Why, becoming a "metropolitan", Filaret does not commemorate his Patriarch

Metropolitan (under the Phanar’s version) Filaret

As you know, on October 11, the Phanar made some unexpected statements. The most sensational of them is the legitimization of schismatics from the UOC KP and the UAOC. And although this decision of the Phanar can hardly be support by any other Local Churches, besides Constantinople, the schismatics themselves should have been completely satisfied.

However, it is enough to look once again at the faces of Filaret and Zoria during yesterday’s briefing to see that they are not quite happy about the decision made. 

The reason for the lack of enthusiasm with the representatives of the UOC KP is clear – henceforth, Filaret is not a “patriarch”, but only a metropolitan, at least in the Phanar’s eyes (for all other Orthodox Churches, he never been a patriarch).

Because the second point of the communiqué of the Holy Synod of Constantinople clearly states: the Metropolis of Kiev will come under the direct authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which means Filaret or someone else will not be able to call himself the Patriarch of Kiev (which is Bartholomew now). Archimandrite Kirill (Govorun), a cleric of the Moscow Patriarchate and a well-known supporter of autocephaly in Ukraine, seems to agree with such a formulation of the question, writing on his Facebook page that the Phanar is restoring his Kiev Metropolis in Ukraine. Consequently, any of its heads can only be a metropolitan of the Church of Constantinople, and, of course, he is obliged to commemorate his Patriarch, and not to continue calling himself a patriarch.

However, what we see on the second day after the announcement of the historic decision for the UOC KP says that it has not changed Filaret at all. Having obtained conditional legitimacy and being introduced into the Phanar’s structure, he immediately showed his “firm-style” pride, stubbornness and self-will.

This is evidenced by the words of Filaret yesterday that he "is, was and will be the patriarch", and by the "divine service" that took place at the Vladimir Cathedral after the results of the Istanbul meeting became known. Thus, at the great entrance, Filaret did not commemorate the name of Patriarch Bartholomew, although several hours earlier he had said that Kiev and Ukraine are the canonical territory of the Constantinople Patriarchate. And if so, not yet entering the Eucharistic communion with Phanar, Filaret already managed to break the canonical rule, which says that the bishop must know his primate and raise his name during the service.

In addition, Filaret himself was called the “patriarch”, which indicates that the UOC KP simply did not care about the decisions of the Istanbul Synod, according to which Filaret is a metropolitan.

Moreover, a little later, the UOC KP press centre stated that the Ecumenical Patriarchate restored the canonical recognition of the “episcopate and clergy of the Kiev Patriarchate,” although there is not a word about that in the Phanar’s decisions. The same archimandrite Kirill (Govorun) asserts that, from the point of view of Constantinople, only those “who had a dignity, and then they were deprived of it,” can be considered canonical. But, as of 1992, only Filaret had a legal status, and all the other “bishops” were “ordained” later. So, the press centre of the UOC KP did not care about the decisions of the Istanbul Synod again.

So, including in the category of canonical hierarchs of a person who has repeatedly violated the priest’s oath, broken many of the church canons and the oath he gave on the cross and the Gospel does not affect his personality. From the point of view of the Church, nothing but sincere repentance can change a person. But Filaret has not repented and, apparently, does not even think of repentance.

And this once again proves that yesterday's precedent with the legitimisation of the schismatics is a purely formal act that did not affect their inner world in the least. After all, any actions of the decision of the hierarchy regarding the canonical status of certain clergymen of the Church are only a statement of their inner spiritual state.

And as the imposition of reprisals is an attempt to reason the one who has come to a dead end, so their lifting is a statement of the fact that this person could change himself internally and find a way back to the Church. And this path always lies only through the procedure of repentance.

The fact that the door of the Church is open to Ukrainian schismatics is constantly highlighted by the hierarchs of the UOC and other Churches. However, they also emphasize that this door opens from the side of the schismatics and is called repentance.

It should be understood that the mechanical naming of someone "grace-filled" and "canonical" is impossible. The Сhurch does not know an alternative mechanism that would help turn a sinful person into a saint, the graceless into the grace-filled. Without repentance, spiritual life is basically impossible. And in this case, the irony of Fr. Andrei Kuraev, who says that Orthodox Christians of Ukraine and the world should rejoice over the return of the “prodigal son” (meaning the UOC KP and the UAOC), is not appropriate. But what is there to rejoice about? After all, the main thing did not happen – the change of their inner spiritual state. And, most importantly, it is most unlikely to happen. Neither will Filaret recognize the fact that he is now considered to be a metropolitan under the Phanar’s decision — he still assures everyone of his patriarchal dignity.

Then what does the Phanar do? Indeed, in the desire to save our neighbour, we should be talking not so much about historical expediency and church condescension (oikonomia), but about the human soul. Anathema is not a curse, but a warning (albeit a very tough one) to a person that the path he has chosen leads to the abyss. Returning from this path is possible only through the awareness of one’s delusion, one’s wrongness. Otherwise, everything that happens to the soul of man is dictated solely by the sin of pride, which gives confidence in his own rightness. Filaret’s words that "he was, is and will be a patriarch" raise no doubt about that.

Hence, there can be no talk of repentance. We do not know what will come of it, and what will be the reaction of Constantinople. Maybe the Greeks, again for the reasons of "historical expediency" (read, slyness) will close their eyes to new canonical offences (what's the difference – one more, one less?). Or maybe, they will consider this a good reason to subject Filaret, newly accepted into communion, to new reprisals. Maybe there will be some other decision – that is not the point. The bottom line is that there are words of Christ, who said that "if you do not repent of your sins, you will all perish as well". Therefore, the absence of repentance on the part of Filaret is the path to destruction, not only for him, but for all of his supporters, including Istanbul’s.

Read also