Final sell!

Oleksandr Kolb went to Dumenko because the UOC "did not break" with the ROC. Photo: UOJ

On September 24, 2023, the priest of the UOC from the Volyn Eparchy Oleksandr Kolb concelebrated with the Phanar hierarch, Bishop Mikhail (Anishchenko)of Koman, in Kyiv. The liturgy took place in the main cathedral of the Phanar Exarchate in Ukraine and was also attended by a "priest" of the OCU and an archimandrite from one of the Crimean monasteries of the UOC, Gabriel (Anisimov).

On September 29, based on the 39th Apostolic Canon and for the violation of the clergyman’s oath, in accordance with the Resolution of the Council of Bishops of the UOC dated November 13, 2018, Metropolitan Nathanael of Lutsk and Volyn banned Oleksandr Kolb from the priesthood "without the right to partake of the Holy Sacraments of Christ until full repentance".

Two days later, Fr Oleksandr Kolb announced his transition to the OCU, along with the congregation of the church dedicated to Mary Magdalene in Lutsk, where he had been ministering before the ban. One of the arguments he used to explain the motives of his decision to the parishioners was his assertion that the hierarchy of the UOC did not "completely separate" from the ROC.

"I am outraged that the leadership of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has not fully detached itself from the ROC MP," he said at a parish meeting. And this statement could have been overlooked, but there are two "buts".

First, it is voiced too often; and second, it is used as a manipulative argument for "leaving" the UOC. So, let's analyze what lies behind such statements or demands.

The final break – truth and fiction

Archpriest Oleksandr Kolb is not just a rural priest who may have a limited understanding of canonical nuances or not grasp the current status of the UOC. He is an educated person – a teacher at the Volyn Theological Seminary. Therefore, his statement about the "complete separation" of the UOC from the ROC is not a mere slip of the tongue but a deliberate attempt to present his desires as reality, or in other words, to speak the untruth.

Why? First of all, he did not explain what he means by "final break". Secondly, in administrative terms, the UOC has been independent for a long time, since 1990. Thirdly, in 2022, all references to the ROC were removed from its Statute, except for the Patriarch Alexy's Letter. In this letter, the "connection" with the Moscow Patriarchate is purely eucharistic. There is no subordination or governance from Moscow, and there has never been.

For decades, the leadership of the UOC, its hierarchs, priests, and the faithful knew that the ROC had no influence on decision-making in Kyiv. Neither Kolb nor anyone else can point to a single decision of the UOC Synod that was dictated by Moscow. The Letter clearly states that the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church will be governed according to the God’s and sacred canons and the traditions inherited from the Holy Fathers of the Catholic Orthodox Church and the resolutions of this Bishops’ Council."

Where does it mention Moscow or that the UOC should be "governed" according to the decisions of the ROC Synod or the Patriarch? Furthermore, Patriarch Alexy clearly states in the Letter that "with one heart and one mouth, we pray to the Chief Shepherd, the Lord, for the bestowal of heavenly help and blessings upon the Holy Orthodox Church of Ukraine." In other words, he entrusted our Church to the hands of God, specifying who and how would govern it.

Did Kolb know about this? Certainly, yes. Moreover, as a teacher at the Volyn Seminary, he taught this to his students.

The opponents of our Church like to accuse it of "ties" with Moscow, taking out of context the following phrase: "The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, united through our Russian Orthodox Church with the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church shall not change anything regarding the dogmas of the faith and the holy canons without a council decision of the whole Orthodox Catholic Fulness." However, this passage from the Letter does not indicate any administrative dependence of the UOC but has canonical-legal meaning. It speaks of unity with the world Orthodoxy "through" the Russian Orthodox Church, not of the subordination of the UOC to the ROC.

So, the only serious objection from those who talked about some kind of subordination is related to points in the UOC's Statute that required the participation of our bishops in ROC Councils and our Primate in the ROC Synod. However, these points were removed from the new version of the Statute by the Local Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church held on 27 May 27 2022 in Feofaniia. At present, the document regulating the life of our Church does not mention the ROC in any way.

