Metropolitan of Singapore and Southeast Asia, Exarch of Southeast Asia Sergiy (Chashin)

Your Eminence, Metropolitan Ambrose!

I have long doubted whether to respond to your interview published on April 12 on the website of The Orthodox World. However, the impressions from my recent trip to Ukraine, which took place with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’ to participate in the celebrations on the occasion of the name day of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv and All Ukraine, led me to the idea of ​​​​responding to your public statements.

Since your interview, as well as the subsequent response, are published on a website that does not provide any information about those who maintain and edit it, I see no other way to respond to these publications except to address you personally, but given the public nature of your statements, my letter will also be open – so that readers can draw their own conclusions.

I remember with joy how warmly you greeted me with a fraternal kiss when I visited you in Seoul in June 2017. It is even more painful now to see in what a black color, without embarrassment of rumors and speculations, you write about the pastoral and missionary work of the Russian Orthodox Church. Is it really true that the complex relations between our Churches, caused by the decisions of the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew to create a new “church” structure in Ukraine, have so dramatically affected your attitude towards us? But no, you write, citing an anonymous “elder,” that for a thousand years many church leaders in Russia have never learned what the Gospel teaches, cultivating the “satanic and imperialist theory of ‘Moscow as the Third Rome’.” And all this is said as if you always believed it. Should I conclude that your greeting in Seoul was hypocrisy, and now your position is sincere?

Two of my great-grandfathers, priests, went through prisons and prison camps for their faith and service to the Church. One of them was shot for his faith in God. The authorities tried to deprive my mother of parental rights because she raised us, her children, in faith. At school, they tore off my pectoral cross more than once, and laughed at me for being a believer. As children, we copied the texts of the Holy Scriptures and prayers by hand and treasured them as the greatest treasure. We not only rewrote, and with great reverence and love reread and studied. The story of my family is not unique. Many have gone through the horrors of persecution and ridicule. Think about what it is like to read in your text the revelations of an unnamed “elder” that we never learned the Gospel. It is also painful for me to read about how you “firmly believe” that the Russian Orthodox Church, having been hatching some kind of insidious plan for several decades, was only waiting for a reason to stop commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. It is impossible to imagine a greater absurdity.

In your interview, you loudly declare that the activities of the Moscow Patriarchate in Southeast Asia are allegedly non-canonical. Let me remind you of the history of the emergence of Orthodoxy in the region: Russian priests began their pastoral service in China in 1685, Saint Nicholas (Kasatkin) arrived in Japan in 1861, and the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Korea was established in 1897. Russian parishes appeared in Indonesia in 1934, and a parish was opened in Manila that same year. Saint John (Maximovich) of Shanghai conducted the first services in Vietnam in 1949. And these are just some of the documentary evidence of the beginning of the mission of the Russian Church in those countries of South and Southeast Asia, where not a single Orthodox Church was represented at that time. In your interview, you cite a third-hand account of a dialogue that allegedly took place between Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad – the current His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’ – and a certain Russian-speaking parishioner, in which a claim was made to the St. Nicholas Cathedral in Seoul. I specifically asked His Holiness the Patriarch about this. This is a lie. Such a conversation did not take place, and could not have taken place – His Holiness knows the history of the Orthodox Church in Korea very well. The Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Korea once owned land and buildings, and not only in Seoul, but throughout the entire Korean peninsula. What happened to them later, were they sold or transferred, and if so, by whom, to whom and under what conditions, we do not yet fully know. But we will study this issue.

The historical fact is also that for hundreds of years not a single complaint or reproach was made to the Russian Church by our Orthodox brothers regarding our actions in Asia, until recent times, when the Patriarch of Constantinople changed his ecclesiology and wished to become “first without equals” instead of “first among equals” of Primates.

