ALEXANDER DRABINKO: VIEWING MAIDAN, METROPOLITAN VLADIMIR SAID UKRAINE IS BEING CLEANSED
by Lana Samokhvalova
Ukrinform, 4 July 2015
The fifth of July is the anniversary of the death of the virtual founder of the modern Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan, who was the father of the flock and its undoubted moral authority.
The Holy Synod invited all bishops to the capital for this day. In the Kiev caves lavra a bishops' liturgy will be served and a monument will be dedicated.
At the memorial celebrations there will be dozens of diverse bishops. There will be those who quite rudely tried to occupy his place while Metropolitan Vladimir was still alive. There will be those who today are trying to scale down all influences of his activity.
However, the anniversary, though sad, is also a bright day. Because we all loved BMV (as His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir's name was jokingly abbreviated [Blazhenneishii Mitropolit Vladimir]) very much. Yesterday we managed to have a conversation with the years-long secretary of the metropolitan, who was and remains the heir of the church course of the late primate, Metropolitan Alexander Drabinko. We met him in his office, located in the cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Savior in Teremki, where Vladyka Alexander ministers.
In this church for a year now an akathist for the victory of the Ukrainian army has been served. Here it is not questioned whether a soldier on a prayer request happens to belong to the Kiev patriarchate.
The metropolitan's office is small; it can accommodate a dozen persons. In the hall hangs a display of soldiers from this district who died on the Maidan and in the ATO [Anti-Terrorism Operation] and inside hangs an informal portrait of Vladimir.
LS: Vladyka, usually associates and successors of prominent leaders come to their grave for their own internal accounting before the departed. Tell me, is there something for which the current leadership of the church gives an account? Because I have the strong impression that the authority of the church has been mercilessly damaged, the construction of churches has declined, and inter-church dialogue has been frozen. Is this just the appearance of a situation of a complete assault upon the achievements of His Beatitude, or is that the way it is?
AD: One must be objective. And so one should not blame the new primate of UPTs or others of its leaders for the fact that today "construction of churches has declined." War is continuing in the Donbass. Economists and politicians discuss the liklihood of declaring a default. Therefore the reasons for the decline in church construction is obvious: this is an economic crisis which was provoked by an undeclared war.
As regards the decline in inter-church dialogue, here one perceives a certain change in priorities. His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir personally labored for the idea of dialogue. This idea was not born suddenly. His Beatitude came to it when he was convinced that no alternative to dialogue exists.
As regards the question how His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufrey views inter-church dialogue: the decision of the UPTs Holy Synod regarding reviving dialogue with UAPTs supposedly shows that the issue has moved from dead center. But here the format for the dialogue is also important. What is meant by a dialogue of the UPTs with the UAPTs? A search for a general confessional competition or a search for a common path to church unity? From the point of view of protection of the confessional interests of our church, perhaps a tactical alliance with UAPTs against UPTsKP is beneficial. But we should remember that in the church there exists a law countering the egoistical law by which the world lives. "If a kernel of wheat falls to the earth without dying," Christ says, "then it remains alone, but if it dies, then it bears much fruit" (Jn.12.24).
Incidentally, these very words apply to the heritage of His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir. Today many say that Metropolitan Vladimir's time has passed and now nobody needs his heritage. However the "death" of the kernel is a poetic image. After all, in reality the kernel does not die. It is simply transformed into a new life. Just so the heritage of His Beatitude. Today it is said that this heritage has "died" from an historical point of view. But tomorrow, going through a stage of denial, it may become the kernel that bears much fruit.
--During the presidency of Yanukovich, the church experienced two humiliating scandals that resulted in criminal cases. The first case was pressure on the late Vladimir and his removal from his see; and the other case was your illegal detention (Alexander Drabinko was held in detention for six months for refusing to persuade the late primate to renounce his see). Do these cases have judicial prospects?
--The case regarding pressure on Metropolitan Vladimir and the second case regarding my illegal detention were separated. "My" case now is in the office of the prosecutor general, and defense attorneys are studying its materials. The attorney says that in approximately two weeks the case will be transferred to the Vyshgorod court.
The case regarding pressure on Metropolitan Vladimir now is suspended because of the impossibility of conducting investigations with the former minister of internal affairs Zakharchenko.
--Is the sabotage of the treatment of Metropolitan Vladimir leading to his death being investigated within the framework of this case?
--His Beatitude's treatment is another matter. For me, it has many questions. At the first stage he could not be diagnosed with cancer in time, and in the final analysis he was taken to France and the tumor was removed. But six months later yet another issue emerged. It was this that became the topic for a separate criminal case. I have certain questions for the doctors. In January, when I was already under forced guard, one morning His Beatitude's doctor phoned me and said that it is necessary to meet urgently. He told me that the metropolitan was in critical condition and must be hospitalized and most likely be put into an induced coma to await death. I gathered a council of physicians whom I had reason to trust. They came. There was our famous cardiologist, Boris Todurov. A professor arrived from Moscow. They looked at the history of the primate's illness and consulted. I understood that the Moscow professor prescribed three preparations for him, which had to be administered simultaneously. But for some reason the medicine was given two without one, or one without two. Supposedly this triggered sepsis. Todurov reconsidered and asked why they had said that his creatine was 50 when here it stands at 90, which is virtual death. He said the metropolitan must immediately have a purging and he asked whether there is a clinic to which they want to transport him from St. Feofan's for an artificial kidney. It turned out there wasn't.
