Af­ter au­to­cephaly

What to ex­pect af­ter the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church re­ceives au­ton­omy

The Ukrainian Week - - CONTENTS - Yuriy Doroshenko

What to ex­pect af­ter the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church re­ceives au­ton­omy

The to­mos of au­to­cephaly for the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church has trans­formed into a na­tional idea for Ukraini­ans. It is essen­tially one of Ukraine’s am­bi­tions on its way to the civ­i­lized Euro­pean fu­ture that may well play a huge his­tor­i­cal and na­tion-build­ing role. Just a few years ago, get­ting so close to hav­ing its cler­i­cal in­de­pen­dence rec­og­nized by the Ec­u­meni­cal Ortho­dox Church was quite un­think­able for Ukraine. Ukraini­ans have al­ways be­lieved that au­to­cephaly was in­evitable, yet they never ex­pected to get it in the near fu­ture. The great­est op­ti­mist in this is­sue has been Pa­tri­arch Fi­laret, the leader of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Kyiv Pa­tri­ar­chate. As leader of the united Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church (with the Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate as part of it) back in the 1990s, he con­vened an as­sem­bly at the Kyiv Pech­ersk Lavra in 1992 and made sure that it adopted a re­quest of au­to­cephaly for Ukraini­ans to the Moscow Pa­tri­arch. He has been work­ing ever since on ful­fill­ing this idea. In 1992, Moscow brushed off the re­quest while Fi­laret was dis­missed and even­tu­ally ex­com­mu­ni­cated.

Onufriy (Bere­zovsky), the cur­rent leader of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate [which names it­self as sim­ply the “Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church” while oth­ers spec­ify by adding “Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate” to it] also signed that re­quest for au­to­cephaly. It’s an un­com­fort­able au­to­graph for some­one who is now pas­sion­ately op­pos­ing au­to­cephaly for Ukraine. The Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­ar­chate has just re­cently posted a scanned copy of the 1992 re­quest at its of­fi­cial web­site, show­ing that it is well aware of the his­tory of the Ukrainian Church.


It has taken Moscow a long time to ac­tu­ally be­lieve that the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch will stand up to the wealthy Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church. Nor can it bear to think that the Con­stantino­ple Pa­tri­ar­chate – small and lo­cated in the heart of the pre­dom­i­nantly Is­lamic Turkey, but long-stand­ing and firm in its faith – will clearly stand for fair­ness and the right of the Kyiv Church to lead its spir­i­tual life in­de­pen­dently from Moscow, thus chal­leng­ing the Moscow Pa­tri­arch who sees him­self as an Ortho­dox Pope with all the sup­port from the Krem­lin, Gazprom and FSB.

Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch Bartholomew was not in­tim­i­dated by the visit of the Moscow Pa­tri­arch Kir­ill in Au­gust. Kir­ill rushed back home im­me­di­ately af­ter ne­go­ti­a­tions to ex­plain the fail­ure to Vladimir Putin who has wanted to re­place him with Tikhon Shevkunov for some time now.

The fun­da­men­tal clash be­tween the Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate and Con­stantino­ple over Ukraine is as fol­lows: The Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate sees au­to­cephaly for Ukraine as a split, a di­ver­sion against Rus­sia, a global con­spir­acy and trea­son. The Con­stantino­ple Pa­tri­ar­chate views it as a way to­wards the uni­fi­ca­tion of the Ukrainian Ortho­doxy which has been di­vided for over 25 years now, the re­in­force­ment of the spir­i­tual as­pect of the Ukrainian na­tion, and an in­cen­tive for the de­vel­op­ment of Ortho­doxy in gen­eral.

“In my view, the fu­ture of Ukrainian Ortho­doxy with­out a change of its canon­i­cal sta­tus brings fa­tally dan­ger­ous con­se­quences to Ortho­doxy as a thou­sand-year-old fac­tor of self-iden­ti­fi­ca­tion for the Ukrainian na­tion,” Bishop Ilar­ion (Rud­nyk), the cur­rent Exarch of the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch, said in his in­ter­view with the au­thor of this ar­ti­cle in 2005. “If the sta­tus quo of the Ortho­dox Church in Ukraine re­mains un­changed, it may lead to se­ri­ous prob­lems for the global Ortho­doxy which will gen­er­ally un­der­mine its mis­sion and place in the mod­ern Chris­tian world.”