The pastoral and missionary service of the Russian Orthodox Church in Asia has never been contested by any Local Orthodox Churches, but on the contrary, it has been welcomed, which follows, in particular, from the letters of the Jerusalem Patriarchs to St. Nicholas of Japan. Thus, back in 1896, His Beatitude Patriarch Gerasim of Jerusalem sent icons, holy relics and other holy objects as a gift to the Japanese Church. In the future, both the successors of Patriarch Gerasim and the hierarchs of various Local Orthodox Churches continued to support Japanese Orthodoxy and show deep personal respect for St. Nicholas. When in 1956 the Russian Orthodox Church granted autonomy to the Chinese Orthodox Church, created on the basis of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in China and the East Asian Exarchate (whose canonical jurisdiction at that time included communities in Korea), this decision was not questioned by the Local Churches, and even more so, the Russian Church’s canonical jurisdiction over Orthodox church structures in China was not denied. At one time, His Holiness Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople sent an icon for the Russian church under construction in Harbin, supporting our church presence in China.

When in 1970 the Japanese Orthodox Church was granted the status of autonomy, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople refused to include the Primate of the Japanese Church in the diptychs due to its autonomous, and not autocephalous, status. He did not challenge the canonical jurisdiction of the Russian Church over the Orthodox church structures of this country, which has not caused any doubts for more than a century.

This is very clearly demonstrated to all of us in his book “Even to the Ends of the Earth” by the outstanding missionary of our time, the Primate of the Albanian Orthodox Church, His Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and All Albania.

I will dwell separately on the history of the Russian spiritual mission in Korea. The history of Russian-Korean relations dates back to the era of Kievan Rus, when the concept of “Moscow as the Third Rome” mentioned by Your Eminence did not yet exist. By the way, the only historical document in which this idea is directly proclaimed is the Charter on the establishment of the Patriarchate in Moscow, signed by His Holiness Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople (1589). The missionary work of the Russian Orthodox Church among Koreans began in 1856, when Saint Innocent (Veniaminov) began sending Orthodox preachers to the South Ussuri region, where a stream of Korean immigrants was heading. In 1885, an agreement was concluded between Russia and Korea, which gave Russian subjects the right to freely conduct religious services on the territory of Korea. By decision of the Holy Governing Synod in 1897, the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Korea was established, whose task included caring for Russian Orthodox Christians living on the Korean Peninsula, as well as preaching Orthodoxy among the local non-Christian population. On February 17, 1900, in Seoul, the head of the Mission, Archimandrite Chrysanthus (Shchetkovsky), celebrated the Divine Liturgy, and from that moment the beginning of the activities of the Russian Mission is traditionally counted.

From its foundation until 1908, the Korean Mission was under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, and from 1908 to 1921 – under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Vladivostok, from 1921 to 1945 – under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Tokyo, and from 1945 to 1954 – part of the East Asian Exarchate.

But the activities of the Mission were terminated by force. After the end of World War II, the South Korean authorities and the American occupation administration fought for several years, trying to remove the Mission from the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. Unable to do this by any legal means, the South Korean authorities expelled the head of the Mission, Archimandrite Polycarp, from the country in 1949. For political reasons, the activities of the Mission were suspended, its property was confiscated. Only in 1955, deprived of archpastoral care and not without the influence of the military presence of foreign powers in South Korea, the surviving parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church joined the Archdiocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in America. It is hardly possible to recognize the transfer of clergy and communities to another jurisdiction (without any letters of absolution), which took place under pressure from political forces, as legal.

Thus, today we are not talking about the establishment of a “parallel Church,” but about the restoration of the spiritual mission of the Russian Orthodox Church. This is due to the historical process of revival of the Russian Church, which suffered for 70 years under the oppression of godless authorities, the need for pastoral care for our compatriots in all corners of the globe, including in Asia, as well as the impossibility for our flock at the present time to receive the sacraments in the Church of Constantinople, since the latter entered into communion with the schismatics and invaded the canonical boundaries of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine.

I repeat – historically, the fate of Orthodoxy in Korea was connected with Russia. And now the Church is making efforts to revive the spiritual closeness of our peoples, to restore the spiritual ties that united them in the past. The Russian Orthodox Church has historical and canonical justifications for resuming missionary activity, interrupted by the will of historical circumstances on the Korean Peninsula.

