Loss of name and parishes: what to expect from "unification council" of SLC

In the case of receiving the Tomos, the UOC awaits the loss of the name

In Filaret’s sermon, delivered in the Vydubichi Monastery on August 4, there was one very interesting thesis. Mr Denisenko is going to hold a council of the "bishops" who supported Petro Poroshenko's petition for the Tomos to elect the primate ... of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. What can this mean and is there any reason to fear that Mr Denisenko claims not only the property of the Church?

So, Filaret wonders: "Who are we? Those bishops who appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarch."

What "bishops" appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarch? This is the "episcopate" of two religious organizations: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Both structures do not belong to the Orthodox Church and their appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch is a petition of religious organizations outside the Ecumenical Orthodoxy. Also, the earth is full of rumours that some of the bishops of the UOC signed the appeal to Patriarch Bartholomew.

We know for certain of one person – Metropolitan Alexander (Drabinko). If Bishop Alexander, together with others, appealed to Constantinople, then it is logical to assume that he will take part in the meeting on the election of the "primate" of the UOC, organized by Mr Denisenko. However, this does not change things. All we know at the moment is that Metropolitan Alexander has no blessing to speak on behalf of the UOC at any "unification councils". Therefore, with or without his Eminence Alexander, but the leaders of the two organizations cannot get together and elect the leader of the third!

However, here one recalls a fraudulent scheme that was popular at the beginning of Ukraine's independence.

With the advent of the 1990s, just when the Kiev Patriarchate was born, when there were not any electronic registers and other formalities when the country was just starting to live in the market economy, or rather, wild capitalism, there was one rather primitive fraud scheme. In order to rob or take over a firm (plant, factory, bank, etc.), unclean individuals register their office with exactly the same name, but in another region, for example, – in Kiev and Kiev region. Of course, the identification numbers of these firms were different. But, firstly, they are not so often looked at today, and in the 90's – even more so. Secondly, not all documents include identification numbers and, thirdly, people can simply be forced (by bribery, blackmail or violence) not to pay attention to this small detail. After the fake firm was created, along with all the legal documents, scammers on behalf of the firm with the same name concluded agreements, took loans, reappointed senior management, sold the property, assigned their people to branches and departments and so on.

Now such a primitive pattern does not pass, of course, and modern raiders invented many other, more sophisticated schemes, but the principles of actions remained the same: to take someone else's name and already under this name to act in their own interests.

It is this raiding scheme that the notorious bill № 5309, which explicitly states that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church should change its name, is geared for.

Here is its text:
 "A religious organization that directly or as part of another religious organization is included in the structure of a religious organization whose governing centre is outside Ukraine in a state that is recognized by law as having committed military aggression against Ukraine and temporarily occupied the territory of Ukraine is obliged in its full name specified in the statute to show the affiliation to the religious organization outside Ukraine, to which it belongs, by mandatory indication in its name of the full statutory name of such a religious organization with the possible addition of the words "in Ukraine" and / or indicating its place in the structure of a foreign religious organization."

It is possible, of course, to marvel at the complete legal and linguistic illiteracy of those persons who composed the text of the bill itself, but that's not what we're talking about right now. Mr Denisenko explained everything much easier:

"Of course, part of the Moscow Patriarchate will not join this Ukrainian Church (the SLC – Ed.). And since they will not join, they should not be called the Ukrainian Church. They have the right to exist in Ukraine on a par with other Сhurches, on an equal basis with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (again the SLC – Ed.). That is, Ukrainian laws give everyone the right to freedom. But this Church should be called the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine." Just like bill № 5309 prescribes!

Recall that bill № 5309 has not been withdrawn from consideration and its adoption by the Verkhovna Rada is entirely possible. But this bill is not the only one draft law in the world. You can think of another one, third, fourth – just to force the UOC to change its name. So that the name "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" will become vacant. And if this happens, it is natural that under this name, the planned organization, which is today called the Single Orthodox Church (SLC), will be registered as soon as possible.

And then everything is like in the troubled 90's.

The SLC, renamed into the "UOC", legally becomes the "owner" of all 12,800 (!) now existing communities of the UOC. Because that's how it will be written in their charters. Here's an example:

In this document, there is no other identification of the affiliation of the religious community than the name – "The Ukrainian Orthodox Church".

Here is an example of the text of the statute of a UOC community.

The text indicates that the parish is a structural part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and operates within the framework of the Statute of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. That is exactly the religious organization into which, as into the princess from Cinderella, Filaret, along with his Kiev Patriarchate, intends to turn.

Of course, one can argue that if the UOC has to change its name, its religious communities will also change their name. Yes, communities will have the right to change their name but:

First, through administrative pressure, they will be persuaded not to do so. And we all know perfectly how the administrative resource in our country works.

Secondly, this re-registration itself can drag on for years. Let’s recall what problems the UOC structures had (and for some reason, they alone) with the re-registration of their statutes in connection with changes in tax legislation in 2017, and how the Ministry of Culture dragged out this re-registration under any far-fetched pretexts. We also know our bureaucratic red tape.

Until these statutes are re-registered, the leadership of the rebranded "UOC" will legally manage the communities of the UOC. And this fake leadership of the fake "UOC" will legally be able, in the best traditions of the 90's, to make deals with the property, to appoint their people to posts, to dispose of bank accounts and so on. Someone will manage to defend their rights, some will fail. But you need to understand the whole degree of the craftiness of those who, through lulling lullabies about not violating the rights of believers under the Tomos, are prepared to grab not only the Lavras but also the communities of the UOC.

Here is such a scheme, originated in the troubled 90's, already prepared and awaiting its turn. And the signal for the start of this scheme should be given by this most notorious Tomos!

I certainly hope very much that such a scenario will not be realized. However, reality shows that people who do not stop before the violation of church laws will hardly stop before the violation of state laws. And you need to be ready for this.

Read also