Just re­cently, Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch Bartholomew I went from promis­ing to give au­to­cephaly to Ukraine to ac­tions fol­low­ing the meet­ings and dis­cus­sions at the Sy­naxis. He ap­pointed two exarchs, Ilar­ion Rud­nyk of Ed­mon­ton from Canada and Daniel Zelin­sky of Pam­philon from the US, both eth­nic Ukraini­ans, — to pre­pare for the grant­ing of au­to­cephaly. These priests have been tak­ing care of the re­li­gious life of Ukrainian di­as­pora and have now ob­tained the ti­tles of exarchs as the Pa­tri­arch’s en­voys to work on one spe­cific is­sue. Their role is an equiv­a­lent of an am­bas­sador in diplo­macy.

The ap­point­ment of these en­voys was a break­ing point on Ukraine’s way to au­to­cephaly. Bartholomew came closer to the im­ple­men­ta­tion of his his­toric plan. “We’re on the fin­ish line”, Petro Poroshenko told the exarchs of the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch to their con­sent. This shocked Moscow which, struck by its im­pe­rial am­bi­tion, has thought of noth­ing bet­ter than step­ping on the path of di­vi­sion and self-iso­la­tion. On Septem­ber 14, Moscow hosted the Holy Synod of the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church. As a coun­ter­mea­sure to the ini­tia­tive of the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch, it de­cided to sus­pend the litur­gi­cal men­tion of him. The Synod also de­cided to stop mu­tual ser­vices with the hi­er­ar­chs of the Con­stantino­ple Pa­tri­ar­chate and to stop the par­tic­i­pa­tion of the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church in the en­ti­ties where they take part or chair. In­ter­est­ingly, Metropoli­tan Onufriy of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate sud­denly got sick and ap­peared at the Synod via Skype. “We will have a con­sul­ta­tion and in­form you of our de­ci­sion,” Pa­tri­arch Kir­ill of the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church told his sub­or­di­nate in an un­happy and bossy man­ner and logged off.

This is not the first time that the litur­gi­cal men­tions be­tween the two Churches are sus­pended. The Moscow Pa­tri­archy sus­pended the men­tions of the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­ar­chate in its liturgy in 1996 when the lat­ter re­stored the 1923 to­mos and founded the Es­to­nian Ortho­dox Church un­der its ju­ris­dic­tion on Fe­bru­ary 20, 1996, ap­point­ing Bishop John of Kare­lia and All Fin­land as locum tenens of its leader. Moscow’s re­ac­tion was sim­i­larly hys­ter­i­cal then. It sus­pended litur­gi­cal men­tions of the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch. Even­tu­ally, how­ever, it re­al­ized that this was lead­ing it nowhere and ac­cepted a com­pro­mise. This is the most likely sce­nario now as all of the Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate’s grandeur stands on the clay feet of bu­reau­cracy and Gazprom. This time, how­ever, the process will be longer and more painful. As the Kyiv Church ir­re­versibly breaks away from the Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate, both the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church and the Rus­sian state lose their im­pe­rial im­age, and the myths, in­clud­ing of “Moscow as the Third Rome” on which it had built its iden­tity for cen­turies, van­ish. The de­par­ture of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church means that the Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate shrinks and is no longer the mon­ster claim­ing ab­so­lute dom­i­na­tion over other churches. The Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate ac­counts for about 1/3 of the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church. It is a se­ri­ous loss. And the leader of the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church will have to think of go­ing back to the ti­tle of Pa­tri­arch of Moscow and All Rus­sia, not of Moscow and All Rus as it is presently.


Ac­cord­ing to most an­a­lysts, the de­ci­sion to sus­pend litur­gi­cal men­tion of Bartholomew I is a step of des­per­a­tion and help­less­ness. The Moscow Church has put it­self against the en­tire Ortho­dox world, stepped on the path of schism and is pun­ish­ing it­self. In­ter­est­ingly, other Ortho­dox churches met this drama from the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church quite calmly while the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch is firmly mov­ing to­wards the goal he has de­clared.

