[2]

The same Metropolitan, when asked by journalists whether the OCG is obliged to state her position regarding the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church, gave an unclear answer. According to him, the issue of the autocephaly of the OCG has not yet been fully resolved by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is why they [OCG] cannot make a hasty decision regarding the autocephaly of Ukraine. This answer is very vague and unclear. Firstly, because the issue of Georgia’s autocephaly was finally resolved about three decades ago, as proof of which the OCG has a special document—Tomos. Also, it is not clear what the phrase ‘hasty decision’ means. Years have already passed since the OCU received autocephaly. The question is how many years should pass before the position of OCG ‘does not turn out to be hasty’.^[3]

The second argument in support of non-recognition belongs to Metropolitan Anania Japaridze, of Manglisi and the Tetri-Tskaro. In October 2019, when asked about the recognition of Ukraine’s autocephaly, he gave the following answer to journalists:

We are in Diptych, and according to Diptych, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. must first recognize. And then our turn will probably come. We always support autocephaly for the Church of Ukraine. A nation, the state has the right to have autocephaly and it will definitely have. This is a process, which proceeds. It doesn’t happen in a day or two.^[4]

This is quite an interesting answer and needs to be analyzed. On the one hand, one can directly see support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian Church, but on the other hand, if we think carefully, we will definitely notice ambivalence. First of all, when there is such issue, following the diptych is not very relevant. If the members of the Holy Synod think that it was legal for the Church of Constantinople to grant autocephaly to Ukraine, then what is the need to wait for others? By the same logic, if Constantinople’s move was non-canonical, then why should anyone wait for someone? It will be more justified if any local Church openly states her position. If we follow the logic of Metropolitan Anania, even the Churches of Greece and Cyprus were not justified in recognizing the autocephaly of Ukraine, because they did not wait, for example, for the recognition of this autocephaly by the Bulgarian Church, which is before them in the diptych. Finally, if the Synod of the OCG is guided by this logic (I mean waiting for the positions of the ancient Patriarchates on the recognition of the autocephaly of the new Churches), then it contradicts itself. Given the fact that OCG has recognized the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), whose autocephaly has not been recognized by other ancient Patriarchates, it is logical to ask if the Georgian bishops were wrong when they recognized this autocephaly of the OCA and did not wait for the decision of the ancient Patriarchates, or are they wrong now when they do not recognize the autocephaly of OCU until others take this step?

The next argument belongs to the same metropolitan, according to whom the autocephaly of the new church should be recognized first of all by the ‘Mother Church’ and, in the case of Ukraine, the Russian Church is the ‘Mother Church’: ‘According to the Canon Law, the “Mother Church” must recognize the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church. In this case, the “Mother Church” is the Russian Church. If the Russian Church recognizes it, then, of course all churches will recognize it’.^[5] Several things can be highlighted from this phrase. First of all, the so-called ‘On the matter of the Mother Church’: in the case of Ukraine (Kyiv Metropolitanate), it is simply a denial of historical facts and circumstances to say that the ‘Mother Church’ of the Kyivan See is Moscow and not Constantinople.^[6] The final part of the sentence is very interesting, in which the Metropolitan says that if Russia recognizes the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church, then all other Churches (including Georgia) will recognize it. In other words, the main problem is Russia and not the canonical, historical, or theological arguments surrounding this issue. It should be noted here that Metropolitan Anania’s statement is much closer to reality than, for example, Metropolitan Ioane Gamrekeli, of Kutaisi and Gaenati who declares that ‘Russia has nothing to do with Ukraine’s autocephaly’.^[7]

Metropolitan Ioane uses a rather popular argument for non-recognition of the autocephaly of the OCU, according to which: 1- the Patriarch of Constantinople could not single-handedly decide the punishment imposed by the Moscow Patriarchate on Philaret Denisenko and Makary Maletich; 2- Clerics consecrated by the schismatics could not be “received into the church.”^[8] It must be said that these arguments have been answered for centuries in the Church based on its history, canon and practical actions. Among them, these studies have been translated into Georgian, and interested persons can learn and understand why the arguments made by Metropolitan Ioane are not strong.^[9]

Official positions of the hierarchs of the OCG

On February 14, 2023, the meeting of the Holy Synod of the OCG was held, which made an interesting decision. At this meeting, it was decided to establish a Eucharistic communion with the Orthodox Church of Ohrid (North Macedonia), which was in a schism and recently restored the Eucharistic relationship with the Orthodox Church of Serbia.^[10] This decision is quite interesting because we see that the OCG established a Eucharistic communion with a church that was in schism in the past, but OCG does not have a Eucharistic connection with OCU and still considers her as schismatic, despite the fact that the OCU received the Tomos of Autocephaly much earlier than the Church of Ohrid, and at the same time, she received this Tomos from the Church of Constantinople. A logical question arises: what was the reason for making such a decision? The answer to this decision may involve politics. For example, according to the official position of the Church of Constantinople, only the Church of Constantinople gives the Tomos of autocephaly to all new Churches. There is also a second position, which is related to the Russian Church. According to it, the Church of Constantinople is not authorized to single-handedly grant autocephaly to a new Church, but this decision must be made in agreement with other churches, and it must include the role of the ‘Mother Church’. In light of the fact that, so far, the Church of Ohrid has received the Tomos from the Church of Serbia (not from Constantinople), and the OCG entered into Eucharistic communion with Ohrid (not with Ukraine), it should come as no surprise that this move is relevant to Russian ecclesiology.

