Is it autocephaly or metropolitanate of Constantinople, after all?
The future of the presidential Tomos is increasingly vague. Will the Phanar generously bestow autocephaly or attach the Ukrainian schismatics to its Church?
The saga of Tomos begins to resemble some lowbrow show. Instead of dealing with their own affairs (government officials with a public plane and clergymen with an ecclesiastic one), there are a number of speakers who continually throw firewood into the dying fire of the presidential autocephalous initiative.
After the promised Tomos in Ukraine did not turn up on the day of the 1030th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus, there is some confusion among the supporters of the "Single Local Church". Out of the mouths of the autocephalists and the media sympathizing with them come contradictory forecasts and explanations of what will happen next.
One of such "ecclesiastic weather forecasts” was made by supernumerary clergyman of the ROC Archimandrite Kirill (Govorun).
"The most likely scenario is that the Tomos will be signed at a meeting of the Holy Synod on September 10," Archimandrite Kirill said. “It is already written and needs yet to be signed. The second scenario – the Tomos will not be signed immediately but first, they will restitute the Kiev Metropolitan Church and only then it will be transformed into an autocephalous Church; the third scenario is the Synod will decide on a temporary deterrence of the Ukrainian issue."
Let us remind you that earlier the “updated” archimandrite declared that they did not know the precise date of whatever decision of the Phanar. He also argued that the actions of the Church of Constantinople should be tied to the "Unification Council".
To be honest, all this reminds reading tea-leaves and is very different from the initial pathetic rhetoric of the autocephalists when the same archimandrite Kirill declared that "Tomos had been already written."
The media outlets are not lagging behind also messing it up. It will just suffice to mention the "news" of the "Mirror of the Week" Edition dated August 2 that on September 10 there will be held ... "All-Orthodox Council"! Many other media outlets managed to disseminate this nonsense, in particular, one lieutenant-general (!) told about it in an interview on the Apostrophe website: "On September 10, the All-Orthodox Council will be held in Constantinople, where a decision will be hopefully made on granting the Tomos to Ukraine."
It would seem that the Mirror of the Week is a serious publication and cannot allow such gross errors, confusing Synod with All-Orthodox Council. But what to say about the media, even if the most authoritative "experts" on the issues of autocephaly bark up the wrong tree.
In fact, Archimandrite Kirill himself got confused. According to him, it was on September 10 that the Synod of the Church of Constantinople was to be held and the "ready-to-deliver" Tomos was to be signed.
Later, Father Kirill would apologize for the confusion saying he did not take into account the fact that due to the meeting of hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the September Synod is going to be skipped.
"I was a bit mistaken in my assumption ... The Synod will not be held in September but October 9-10. This postponement does not have to do with some kind of treachery but it’s just procedural moments. In September an important forum will be held – Synaxis, which caused a certain anomaly into the rhythm of the council-related events of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Therefore, everything goes according to plan, and I thank my friends in Constantinople, who noticed my mistake and corrected me on time."
I wonder why the "friends from Constantinople" failed to tell the rest to Father Kirill. After all, if they supply him with such exclusive information that the Tomos is “cut and dried”, they could tell something else – for example, what decision the Synod intends to take.
Following the apology of Father Kirill the outlet "Left Bank" published the news that the Synod ... "was moved", referring to "their own sources from the church" circles. Knowing about close relations of Father Kirill with chief editor of "LB" Sonya Koshkina, we can assume who was "their own source". True though, the headline is out of place again, but it's a trifle.
It seems that mouthpieces of the SLC are finally confused in their "testimony" and begin to contradict themselves and argue with each other. All this wild confusion in the camp of autocephalists once again confirms the fact that none of them knows about real plans of the Phanar. All these dates of "final" decisions, scenarios, "written tomos" are picked out of nose with a sole purpose – to continue to prove to society the scale and significance of his/her own personality.