His exarchs Daniel and Ilar­ion have con­firmed this with the Pa­tri­arch’s ad­dress to the Pres­i­dent of Ukraine. “This re­mark­able de­ci­sion (re­fer­ring to the ap­point­ment of exarchs) by the First Throne of Ortho­doxy will un­doubt­edly con­trib­ute to the process of grant­ing au­to­cephaly for which we pray and work day and night. With this happy news from the Con­stantino­ple Mother Church, the First Throne of the Ortho­dox Chris­tian Church, we sin­cerely con­grat­u­late you and be­lieve in the beau­ti­ful process that we have launched to­gether for the spir­i­tual pros­per­ity and in­de­pen­dence of the Christ-lov­ing and long-suf­fer­ing Ukraine,” Pa­tri­arch Bartholomew wrote. This firm po­si­tion of the Con­stantino­ple Pa­tri­arch is out­lined in a spe­cific plan that is be­ing im­ple­mented now. Ex­perts ex­pect most churches to side with the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch in the event of grant­ing au­to­cephaly to Ukraine, even if not im­me­di­ately. No church will re­ject full com­mu­nion with it. Greek churches will be the first to show sol­i­dar­ity. They will prob­a­bly make some com­ments in fa­vor of Moscow and flirt with it (ev­ery­one needs money af­ter all), but they will still stick to the po­si­tion of Con­stantino­ple. Apart from that, the il­le­gal and forced trans­fer of the Kyiv Metropole to the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church in the 17th cen­tury has a his­tor­i­cal, canon­i­cal and the­o­log­i­cal side to it which the Greeks have de­scribed and jus­ti­fied anew, so it can hardly be ig­nored now.

Im­por­tantly, the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch has pub­licly out­lined the fun­da­men­tal points on the Ukrainian Church:

1. Ukraine is ex­clu­sively canon­i­cal ter­ri­tory of the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch. The trans­fer of the old Kyiv Metropole to the Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate in 1686 was il­le­gal and tem­po­rary.

2. The Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate it­self has no to­mos of au­to­cephaly and emerged as a re­sult of self-dec­la­ra­tion. “Even if you look at the his­tory of the Ortho­dox Church in Rus­sia, you will see that its au­to­cephaly was self-pro­claimed in 1448 when Metropoli­tan Iona was elected in­de­pen­dently in Moscow, with­out con­sent from the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­ar­chate. In­ter­est­ingly, the Ortho­dox Church in Rus­sia was never granted to­mos of au­to­cephaly,” said Arch­bishop Job of Telmes­sos, an­other rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­ar­chate and eth­nic Ukrainian.

3. It is the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch who has the ex­clu­sive right to con­sider ap­peals from the bish­ops, the clergy and the faith­ful of other na­tional churches in sit­u­a­tions where they fail to re­ceive canon­i­cal pro­tec­tion of their rights within their proper church. This is im­por­tant be­cause it over­rides the ex­com­mu­ni­ca­tion of Fi­laret, a metropoli­tan of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church in the past and cur­rently the Pa­tri­arch of Kyiv and All Rus-Ukraine.

For the pur­pose of ob­jec­tiv­ity, we must look at a neg­a­tive sce­nario as well. Is there any pos­si­bil­ity that the grant­ing of to­mos to Ukraine will stop or re­verse? In the­ory, any­thing is pos­si­ble. In prac­tice, this is highly un­likely.

Firstly, the ex­is­tence of the large Ukrainian Ortho­dox com­mu­nity be­yond the or­bit of “of­fi­cial” or canon­i­cal Ortho­doxy un­der­mines Ec­u­meni­cal Ortho­doxy, driv­ing it on the side­lines of the re­li­gious world. Se­condly, fail­ure to com­plete the grant­ing of au­to­cephaly to the Ukrainian Church, as promised, and back­ing down un­der Moscow’s pres­sure will un­der­mine the au­thor­ity of the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch. If this hap­pens, the Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate will most cer­tainly ful­fill its long-time dream of declar­ing it­self the first throne in the global Ortho­doxy. This would turn the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­ar­chate into a neg­li­gi­ble church. The stakes here are too high and the risks of not grant­ing au­to­cephaly to Ukraini­ans are greater than the risks of do­ing so.


The pro­ce­dure of grant­ing the to­mos of au­to­cephaly to Ukraine is fairly sim­ple. The Synod of the Con­stantino­ple Pa­tri­ar­chate should vote to grant au­to­cephaly to the Ortho­dox Church in Ukraine. This is ex­pected to hap­pen any­where be­tween Oc­to­ber 8 and 11. Af­ter this, Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch Bartholomew I signs the to­mos, which is the cer­tifi­cate to grant au­to­cephaly to Ukraine. This is fol­lowed by the as­sem­bly of the na­tional Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church with the bish­ops who have signed the au­to­cephaly re­quest to the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch. These in­clude all se­nior clergy of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Kyiv Pa­tri­ar­chate, the Ukrainian Au­to­cephalous Ortho­dox Church and part of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate. We do not know how many of the lat­ter have signed the re­quest. Some speak of a dozen priests. Only Petro Poroshenko knows the ex­act num­ber – the sig­na­tures were sent to