In the spring of 2021, the Georgian TV channel ‘Formula’ recorded an exclusive interview with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I.^[11] During the interview, the Formula journalist asked the patriarch about an opinion in Georgia (which he had also heard from members of the Synod of the OCG). According to this opinion, if the OCG recognizes the autocephaly of the OCU, the Moscow Patriarchate will, in turn, recognize the autocephaly of the Church in Abkhazia (a historical territory of Georgia temporarily occupied by Russia, where Russia does not recognize Georgia’s legislative or ecclesiastical jurisdiction). In response to the journalist, the Ecumenical Patriarch stated that the right to grant autocephaly belongs exclusively to the Church of Constantinople; therefore, Russia cannot grant independence to the Church of Abkhazia.

When we talk about the positions expressed by the hierarchs of the OCG regarding the OCU, we must mention the letter dated March 24, 2023 that the Patriarch of Georgia wrote to the Ecumenical Patriarch. At the very beginning of the letter, a rather interesting position is voiced: ‘It is also clear to us that the Government of Ukraine, being at war, has its own position towards it [regarding the circumstances which are happening in Ukrainian Orthodoxy], and does not consider religious depth. That is why I am addressing you, Your Holiness’.^[12] After clarifying this position, we read in the letter the main reason why it was written:

Hitherto, Metropolitan Onufriy is deprived of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, there are problems with other churches and monasteries, which are under his jurisdiction, as well […] Your All Holiness […], if it is possible, you might help ease the tension, which, in our opinion implies the creation of conditions for peaceful coexistence at the first stage, and then, a peaceful move towards mutual rapprochement.^[13]

The letter clearly shows unconditional support for Metropolitan Onufriy, and it does not mention at all Metropolitan Onufriy’s personal connections with the Russian authorities or the contacts of the clergy under Onufriy’s jurisdiction with Russian security services.

Speaking about this topic, the position of Metropolitan Andrea (Gvazava) of Gori must also be mentioned. As reported by the official website of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Andrea, in an official letter, expressed his support to Metropolitan Onufriy and the clergy under his jurisdiction.^[14]

In accordance with the aim of this article, it is necessary to say that quite often, Georgian bishops, in personal conversations, with journalists or on the internet, state their positions supporting the autocephaly of the OCU.^[15] These positions enjoy approval among the Georgian people, because the majority of the Georgian society openly supports the independence of the Ukrainian state and the autocephaly of the OCU, however, depending on the system of the Orthodox Church, the position expressed by individual bishops cannot influence the official position of the Church. The official position of the Church is echoed by the Holy Synod, and the fact is that the official position of the Synod of the OCG is not affected at all by the Facebook post of a bishop or the statement made to journalists.

By Way of Conclusion

The most obvious thing to mention is that the issue of recognizing Ukraine’s autocephaly in Georgia is quite difficult. Georgia is not the only Church that has not recognized this autocephaly, and this is not a tragedy, but the reality is that until now we have not heard an official position from the Holy Synod of the OCG, according to which they at least welcome this step and congratulate the Ukrainians. Instead, we see a different position even regarding the Ohrid Church, which raises doubts about the political motives of this decision. From our personal standpoint, what we must and can see clearly is that the only actual reason why the OCG has not recognized the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church is Russia, and in this context, the OCG will recognize the autocephaly of the OCU only when this recognition is acceptable to the Russian side. Whether this is true or not, let the readers of this article decide.

 

^[1]  ‘We should read Tomos, maybe what is written – Metropolitan Nikoloz on the issue of autocephaly of Ukraine’ [Tomosi khom unda tsavikitskhot? Ikneb ra tseria – Meufe Nikolozi Ukrainis avtokefaliis sakitkhze], URL: https://tinyurl.com/ycx575b4 [Accessed: 26.10.2023].

 

^[2]  See the translation of Tomos from Greek to Georgian: „საპატრიარქო და სინოდური ტომოსი უკრაინის მართლმადიდებელი ეკლესიისთვის ავტოკეფალური სტატუსის მინიჭებისთვის“, pp. 84-89, Translated by Irine Garakanidze, in: Gocha Barnovi, Guram Lursmanashvili (eds), Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukrainian Autocephaly, Historical, Canonical and Pastoral Aspects. Tbilisi 2019.