You, Your Eminence, prefer not to see the political nature of the actions of your Church in Ukraine, but you talk about the political nature of the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate in Korea, where we allegedly undermine the canonical order of the Church and engage in proselytism. You are outraged by the creation of parishes and dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate in Southeast Asia in general and in Korea in particular. My brother, His Eminence Archbishop Theofan (Kim) of Korea, recently spoke in some detail on this topic. I will only add that in many countries of Europe and America that do not belong to the canonical territory of a certain Church, several bishops of different Local Churches coexist, and this is not an insurmountable obstacle to their service and joint witness to Christ. This is a good example of such a state of affairs, when Christ and the Church, immortal human souls, are put at the forefront.

The Russian Church is focused on dialogue and actively participates in all bishops’ conferences, and does not put forward unacceptable conditions in those areas where the Russian flock is in the majority, resolving emerging issues in the spirit of love and cooperation. Therefore, your reproaches seem groundless to me.

Today, a significant number of our flock gathers for Divine Liturgies in a simple but lovingly arranged temporary church building in Seoul. We receive many letters of gratitude and requests from the children of our Church both from Seoul and from different parts of Korea for their spiritual care. Should we push away these people who consider the Russian Orthodox Church to be their Mother and His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’ to be their spiritual father? Please note that these are the same people who will not visit the churches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople today for the above-mentioned reason.

Didn’t the Korean Metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople recently celebrate 119 years since the first Divine Liturgy in Korea – that is, the anniversary of the beginning of the mission of the Russian Church in Korea? Do you want to say that you celebrated the anniversary of “non-canonical actions”? And what did Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople celebrate in fraternal concelebration with Archbishop Clement of Kaluga and Borovsk and a host of archpastors in Seoul in February 2000? And what did Metropolitan Gregory of Thyateira and Great Britain, who led the cathedral service in Seoul in 2010, serve with Archbishop Veniamin of Vladivostok and Primorsky Krai – what did they celebrate?

Your story about meeting with a priest also raises confusion. All the Orthodox in Seoul know very well who you are talking about. This is a man with a difficult fate, but one who was granted the grace of the priesthood by God. It is difficult for me to imagine his behavior as you describe, but even if it is so, I can only recall the words of the Apostle: “And if a man is overtaken in some trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness” (Gal. 6:1).

You write that in November 2018, as part of the round table in Seoul, “The Russian Orthodox Church and Compatriots: Experience of Cooperation in Southeast Asia, Australia and Oceania,” headed by the Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, signatures were collected for a document that was signed by very few. Apparently, you were told a lie; in fact, no church documents were signed at this meeting.

The long history of relations between our Churches, unfortunately, also knew sad pages, which, however, we preferred not to remember until recent events. However, back in the 1920s, the Patriarch of Constantinople tried to depose His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon (Belavin) and supported in every way the renovationist “Living Church” established by the State Political Directorate under the NKVD of the RSFSR, to which the holy Patriarch-Confessor responded:

“Having read the aforementioned protocols, We were not a little confused and surprised that the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the head of the Church of Constantinople, without any prior communication with Us, as the legal representative and head of the entire Russian Orthodox Church, interferes in the internal life and affairs of the autocephalous Russian Church. The Holy Councils (see the 2nd and 3rd rules of the Second Ecumenical Council, etc.) recognized and recognize the primacy of honor, but not power, over other autocephalous Churches for the Bishop of Constantinople […]

Any sending of any commission without communication with Me, as the only legitimate and Orthodox First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, without My knowledge is illegal, will not be accepted by the Russian Orthodox people and will not bring peace, but even greater confusion and schism into the life of the already long-suffering Russian Orthodox Church.” The change in the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople occurred already in the 1940s, during the Second World War, when the policy towards the Church on the part of the Soviet leadership changed radically. After the famous meeting with three metropolitans of the Patriarchal Church in September 1943, Stalin considered that the Renovationist schism of power was no longer needed, and gave sanction for its liquidation. In such circumstances, the Patriarch of Constantinople no longer had any reason to deal with the outsiders-Renovationists, and he, as if nothing had happened, restored communication with the Moscow Patriarchate. The Russian Orthodox Church, in turn, did not call anyone to account for the recent canonical debauchery.

