What the Bulgarian Church's website says
Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Photo: bg-patriarshia.bg
Firstly, immediately after the election of Metropolitan Daniel of Vidin as the Bulgarian Patriarch, a congratulatory message from the head of the OCU, Serhiy Dumenko (also known as Epifaniy), appeared on the website. It was apparent from the text that this congratulation was originally written for another candidate, the one loyal to the Phanar and more inclined to recognize the OCU. Mr. Dumenko had certain hopes that with the arrival of such a Phanar-conscious Patriarch, his structure might receive recognition from the Bulgarian Church – if not full and official, then at least in the form of "concelebration". After all, we remember about the "concelebration" of some Bulgarian hierarchs on the eve of the Patriarchal elections in Bulgaria.
It is likely that the congratulation from Dumenko to the new Patriarch Daniel, who has repeatedly expressed support for the UOC as the only canonical Church in Ukraine, was sent out of inertia. The editors of the BOC website also posted this congratulation out of inertia. However, it soon disappeared from the site. This indicates that if there was any uncertainty among the staff of the Bulgarian Patriarchate regarding the recognition/non-recognition of the OCU, it no longer exists. The BOC recognizes only the UOC. This seems to be a jab at the Phanar.
Secondly, if previously the BOC website referred to the UOC with the suffix (MP), emphasizing that the BOC considers the UOC a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, this suffix has now been removed. In the congratulatory message to Patriarch Daniel from Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv, the suffix is absent. The UOC is mentioned among other Local Churches that sent their congratulations to the new Patriarch. Many consider Patriarch Daniel "pro-Russian". But what kind of "pro-Russian" Patriarch removes the MP suffix from the UOC? This seems to be a jab at the ROC.
Taken together, these circumstances suggest that Patriarch Daniel is guided not by political considerations but by the sacred canons of the Church. He does not allow himself to be trapped in a dichotomy: if you are for the ROC, you are against the Phanar and vice versa. For him, it is more important that the OCU lacks canonical episcopal consecrations than the fact that Serhiy Dumenko is supported by Ukrainian authorities and Phanariot actors. Regarding the independence and autonomy of the UOC, the conciliar opinion of the UOC is more important to him than its criticism by representatives of the ROC. We hope that the election of the new Bulgarian Patriarch will be a step towards uniting the Church around the Gospel and sacred canons.
Read also
Can we judge those who joined the OCU from the military commissariat?
There are many known cases where priests and deacons of the UOC, detained by TRC officers, were offered a simple way to secure their release – to switch to the OCU. Most refused.
On Rivne Metropolitan's excuse for service in Jerusalem
If today we consider it possible to make excuses for concelebrating with the ROC, what will we have to justify tomorrow?
UOC isn’t banned, just ‘de-Russified’? Neither was UGCC under Stalin then
By Shevchuk’s logic, Stalin never banned the UGCC or curtailed freedom of conscience – he merely “freed” the souls of the Uniates from Bandera ideology.
A dip in the Jordan on “one – two – three”
Well-known OCU blogger in “holy orders” Oleksii Filiuk has come up with his own theological formula on the banks of the Jordan. It goes like this: “One – two – three.”
On the situation at Sviatohirsk Lavra
After the killing of Monk Varsonofiy and the attempted murder of two other monastery residents, many patriots claimed that the crime had been committed by enemy saboteurs.
You’re happy, aren’t you? Then why change anything?
The KIIS poll seems to be telling the U.S. authorities: Look, Ukrainians like living this way. They’re not just satisfied with everything – they’re happy. They don’t need peace, so why change anything?