See the translation of Tomos from Ukrainian to Georgian: „საპატრიარქო და სინოდური ტომოსი უკრაინის მართლმადიდებელი ეკლესიის საეკლესიო სტრუქტურისათვის ავტოკეფალიის ბოძების შესახებ”, Translated by David Chikvaidze, URL: https://tinyurl.com/577pe52c [Accessed: 26.10.2023].

^[3]  ‘Metropolitan Nikoloz on the autocephaly of Ukraine—we cannot make a hasty statement’ [Meufe Nikolozi Ukrainis Avtokefaliaze – Chven nachkarev gantskhadebas ver gavaketebt], URL: https://www.resonancedaily.com/index.php?id_rub=4&id_artc=152818&fbclid=IwAR3AZUiLRLFzUYrNuQUj0dtJyWFzfYnVeMODAsNADgXcvDkJ08OW_bhFUjs [Accessed: 26.10.2023].

 

^[4]  ‘Metropolitan Ananias Japaridze: According to Diptych, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. must first recognize…and then our turn will probably come’, URL: https://1tv.ge/lang/en/news/metropolitan-anania-japaridze-we-always-support-the-autocephaly-for-the-orthodox-church-of-ukraine/ [Accessed: 26.10.2023].

 

^[5]  “Metropolitan Anania: The Church of Russia is the Mother Church of the Church of Ukraine,” [Meufe Anania: Rusetis Eklesia Ukrainis Eklesiis Deda Eklesiaa], URL: https://tabula.ge/ge/news/612139-meupe-anania-rusetis-eklesia-ukrainis-eklesiis [Accessed: 26.10.2023].

 

^[6]  See: Φειδάς Βλάσιος, Το ζήτημα της Αυτοκεφαλίας της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας της Ουκρανίας εκ πηγών αψευδών, Αθήναι 2019.

 

^[7]  ‘Russia has nothing to do with it – Metropolitan Ioane Gamrekeli regarding the issue of Ukraine’s autocephaly’

[Ruseti arafer shuashia – Meufe Ioane Gamrekeli Ukrainis avtokefaliis sakitkhtan dakavshirebit],

URL: https://newpress.ge/ukrainis-avtokefaliis-sakitxtan-ruseti-arafer-shuashia–meufe-ioanme-gamrekeli-9aov9?fb_comment_id=2588596667874158_2588867257847099&fbclid=IwAR0qWjPcgBRtom-1UlavHKwzDgR7A-rpPFRFQrB8ksa5ztA2jHVjAqd0TE4 [Accessed: 26.10.2023].

^[8]  ‘Excerpt from Reverend John’s letter about Ukrainian autocephaly’ [Natskveti Meufe Ioanes Tserilidan Ukrainis Avtokefaliis shesakheb], URL: https://tinyurl.com/uzjknsr8 [Accessed: 26.10.2023].

 

^[9]  See: Βασιλείου (Ἀρχιεπ. Ἀγχιάλου νῦν δέ Σμύρνης), Πραγματεία περί τοῦ Κύρους τῆς Χειροτονίας Κληρικῶν ὑπό Ἐπισκόπου Καθῃρημένου Σχισματικοῦ Χειροτονηθέντων, Ἐν Σμύρνῃ, 1887.

 

^[10]  ‘Decision of the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church 14.02.2023’ [Sakartvelos Martlmadidebeli Eklesiis Tsminda Sinodis ganchineba] – URL: https://www.businessinsider.ge/ka/product/776 [Accessed: 26.10.2023].

 

^[11]  ‘Bartholomew I: It is groundless blackmail to claim that Russia will grant autocephaly to the Church of Abkhazia’ [Bartholomew I: Usafudzvlo shantazhia, rom Ruseti Abkhazetis Eklesias Avtkefalias mianitchebs],-URL: https://formulanews.ge/News/49804 [Accessed 02.03.2023].

 

^[12]  ‘To His All Holiness, Bartholomew’, 24.03.2023, URL: https://patriarchate.ge/news/3160?fbclid=IwAR2_VokWBo0it3_pn5OLUkRAy4_qet8cyIQZLZ0g1uXPzoeEWqXJHukZrRg [Accessed: 26.10.2023].

 

^[13]  Ibid

 

^[14]  ‘Митрополит Горийский Андрей: Происходящее силовое воздействие на Украинскую Православную Церковь неприемлемо ни по духовным, ни по гражданским законам’, URL: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/6016139.html [Accessed: 26.10.2023].

 

^[15]  ‘Georgian bishops who openly supported the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church’ [Kartveli mgvdeltmtavrebi romlebmats giad dauchires mkhari Ukrainis Eklesiis Avtokefalias], URL: http://alion.ge/2022/03/4380/ [Accessed: 26.10.2023].