Stumbling anathema: why Kiev Patriarchate denies the obvious

Spokesperson of the UOC KP Ivan Zoria

On June 25, the spokesperson of the unrecognized Kiev Patriarchate Yevstratiy Zoria tried to refute the media's information that Bankovaya is trying to convince Filaret to leave the post of head of the UOC-KP because the anathema laid on him is one of "the obvious obstacles to the decision of Constantinople to grant the Tomos on autocephaly to Ukrainian Orthodoxy".

In his message on Facebook, Zoria makes a long introduction, accusing the media of false provocations and resenting the thesis that "alleged anathema laid on him by the Moscow Patriarchate is an obstacle to autocephaly and for the Patriarch to lead a single Local Church."

After that "alleged", one expects Yevstratiy Zoria to explain why anathema should not be remembered and that it is not a matter of concern for the Kyiv Patriarchate.

But literally in the following sentences he confirms what he was going to refute. Namely, it says that "without the rejection of the Moscow anathema, there is no other way on the part of Constantinople to recognize Ukrainian bishops who are outside the MP. And without the recognition of the hierarchs and clergy of the UOC KP and the UAOC, there is no point in talking about autocephaly, because on the basis of the Moscow Patriarchate, Constantinople cannot proclaim it..."

It turns out that the anathema is still a problem for the UOC KP, regardless of whether Zoria considers it to be valid or void.

This is not the first case of a contradictory duality in the minds of the spokespersons of the UOC KP. Perhaps, Yevstratiy Zoria hopes that everyone has already forgotten about "Filaret’s letter" to the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, but this is not so.

"I appeal to you to take appropriate decisions, which will put an end to the existing confrontation. Namely - to consider void all decisions, including the punishments and excommunications, which prevent the above-mentioned," said the letter, which ends with the words: "I apologize in everything I sinned – with word, deed and all my feelings, just as I sincerely, from my heart, forgive all." The letter was signed without the title "patriarch", only with one name – "your brother Filaret".

The very next day Filaret hastened to disavow his request and stated that "anathema does not bother me". But word is but wind, the written letter remains. The letter shows that the anathema actually "bothers" the head of the UOC KP very much, if he decided to address the ROC with a request for its removal.

And now the spokesperson of the Kiev Patriarchate confirmed this officially - the anathema is an undoubted and objective factor, which "prevents to recognize" the clergy of the UOC KP.

Let us explain why.

The priesthood ban, defrocking and the subsequent excommunication of Filaret from the Church question the hierarchical and priestly ordinations of the entire clergy of the Kiev Patriarchate. In other words, this questions the fact that the bishops of the KP are bishops and priests are real priests. Therefore, any recognition and bestowal of autocephaly are out of the question.

Recall why Filaret was defrocked and then excommunicated from the Church.

On June 11, 1992, the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church decided to "defrock Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko), depriving him of all degrees of priesthood and all rights related to staying in the clergy", for "cruel and arrogant treatment of subordinate clergy, dictatorship and blackmail (Titus 1, 7-8, Holy Apostles rule 27), bringing temptation to the faithful with his behavior and personal life (Matthew 18, 7, First Ecumenical Council rule 3, Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council rule 5), perjury (Holy Apostles rule 25), public slander and blasphemy against the Council of Bishops (the Second Ecumenical Council rule 6), the performance of sacraments, including ordination in the state of priesthood ban (Holy Apostles rule 28), schism in the Church (the Double Council rule 15) (e)."

As you can see, Filaret was defrocked not for "patriotic" activity, but for very specific offenses that violate specific canons.

Note that Filaret was excommunicated from the Church not immediately after the schism, but 5 years later! That is, the Church gave enough time for him to try to correct the situation and bring repentance. Instead, Filaret not only failed to repent, but also supported schisms in other Local Churches!

On February 21, 1997, at the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Holy Danilov Monastery of Moscow, he was excommunicated and anathematized. By the decision of the Council, Filaret was accused of the following: "Monk Filaret did not heed the call to repentance addressed to him on behalf of the Mother Church and continued in the inter-conciliar period the schismatic activity that he extended beyond the Russian Orthodox Church, contributing to the deepening of the schism in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and taking in communion schismatics from other Local Orthodox Churches."

Let us note that defrocking and excommunication from the Church, done by the Bishops' Councils of the ROC, are recognized and confirmed by other Local Orthodox Churches as well.

Now the Kiev Patriarchate is going to appeal to Patriarch Bartholomew to lift anathema, because it is allegedly unfounded. "The Patriarch of Constantinople has the rights of the highest appellate instance in litigation when at the level of the Local Church the issue cannot be resolved, and the problem goes beyond the local level," Zoria wrote.

However, as we see, the anathema had well-founded and obvious reasons that would be difficult for the Kiev Patriarchate to muddle or refute.

We should mention one more point: Filaret was excommunicated from the Church, in particular, for the schism and creation of a parallel non-canonical hierarchy, which is a direct violation of the canonical rule "one place – one bishop".

One must understand that this is not just one of the many rules concerning the Church. This is one of the fundamental rules, which is rooted in the very essence of the Church and its main mystery – the Eucharist.

If you ignore this rule, you will have to question the reality of the unity of the Church.

One can sometimes observe a sad and terrible picture when a new temple of the Kiev Patriarchate is built 50 meters from the church of the UOC, so that people "take communion" separately from the "Moskals".

It may be objected that in the United States or Estonia there are different jurisdictions.

This crafty argument has no power, because those who use it forget to mention the decision of the Crete Council.

Recall, the issue of the Orthodox diaspora was considered at the Crete Council in 2016. The adopted document emphasizes that the strict canonical order of the Church provides for the presence of only one bishop in one place. The existing "jurisdictional pluralism" is considered only as a temporary and forced state of affairs until "a more appropriate time when conditions for the application of canonical acrivia are ripe".

As we see, the Local Churches recognized jurisdictional pluralism as NON-REGULAR, which, moreover, arise not as a result of schisms or confrontations, but due to forced reasons connected with the formation of Orthodox diasporas.

In our case, we are dealing with an unauthorized and malicious duplication of the canonical hierarchy, which was carried out by a person who is under priesthood ban!

If this is not the reason for anathema, then what is the reason? If this can be forgiven and considered "void", then we must refrain from condemning any crimes against the Church. Recognition of such an act inessential will undermine itself Its foundation and create a precedent allowing all the dissatisfied to fall in schism without fear. The very notion of schism will disappear altogether.

Therefore, Constantinople is unlikely to take such a step. Furthermore, as we wrote above, the anathema was recognized by the Primates of all other Local Churches. At least for this reason, Patriarch Bartholomew cannot make any decisions unilaterally.

So, Filaret will have to forget about the post of Primate of the canonical Church, while Yevstratiy Zoria will have to forget about the post of its spokesperson.

Read also