The next intrusion into the canonical space of the Russian Church occurred in Estonia in the 1990s. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, with the support of the president, prime minister and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Estonia, recognized the church structure that enjoyed current political support and was not shy about using nationalist notes in its rhetoric, not paying attention to the presence in the country of the only canonical Church under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is especially surprising and sad that such a mood was supported personally by Patriarch Bartholomew. Canonical communication between the Russian and Constantinople Churches was then interrupted. Can the Church of Christ so brazenly violate the canons, divide into ethnic groups and sow hatred between peoples? This most difficult conflict in the history of the Orthodox Church, more than once called a “schism” in the press, was resolved by the end of 1996 by a compromise – the Russian and Constantinople Orthodox Churches agreed to the existence of two jurisdictions on the territory of the Estonian state, which does not correspond to the norms of church law or historical justice. Did the actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate contribute to the good of the Church? To the good of the Estonian people? Has the total number of believers increased? You yourself know that, according to official data from the Estonian authorities, the number of followers of the Estonian Orthodox Church is more than six times greater than the number of followers of the structure of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Estonia. In recent years, statistics have been shamefully not published by the authorities, because the historical choice of the people refutes the political plans of politicians. The political project, an attempt to repeat which has now been undertaken in Ukraine, has suffered a practical fiasco and cannot be justified by any church goals, because the people of God, the keeper of the truth, sense where the truth is. Turning to the Ukrainian issue, which occupies a significant place in your statements, I will note that in your interview you draw a parallel between how the Moscow Patriarchate reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR) and how the Patriarchate of Constantinople accepted the Ukrainian schismatics from the so-called “Kyiv Patriarchate” and the “UAPC”. In these acts, however, one cannot help but see fundamental differences.

Communion between the ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate was temporarily suspended in the 1920s due to the political system in the USSR and the pressure that the Russian Church found itself under. The Church of Constantinople, which survived the Ottoman-Turkish rule, is well aware of the severity of pressure from the authorities. The Russian Church has never rejected the grace of the sacraments of the ROCOR. In the ROCOR itself, the apostolic succession of episcopal ordinations has never been violated. When the time became favorable, Eucharistic communion was restored.

The Ukrainian situation is quite different. The former Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko) was defrocked for canonical crimes, which was supported by the Primates of all the Local Churches. On August 26, 1992, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople wrote in a letter to Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus’ regarding the deposition of Metropolitan Filaret of Kyiv: “Our Holy Great Church of Christ, recognizing the fullness of the exclusive competence of Your Most Holy Russian Church on this issue, accepts the synodal decision on the above.” Is it possible to first confirm the deposition and then cancel your decision? How does this fit with the words of the Gospel: “But let your communication be, Yes, yes; No, no; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:37)? For his continued persistence in the schism, Denisenko was anathematized – excommunicated, which was also witnessed by all the Churches. With the support of the Ukrainian authorities, he organized the “Kiev Patriarchate” and began to “ordain” bishops. These “ordinations” are now recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Constantinople also unilaterally recognized the episcopal “ordinations” performed in the so-called “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church,” whose head, “Metropolitan” Makariy Maletich, arbitrarily left the Moscow Patriarchate in the rank of priest. The obvious conclusion, supported by the majority of the Orthodox episcopate and clergy, as well as theologians, is that the episcopal ordinations of the “Kyiv Patriarchate” and the “UAPC” are invalid and remain so in the newly created “church.” These “church” formations, as well as the ordinations in them, have never been recognized by any Local Church. Not taking into account all these facts, the Synod of the Church of Constantinople supported the appeal of the President of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada and the aforementioned heads of religious communities, accepting them into Eucharistic communion, accepting their ordinations as valid.

The events of a century ago are being repeated, about which Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) wrote with heartache at that time:

“We know that only those who are in communion with their lawful bishop and Patriarch are in the unity of the Church; that one who is excommunicated by his Patriarch cannot be accepted into communion by others ([Council in the Temple of] Wisdom, 1st rule); […]. And he who enters into communion with the excommunicated is subject to excommunication (Apostolic Rules] 10, 12). […] Before the law of God, all are equal: both Patriarchs and laymen. When the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 15th century fell into union with Rome, the Russian Church did not follow him […] So the communication of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Renovationists can only make the Patriarch a Renovationist, and not the Renovationists Orthodox.”

