Whatever they do is going wrong: why OCU is having problems

Head of the OCU Epiphany Dumenko

We have a proverb: "God marks the crook." It is originated in the biblical story of Cain, who killed his brother Abel. As we know from the Book of Genesis, the Lord punished Cain and marked him in a special way "so that no one, having met with him, has killed him" (Gen 4:10). St. John Chrysostom, explaining this biblical text, says that God did so to teach a lesson to future generations so that even Cain’s looks could bring people to their senses and no one followed his example (St. John Chrysostom, "Conversations on the Book of Genesis, Conversation 19")

To some extent, we may say that the Lord warns his children of the danger of encountering the violator of His law, and it concerns not only old times but also the present day.

Betrayal or non-betrayal?

Indeed, it is difficult to explain that everything that is happening today around the Tomos is nothing but a coincidence. We have repeatedly witnessed the fact that everything that its initiators planned collapsed or is not going the way they intended.

For example, Patriarch Bartholomew promised complete and unconditional autocephaly but signed autonomy. Local Orthodox Churches were supposed to recognize the OCU, but they haven’t done that so far. Even the Georgian Church, which was viewed as almost the main supporter of "Ukrainian autocephaly", is hesitant to congratulate Ukraine on the achievement of "church independence".

Ukrainian adherents of the Tomas explain such attitudes of the world Orthodoxy, as always, easily – "intrigues of Moscow". But even among the supporters, there are those who see in this not the notorious "hand of the Kremlin" but still the will of God.

These days, one of the autocephaly sympathizer, Tatyana Derkach, wrote on her Facebook page: "What I do not understand is a pathological betrayalphilia, akin to psychiatric disorder. The Ecumenical Patriarch promised autocephaly - "and how long can he talk the talk, he is working off Putin's money!" The Local Churches of the second or third echelon did not run like rabbits to accept the OCU – "these are Putin's flunkies who are working off Mokshans' money". The Georgian Church made a statement not typical for it – "Don’t lie, Georgian priests are all FSB agents sitting on Putin's money". Interestingly, when will the Lord be declared a Putin FSB agent, if he does not rush urgently to answer the prayers of the betrayalphiles?"

What's wrong with Tomos

From the point of view of the Ukrainian schismatics, all of the above facts can be interpreted as some annoying misunderstandings that will eventually be resolved. As Filaret recently said, "Sooner or later the Ukrainian Church will be recognized."

Such a position is voiced both in Ukraine and in Phanar.

However, the problem is that the number of these "annoying misunderstandings" is already so great that it raises serious concerns in the ranks of the OCU supporters.

The first alarm is the error made in the text of the Tomos. It states that the Ecumenical Patriarch takes "unequivocal court decisions for bishops and other clergy ... according to the 9th and 16th holy canons of the IV Chalcedon Ecumenical Council". While the right of the head of the Constantinople See to consider church disputes in the last instance is provided not by the 9th and 16th, but by the 9th and 17th rules of the IV Ecumenical (Chalcedon) Council. But the 16th rule, which the Tomos refers to, says that the maidens who devoted themselves to serving God are not allowed to marry ...

Really, an annoying error. It is known that the Tomos was drafted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and written by the best calligraphist of Athos, Archimandrite Alexius. This text was read and re-read many times. And nobody, no man from a huge number of those through whose hands the Tomos passed, noticed such an obvious mistake! It was found out already here, in Ukraine after the document had been brought from Phanar.

It turned out later that the Tomos not only had an error but also missed the signatures of the members of the Holy Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Therefore, it was brought, showed, and then taken back – to be signed. The Ukrainian schismatics argued that the need for signatures under the text of the Tomas was a purely technical issue that did not matter. But Archimandrite Kirill (Govorun) said that it was not the case, because unless Tomos is signed by all members of the Synod, it is invalid: "The Tomos, which was signed only by the Ecumenical Patriarch, without the signatures of the members of the Synod, is null and void. It is also called: Patriarchal and Synodal Tomos - and therefore it must necessarily be affixed also by signatures of the members of the Synod." That means that the Ukrainians who the "Tomos on autocephaly" was demonstrated seemed to be deceived for several days.