But for individuals like the Volyn priest, this is not enough; they demand a "final break". One might ask: What else should our Church do to "finally" prove its independence? Declare autocephaly? Probably. This is what they are striving for. But what comes next? How will this autocephaly be received in Ukraine among the ordinary faithful and the hierarchy? How will it be perceived in the Orthodox world? Have any of those demanding a "final break" asked these questions? Probably not. These questions do not seem to interest them. So, what do they want from the Church? What are they aiming for?

"Final farewell!"

We dare to assert that they want disgrace for the Church. The situation with the demand for a "final break" painfully resembles the one that unfolded during Poroshenko's last months as president. Do you remember his endless "final farewell" statements towards Russia?

Since 1991, Ukraine has been a sovereign state. Its Constitution, governing bodies, economy, and the entire system are entirely and fully independent from Russia and any other country. If there were any connections between the countries before the war, they were not of an administrative-dependent nature but were based on principles of mutual benefit. However, Poroshenko (much like Yushchenko in his time) built his political career not on the desire to improve the lives of ordinary citizens of our country but on constantly presenting himself as opposed to "unclean Russia", from which one must "finally" break away.

Initially, he claimed that Ukraine's entry into the European Union would be a "final farewell" to Russia. To spite Moscow, the Communist Party was banned, cities and villages, streets and squares that had Soviet or Russian names were renamed; the calendar of significant dates was changed; the Ukrainian army was "finally" cleansed of all remnants of Soviet ideology, including greetings and titles, Defender of Ukraine Day, Border Guard Day, etc. It seemed like everything was "finally" done to the point where there was nothing left to say goodbye to. But no. Poroshenko declared that visa-free travel was the definitive "final farewell". Phew, everyone breathed a sigh of relief, ultimately "final". However, a year later, the President signed a decree to withdraw Ukraine from the CIS and once again assured that this time it was truly "final".

As we remember, Poroshenko even spoke about "final farewell" in December 2018 at a gathering after the creation of the OCU, although, one might think, what does the OCU have to do with Russia?

His constant desire to repeatedly prove a complete break between Ukraine and Russia began to look extremely unhealthy. The more Petro Poroshenko said farewell to the neighbouring country, the more questions arose about his ties to its economy, business, and so on. After all, if there are no connections at all, then there is no need to say goodbye a hundred times. In the end, the situation became so comical that even the laziest person couldn't help but laugh at Poroshenko, especially after the publication of the conversation records with Putin when, in the midst of the ATO, Poroshenko, while warmly bidding farewell to his colleague, said: "I shake your hand and hug you."

Poroshenko's words about "final farewell" became a meme, and he himself lost the elections miserably.

It seems to us that those who today demand a "final break" between the UOC and the ROC have unconsciously chosen the path that Poroshenko has already walked. They simply use this demand for ideological purposes, manipulating and deceiving ordinary people.

At the same time, the clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church clearly understands that there is nothing to say goodbye to – everything was said long ago and quite clearly. There are the decisions of the Council, there is the text of the Statute. It is both foolish and ridiculous to repeat in every way about its independence from the ROC. Why disgrace yourself by proving to someone things that have been proven a million times?

They will tell us that we do not need to say anything, but simply declare autocephaly, and it will be "final farewell". Do you know for sure that by proclaiming autocephaly, the UOC will save itself from the attacks of its enemies? Do you know for sure that by proclaiming autocephaly, the UOC will "finally" prove its independence to someone? That its hierarchs, priests and believers will magically cease to be "Moscals" and "traitors"? We doubt it. Or rather we do not doubt that this will not happen.

The Church will not be left alone. Because after the demand to declare autocephaly there will appear (or rather, will continue to appear) demands to unite with the OCU, and then – with the Uniates, Catholics and so on. And all of this under the "final farewell" slogan. To be more precise, this wording will look like "final sell": your faith, your principles, your Christian conscience.

As a result, it may turn out that we will say "farewell" not to the ROC but to Christ.

Read also