Metropolitan Luka (Kovalenko) of Zaporizhia and Melitopol told us how, at a meeting with him in 2018, you assured him that Constantinople would not legalize the schism, and if anything were to happen over time, it would only be in the event of the repentance of the schismatics. Today we know how everything ultimately happened – without a hint of repentance, with a proud demonstration of triumph. No healing of the schism in Ukraine, as declared by the goal of this act, took place.

Unprecedented pressure is being exerted on the clergy and laity of the canonical Church in Ukraine using all the instruments of state resources – special services, blackmail, intimidation, seizures of churches with the connivance or support of the police and local authorities. The ongoing attempts to seize churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by force make the heart bleed.

The tragicomic nature of this situation was added by the refusal of the false patriarch “Filaret” Denisenko from the tomos granted by Constantinople and the renewal of the “Kyiv Patriarchate”. This once again shows that the decisions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to grant “autocephaly” to the new “church” structure in Ukraine did not bring any peace and unity to the Orthodox in this country, but led only to new divisions, the creation of a parallel “episcopate” and the suffering of the people, just as has happened more than once in history. These people, calling themselves “archpastors” and “priests” of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine”, can now freely celebrate the liturgy in the churches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Forgive me, but I cannot approach the One Chalice with such people, wherever this happens – in Istanbul, the USA or Korea.

All this is happening in the presence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, recognized by all Local Orthodox Churches, with its legitimate Primate, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv and All Ukraine, who, together with all the hierarchs, categorically rejected this method of obtaining “autocephaly”.

At the celebrations in Kyiv on June 24-25, I experienced an extraordinary spiritual uplift, I truly felt Orthodox unity. Representatives of 10 Autocephalous Orthodox Churches prayed together, three more were unable to send their representatives, but their Primates sent congratulations to His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufriy. Expressing support and wishing courage in overcoming the current tragic situation, we all prayed together, sharing the suffering and pain brought to the believers of Ukraine by the decisions of the hierarchy of your Church. The festive service in the Holy Dormition Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, where the hierarchs, clergy and God-loving people prayed together, was reminiscent of Easter and became a true triumph of Orthodoxy!

At the same time, we, unfortunately, see much untruth in the words and deeds of high representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Seeing the failure of their inglorious undertaking in Ukraine, they are trying to involve our Christian brothers in this failed adventure. In this series are the words about our Church that were spoken during the visit of the delegation of the National Council of Churches of Korea to Istanbul, which you prepared, and the attempts to denigrate the Russian Orthodox Church in other contacts with the heterodox, and many statements in the press. And at the same time, the entire Orthodox world is crying out for the need for a speedy resolution of the problem that has arisen through fraternal dialogue.

The Korean and Russian peoples are bound by centuries of friendship, and I believe that we will preserve and strengthen our fraternal relations, despite any trials. The Russian Church has always been a conductor of peace – both on Korean soil and throughout the world.

Our task with you, Vladyka, is to glorify and preach Christ, to serve Him, sparing no effort, to perform deeds of mercy, love and truth, to call every person to salvation, regardless of his race or position in society. We, for our part, are always ready for peaceful cooperation, and our fraternal embrace is open.

The current situation seems insoluble from a human perspective. The history of the Church knows many human divisions, but also many reconciliations. Let us, Vladyka, at least not aggravate the division. Our Churches are currently going through a difficult period in their relationships, but let us do everything in our power to ensure that the flock in Korea and other countries of Southeast Asia does not suffer from them. So that everyone has the opportunity to pray and partake of the Holy Mysteries of Christ, and has the opportunity to preach Orthodoxy without hindrance. I urge you not to distort the facts, acting to satisfy political interests. Let us serve not division, but the future reconciliation and unity for which we pray, according to the testament of our Lord Jesus Christ.

With hope for understanding and brotherly love in Christ,

Metropolitan of Singapore and Southeast Asia,
Exarch of Southeast Asia Sergiy (Chashin)

August 27, 2019

Press Service of the Korean Diocese