Therefore I do not know how to answer these questions. Originally, because of negligence, they did not find cancer, although they did tests just about every day. And then after six months comes more negligence when they induced an artificial coma. Then they told me that Pshonka had ordered to bring him out of it for a week. That is, in February, by their reckoning, His Beatitude should not be alive. But then we found the artificial kidney and started dialysis.
His Beatitude was in St. Feofan's hospital. In March he regained consciousness and we communicated again. Six months passed from January until his death, but he was supposed to die in three days, if they had done what they wanted to.
--Do you recall your last conversation with the primate? What do you now remember most of your communication?
--I recall the last conversations in March. This was when Andrei Derkach received the blessing for investigating this affair. From the end of January, when they advised us to induce an artificial coma, a little more than a month passed, and I escaped from the guard. Maidan won. Yanukovich fled. And then His Beatitude gave his blessing for investigation of the matter of illegal pressure on him. That was one point. But the clearest conversation was when Maidan began. They began searching for me to draw me out of the woods (at the time the metropolitan was under guard in one of the guest houses of Kiev province—author), and they told me to go to His Beatitude so that he could give an interview for television and condemn Maidan. We were not about to condemn Maidan. When Maidan began I asked him: what do you think this is, Your Beatitude? "You know, Ukraine is being cleansed," he said.
These words seared my heart. In the previous months, when I was held under guard, the guys who were caring for him said that he was very eager to go himself to the Maidan.
--And did His Beatitude himself realize that this could possibly lead to death?
--Yes, of course. And he said that times go by but the methods are the same. Not long before this we watched a film together about the Holy Prelate Luka of Crimea.
--A conscious part of the flock is striving for a recognition of the two other Ukrainian churches and for the unification of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Why did the UPTs synod initiate dialogue with UAPTs only? How do you comment on this?
--I do not understand why there appeared the idea of conducting dialogue with UAPTs only and not with UPTsKP or with both simultaneously. If one begins dialogue, then one must talk with everybody who has departed from church unity. In addition, UAPTs has about a thousand parishes (although statistics are that there are about 550 real, "living" parishes) and the Kiev patriarchate has about ten times as many.
--I want to ask about the attitudes of the higher clergy. Some journalist cited the number of twenty bishops who aim for departure from Moscow's jurisdiction, and hundreds of priests who aim for this. Do you believe that such forces will manage to unite the divided Orthodox churches and get their place in the Diptych (The Diptych is Constantinople's official list of Orthodox churches)?
--It all depends on the format of the new church structure. Whether it is recognized by Constantinople and world Orthodoxy. What will be its canonical status? What will it be like? A local church or an autonomous part of the Constantinople patriarchate? What will be world Orthodoxy's reaction to the creation of this church? Will the Moscow patriarchate find support in the other local churches? There are more questions now than answers. But one thing is clear: a substantial portion of clerics of the UPTs will be faced with a choice after the appearance of a "canonical alternative" to the UPTs. It is very important that the unification processes proceed on the basis of canon law. What is the difference between local churches and modern Orthodoxy? Canonical Orthodox is, speaking conditionally, a chess game verified over the course of centuries. But in "alternative" Orthodoxy, figures sometimes move "alternatively." The task of dialogue is to come to agreement on the "rules of the game." But these rules of the game must be the rules of chess, where the knight always moves like the letter «Г». In other words, it is very important that the Ukrainian church question be resolved in the canonical field on the basis of canonical tradition.
Today much attention is turned to the problem of the canonical status of the Kiev patriarchate and the UAPTs, that is, to the fact that their autocephaly is of a self-proclaimed nature. But here there is another important aspect: the problem of the presence of apostolic succession in the consecrations of autocephalous hierarchs. Here canonical Orthodox bishops cannot act independently, so to speak, on their own fear and risk. In restoring church unity to Ukraine, we must act in these questions on the clear position of ecumenical Orthodoxy. If the collective reason of ecumenical Orthodoxy leads to the decision that the consecrations conducted in the UAPTs and UPTsKP are canonically valid, I will humbly accept that position and revise my views. But if the position of world Orthodoxy is different, then our brothers from the autocephalist movement will have to reconsider their positions.
--The Roman pope has suggested common celebration of Pascha by Orthodox and Catholics, and he has even suggested a date, the second Sunday of April.
--The fourteenth of Nisan? Well, let's reason together. The first ecumenical council ruled that Catholics and Orthodox should celebrate Pascha together. It seems to me this is the main thing, and not whether it should be the first Sunday after the full moon after the equinox. Whether one should nail down a specific day? Well, why not? We celebrate Christmas on a determined date. Well, if I wound up in the desert where all calendars had been burned up, then I would celebrate as the pope says. I know that it would be somewhere in the middle of April. But if we imagine that we change the calendars, then that could produce schisms of "old-paschalists," and "new-paschalists," "Catholic old-paschalists," and "Orthodox old-paschalists." and if they again united, then they would be the old-paschalist church (laughs).
--How will you spend 5 July, the day of His Beatitude's death?
--According to the decision of the Holy Synod, I will participate in the Divine Liturgy. But on the eve, I will go to His Beatitude's native village where the relatives, acquaintances, and friends of Metropolitan Vladimir will arrive. The cemetery is there where his parents are buried, and the monastery where he received baptism. We will commemorate in such a tight circle. (tr. by PDS, posted 7 July 2015)
Russian original posted on Portal-credo.ru site, 6 July 2015
Editorial disclaimer: RRN does
not intend to certify the accuracy of information
presented in articles. RRN simply intends to certify the
accuracy of the English translation of the contents of the
articles as they appeared in news media of countries of
the former USSR.
If material is quoted, please give credit to the
publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit
this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please
include reference to the URL,
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.