After Father Kirill called, among the scenarios, the creation of the metropolitanate controlled by the Phanar, his assumptions got subjected to sharp criticism by Spokesman of the Kiev Patriarchate Eustraty Zoria:
"During five months (from April until now) of the process of Church-state negotiations, even the very possibility of having a scenario of "intermediate metropolia" has not been discussed because all parties recognize this idea as unrealistic, which will not be a solution to the problem but its complication."
Well, don’t even dare think that such variant is possible. Only autocephaly – only hardcore!
According to Eustraty Zoria, this content is "dispersed" by Moscow through "its channels”.
But what do we get then – is Archimandrite Kirill also the hand of Moscow?
Or maybe Patriarch Bartholomew himself can be called the “hand of Moscow” due to his message, voiced by Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, on July 28 on the Vladimir Hill? After all, there were such words:
"Now we can declare to the whole world – the Good Shepherd gathers his flock and calls under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Constantinople!"
Of course, one can recall the widely disseminated words from the same message that the ultimate goal of Phanar concerning Ukrainian Orthodoxy is autocephaly. However, the ultimate goal can come in five years, maybe ten, or maybe 500! There is no contradiction in these words and cannot be. In the meantime, the point is one could while away the time within the structure of Constantinople.
At that point our eyes turn to the personality of the head of the Kiev Patriarchate Filaret, who unequivocally stated that only he and no one else can be the head of the future SLC.
Let us recall the events of 10 years ago. At that time not the CP metropolitan came to Kiev to celebrate the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus but Patriarch Bartholomew himself. And then, according to Filaret's own testimony, the UOC-KP was close to becoming part of the Universal Church. Let it be without any autocephaly, let it be by joining the Constantinople Patriarchate but nevertheless. However, Filaret refused. As he said afterwards: "The Ecumenical Patriarch offered us a model that does not suit us at all ... We do not need slavery. We want to have our own Church. And so we rejected this offer of Constantinople!"
Yet, maybe it's not a matter of slavery but Filaret’s ambitions not to give up his power? After all, in this case, he would have lost his patriarchate and guarantees for leadership positions in the future.
Let us quote the letter to Filaret from Methody, head of the UAOC of that time:
"Forgive me but I remember the events of the day when His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew left Ukraine. Then, in the Secretariat, you looked like a man who lost the ground under his feet: a pale, tired face, an embarrassed, confused look, sweat streaming down your forehead, a figure bent by life ... I remember your words: "And where are the guarantees that I will be elected Primate?"
A man known and respected throughout Ukraine, whose name is associated with the revival of Ukrainian statehood, approached you: "Your Holiness, have you at least once thought about the state, about the young priesthood who are not recognized anywhere in the world – what is going to be with them after you?"
Not having anything to say in response, you just repeated:
"I am a patriarch ... Vladyka Bartholomew was supposed to meet with me ..."
And you heard in response a bitter truth:
"What kind of patriarch are you? Who recognizes you? The president wants to help you, wants you to be recognized by the world, yet you do not allow it to happen!"
We could also talk about other circumstances of that day but we do not consider it expedient to do it publicly. The point is not in these details but in the fact that you, Vladyka, unfortunately, revealed your weak spirit and did not find the courage to give up your position and power dealing a treacherous blow both on the President and on all patriotic forces of the country.”
Probably, the point is that ignoring the spiritual laws and going on about your passions you can never achieve what you want. Anyway, this is exactly the case when it comes to the Church.
Had Filaret resigned in 1991 – there would be no split in the Ukrainian Orthodoxy now.
Had Filaret given his consent to renounce his "patriarchate" in the year of 2008, peaceful and calm for Ukraine, there might have been one Church in Ukraine.
Perhaps, now the Lord gives Filaret another chance to break his pride, repent and let the Ukrainians, who were duped by him, become truly Orthodox.
In any case, the hopes of Ukrainian politicians that the Church of Constantinople, without any benefit for themselves, will trigger a pan-Orthodox conflict only for the sake of pleasure to legalize the schismatic structure in Ukraine and, moreover, let the anathematized leader head it, are getting increasingly phantom.