the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch through him. Head­ing the list of sig­na­to­ries from the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate is Metropoli­tan Olek­sandr Drabynko, the leader of the pro-au­to­cephaly and pro-Ukrainian move­ment in that Church, a de­ter­mined and con­sis­tent man. An im­por­tant fact of this uni­fy­ing and de facto found­ing as­sem­bly of the na­tional Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church is that only the sig­na­to­ries of the re­quest will par­tic­i­pate in it. Quite re­cently, the Ukrainian Au­to­cephalous Ortho­dox Church has or­dained Havryil, the Bishop of Rivne and Volyn, as the new archiereus. Ex­perts sug­gest that this or­di­na­tion is linked to the hope of the Church’s lead­ers to get more votes at the up­com­ing uni­fy­ing as­sem­bly that will elect the Pa­tri­arch of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church. The task of So­bor, the as­sem­bly, is to elect the head of Church. The can­di­date can have the sta­tus of Pa­tri­arch or of Metropoli­tan. For ex­am­ple, the au­to­cephalous Pol­ish Ortho­dox Church is led by a Metropoli­tan.


It is the elec­tion of the new leader that can trig­ger the most in­tense bat­tle. Many ob­servers as­sume that some se­nior clergy of the Ukrainian Au­to­cephalous Ortho­dox Church can play a de­struc­tive role as it is tra­di­tion­ally less dis­ci­plined than the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Kyiv Pa­tri­ar­chate [The Ukrainian Au­to­cephalous Ortho­dox Church – UAOC – one of the three ma­jor Ortho­dox churches in Ukraine, which was reestab­lished in 1990 – Ed.]. It is no se­cret that Moscow will do any­thing to pre­vent the elec­tion of Fi­laret, the Pa­tri­arch of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Kyiv Pa­tri­ar­chate and its long-stand­ing de­ter­mined op­po­nent, as the leader of the na­tional Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church. The Rus­sians are well aware of his re­mark­able or­ga­ni­za­tional ca­pac­ity and great ex­pe­ri­ence. So, they re­al­ize that the newly rec­og­nized Church un­der his lead­er­ship will fur­ther es­tab­lish it­self as a pro-Ukrainian spir­i­tual force and will not be­come a face­less satel­lite of the proPutin Moscow Pa­tri­archy. An­a­lysts as­sume that the clergy of the Ukrainian Au­to­cephalous Ortho­dox Church can be used to pre­vent the elec­tion of Fi­laret – its leader has al­ready pub­licly dis­cussed the need to have a “neu­tral” leader of the fu­ture Church. Some may sug­gest elect­ing a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate, jus­ti­fy­ing this as a fa­vor to the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate and a way to at­tract more of its clergy into the new­lyrec­og­nized Church. Oth­ers may sug­gest eth­nic Ukrainian archierei from within the Con­stantino­ple Pa­tri­ar­chate as a way to mak­ing the newly rec­og­nized Church more canon­i­cal.

How­ever, such plans are ob­scure and un­re­al­is­tic. Any can­di­date for the po­si­tion of the Church leader, ex­cept for Fi­laret, will not have proper pub­lic sup­port given Fi­laret’s au­thor­ity and con­tri­bu­tion into the re­vival of the uni­fied na­tional Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church. More­over, most par­tic­i­pants of the up­com­ing So­bor have re­ceived epis­co­pal or­di­na­tion or apos­tolic suc­ces­sion from Pa­tri­arch Fi­laret. This is a cru­cial his­tor­i­cal fac­tor.

Ob­vi­ously, all the clergy will­ing to join the newly-es­tab­lished na­tional Church will have a chance to do so, but this will be af­ter the as­sem­bly that elects the leader. “We plan for all the clergy of the Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate and the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Au­to­cephalous Church [who will choose to join the newly es­tab­lished Church – Ed.] to re­main in their po­si­tions with their parishes. If any priest comes with half of his parish, he will run that half. If he comes with three hun­dred parishes, he will run those,” Pa­tri­arch Fi­laret ex­plains the process of the fu­ture uni­fi­ca­tion. His pro­posal is to ac­cept the clergy of the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate on the ba­sis of broth­erly love: “They are not strangers for us, they are one of us. All things of the past will be brushed off and for­got­ten, no mat­ter what any­one says.”

