Archbishop Yevstratiy (Zorya) of Chernihiv, OCU spokesman
“Schrödinger’s Moscow Patriarchate”
The outcome of the UOC Council can be summed up in the words of Metropolitan Epifaniy from his Report to the Council of OCU Bishops: “Light rain from a big cloud.”
I will elaborate in the publications to come, but here is general brief.
- Expressions about Russian aggression are as soft and blurred as possible. This is after 3 months of suffering, which mainly affected areas where there are many sympathizers of the MP. They only found FORTY WORDS to express what they wanted to say about the war! And none of them about the assessment of the “Russian world” ideology as the core of aggression, or about their role in spreading this ideology.
- “We disagree” with Cyril’s position – that is, we do not JUDGE, we do not break the ties, but simply “disagree…”
- “Purging the Statute” is the same as removing the words “Moscow Patriarchate” from the official title: an attempt to hide the fact that “UOC” – REMAINS in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The words “independence and autonomy” were invented in 1990 (!) to cover up dependence and lack of independence. There is autocephaly and there’s autonomy. The Council didn’t say a word about autocephaly – even about the theoretical desire to achieve it.
What does “independence and autonomy 2.0” mean? A new interface of an old program? If this “independence and autonomy” is more independent and autonomous than it used to be, isn’t this one recognition of the correctness of the UAOC / UOC-KP / OCU’s assertion that “independence and autonomy” was not really none of the two?
Will they commemorate the Moscow Patriarch? This may be seen from the changes to the Statute. But judging by the wording of the Resolutions – Metropolitan Onufriy will, which means further dependence on Cyril of the ENTIRE Metropolis (see paragraph above).
- Myrrh making and diaspora – this is purely about “trolling the OCU”. Neither determines the status of independence. Myrrh had been brewed in the Lavra during the Kyivan Metropolis until 1686 and even during the synodal era of the ROC – but never was it a feature of independence. Keeping the Ukrainian diaspora in the orbit of the MP is their long-held dream as “patriarchal parishes” of the ROC in the United States and Canada were mostly ethnically Ukrainian in Soviet times.
- Approval of ALL decisions for the period from 2011 means approval of the decision of the UOC-MP (by Moscow’s instructions), which states to break ties with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Instead of paving the way for a dialogue, the already closed doors are now boarded up.
- As for dialogue… For this dialogue to take place, there are three preconditions: to agree that there will be no transition of communities; to agree with the theses of MP propaganda against the OCU; and agree that the OCU hierarchy is “non-canonical.”
That is, does the Council REJECT the proposal of the Council of Bishops of the OCU on dialogue WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS? We are waiting for an explanation from the other side, but for now it looks like this: fulfilling the three preconditions should ONLY open a dialogue WITHOUT A CLEAR PURPOSE.
Was such an answer expected and is it a responsible position on the current state of Ukrainian Orthodoxy?
- The purpose of holding in one day both the Synod, the Council of Bishops, and the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was to CURB any discussion as much as possible – both at the events and in general. Now to all the questions raised within the MP, the answer will be “read the decision of the Council, everything is said there.”
“The mountain gave birth to a mouse.”