However, even such a simple procedure, like the signing of a ready-made document, resulted in a dubious act on the part of the Phanar. The TSN has published a photo of "the members of the Holy Synod," who allegedly signed the Tomos. But as it became known later, the list of the members of the Holy Synod and the list of Tomos signers are quite different – by six names (the ones that are in both lists are marked red):

So, it turns out that the Tomos was signed by 6 out of the 12 members of the Holy Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate. This means that the question of its legitimacy remains open.

Painful tendencies

Quite a lot of questions are caused by unusual and sudden illnesses of those who do not want to have any relation to the newly created OCU.

It began with the cancellation of the meeting between Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem and the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko. The reason is a sudden, up to hospitalization, illness of the Patriarch. And everything would have been okay if the next day Patriarch Theophilos had not received a group of pilgrims of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The story with Archimandrite Ephraim, who Patriarch Bartholomew in an orderly manner sent to Ukraine for Epiphany’s "enthronement", raises questions. It is known that Athos monasteries decided not to support the Ukrainian venture of their primate, Patriarch Bartholomew. Therefore, it was reported that Archimandrite Efrem goes to Kiev not as a representative of the Holy Mount, but as a cleric of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

However, even despite this, his arrival caused a real excitement in the camp of the Ukrainian schismatics: "Never a dull moment with us (with you, with them?). Only there, on Athos, they had … hm ... a discussion on the OCU - "Romfea" (Greek Church mass edition – Ed.) already writes about the possible participation of two Athonites in the enthronement of the Metropolitan of Kiev. Not just anyone but a monk who wrote a beautiful Tomos on parchment for us, and – Ooh, la, la – Ephraim of Vatopedi. What gifts of the Magi, however. On Sunday, we'll see what is there."

They could not see because Elder Efrem suddenly fell ill and was not present on Saturday and Sunday at the St. Sophia of Kiev. The UOJ described in detail his arrival and hospitalization. We should add that the only positive result of the arrival of Archimandrite Ephraim for Epiphany was a lucky chance for the Ukrainian schismatic to hold the hand of a real Athonite elder.

Where is the "elder"?

But the strangest thing in this series is the illness of the "Honorary Patriarch" of the OCU Filaret. Journalist Sonya Koshkina said that his health condition worsened sharply in the run-up to the "enthronement" of the head of the new "Church" and he was hospitalized.

It is not difficult to guess about the causes of his illness. Indeed, as it is known, despite the fact that Filaret considers himself to be a patriarch, in the eyes of the Phanar representatives, who participated in the "enthronement", Mikhail Antonovich is at best only a metropolitan, not a patriarch. Therefore, during the "liturgy" at the St. Sophia of Kyiv, Filaret would stand not in the center but on the side as a mere "bishop" of the OCU. Filaret could not allow such a shame for himself.

The head of the Synodal Information Department of the Moscow Patriarchate Vladimir Legoyda commented on the absence of the "honorary patriarch" as follows: "It is clear why Filaret Denisenko did not appear today at the enthronement of his protege Epiphany: without a patriarchal cowl, Filaret does not want, but the delegation of the Constantinople Patriarchate would never agree to that. Here is the cause of the illness. A diplomatic illness, as they say."

However, apart from the external, human factor, there is also an internal one in this illness, namely, the refusal of the "honorary patriarch" to recognize the new religious organization.

During the "enthronement" of Epiphany, Filaret would not stand in the center but on the side as a mere "bishop" of the OCU. He could not allow such a shame for himself.

All these "errors", "coincidences", "sudden" illnesses, etc., in fact, say only about one thing – the Lord warns His children from participating in the OCU project. That is why the so-called "enthronement" of the head of the OCU Epiphany was quite boring: the event was not attended by representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches (except the Phanar); no state employees brought in, the OCU believers, if any, simply did not come. The organizers of the event tried to make it pathetic by inviting one of the most authoritative Athos hegumen, Archimandrite Ephraim, the abbot of the Vatopedi Monastery.

But even here there was a fiasco. What can be said about all this? Only what has already been said in the Scriptures: "Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain." (Ps. 126, 1)

Read also