These words by Pa­tri­arch Fi­laret are an im­por­tant el­e­ment in the ef­fort to re­sist the pro­pa­ganda at­tack un­folded by Rus­sia where it por­trays au­to­cephaly for Ukraine as a trig­ger of re­li­gious ten­sions and civil war. The only thing that can ac­tu­ally hap­pen af­ter the Ortho­dox com­mu­nity is struc­tured with the au­to­cephaly is a law the Verkhovna Rada will pass to rereg­is­ter re­li­gious or­ga­ni­za­tions in Ukraine. The parishes and the eparchies that do not want to join the uni­fied Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church and pre­fer to stay with the Moscow Pa­tri­arch will be united un­der the um­brella of the church prop­erly named as the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church in Ukraine. The fans of Rus­sia, such as Onufriy, the cur­rent Pa­tri­arch of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate, should not find this too in­sult­ing.


The Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate spares no dark col­ors to paint the hor­ri­ble prospect of life af­ter the to­mos for Ukraine. The Krem­lin’s pro­pa­gan­dists are pretty good at scar­ing peo­ple. Ion­afan Yelet­skikh of Tulchyn and Brat­slav, both in Vin­nyt­sia Oblast, has been lament­ing about the in­evitable prospect of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate’s churches taken away from it in Ukraine that comes un­der the ju­ris­dic­tion of the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­ar­chate. He has also sug­gested that the head of the new na­tional Church will be Metropoli­tan Simeon of Vin­nyt­sia who is now run­ning the Vin­nyt­sia Eparchy of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate.

“Your churches will be plun­dered, your taxes will be head­ing to Fa­nar [the area of Is­tan­bul where the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch’s res­i­dency is lo­cated – Ed.]”, Ion­afan com­plains. So, what he calls taxes is now go­ing to Moscow now? Metropoli­tan Mitro­fan of Hor­livka and Slo­viansk in Donetsk Oblast joined this ef­fort of in­tim­i­da­tion by pre­dict­ing an up­com­ing blood­shed be­tween the sup­port­ers and the op­po­nents of au­to­cephaly in one of his re­cent ser­mons. Vadym Novin­sky, an MP and cu­ra­tor of the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church of Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate, has re­cently flown a group of hi­er­ar­chs to a meet­ing with the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch where he, too, black­mailed him with the up­com­ing black­mail if Ukraine were to re­ceive the to­mos. Moscow is pre­dict­ing the same scary sce­nario. At one point, Rostyslav Pavlenko, Ad­vi­sor to the Pres­i­dent of Ukraine, had to re­as­sure the clergy, say­ing that Ukraine guar­an­tees the rights of the faith­ful of the Moscow Pa­tri­ar­chate af­ter Ukraine re­ceives the to­mos. “No­body will in­ter­fere with them prac­tic­ing their faith and ex­press­ing their opin­ions freely; they will have the same pro­tec­tion from the state as the rest; provo­ca­tions against them will be stopped as res­o­lutely as any ac­tions of vi­o­lent re­sis­tance against au­to­cephaly. The state does not dif­fer­en­ti­ate be­tween the Churches and the faith­ful of the dif­fer­ent Churches,” he said.


Rus­sia is afraid of au­to­cephaly for Ukraine for one sim­ple rea­son: the in­de­pen­dence of the Ortho­dox Church in Ukraine is a great threat to Rus­sia’s im­pe­ri­al­ism. In­car­nated in its cur­rent lead­ers, Rus­sia re­sists be­com­ing a nor­mal Euro­pean state be­cause its cur­rent mil­i­tarism has muf­fled the Rus­sians and is help­ing keep them un­der con­trol. Vik­tor Yero­feyev, a Rus­sian writer, has re­cently stated that the split be­tween the Rus­sian Ortho­dox Church and the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­ar­chate over the po­ten­tial au­to­cephaly for the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church may well be one of the key mon­u­ments of Putin’s regime. Au­to­cephaly for the Ukrainian Ortho­dox Church has for the first time put Putin’s Rus­sia on a cross­roads over its fur­ther self-iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. Rus­sia has so far failed to come to terms with the re­al­iza­tion that the his­tory of the Kyiv Metropole un­folds away from Rus­sia. Un­for­tu­nately, the only re­ac­tion to this that Rus­sia has man­aged to gen­er­ate so far has been ha­tred against Ukraini­ans and the rest of the world.


On the fin­ish line. The pres­ence of the Ec­u­meni­cal Pa­tri­arch's exarchs in Kyiv is a con­vinc­ing proof of how close Ukraine is to re­ceiv­ing au­to­cephaly for its Church

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Ukraine

© PressReader. All rights reserved.