On the OCU’s “informing” against Metropolitan Theodosiy
The OCU filed a report against Metropolitan Theodosiy. Photo: open sources
The Cherkasy Eparchy of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) is “deeply outraged” by the lifting of nighttime house arrest for Metropolitan Theodosiy of Cherkasy and has called on “competent authorities to reconsider the case”. Their reasoning is simply shocking – according to the OCU, it is “unacceptable” that the metropolitan is now free to celebrate services wherever he wishes.
Let that sink in – Christians are appealing to state authorities to ban a canonical Orthodox bishop from holding liturgies!
Of course, the OCU claims that the hierarch “openly promotes Russian narratives” and say they are concerned for the “immature minds” of the faithful.
Yet they offer not a single example of such narratives. And that’s no surprise – they don’t exist. What Epifaniy Dumenko and his circle really want is to get rid of a bishop who’s in the way, someone interfering with their ongoing campaign to expropriate churches. In reality, these are the actions of 1990s-style racketeers, doing everything possible to push a “competitor” off their turf.
But the Church is not a business. Calling for the arrest of an innocent man is both vile and disgraceful. And from a Christian perspective – it’s a sign of total unfitness for ministry. A Christian shepherd cannot wish evil upon another. He cannot hinder the celebration of the Liturgy. It’s absurd.
How would we react if a fitness coach told us not to work out, but to lie on the couch eating chips and pastries instead? We’d probably go find a different coach.
And yet in the OCU, these are precisely the kinds of “coaches” and the kind of “training program” on offer. The only question is: what sort of result can one expect at the end of such a program?
Read also
A hint at a new demographic reality?
It appears that we are facing a mass influx of migrants from the poorest countries of Africa and other regions. And the absolute majority of them will profess Islam.
On the seizure of a UGCC сhurch in Tokmak
Statements by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church about “blasphemy” are not the cry of a persecuted Church. They are a textbook example of double standards.
On Budanov's statement regarding UOC
For Yelensky and his the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience (DESS), Budanov's statement was very untimely.
Why does OCU still celebrate Easter “with Moskals”?
On social media, “patriots” are again asking in exasperation: why are we still celebrating Easter with Moscow? How much longer?
Did Patriarch Bartholomew really mourn Filaret’s death?
Constantinople has never recognized Filaret as a patriarch – not “His Holiness,” not “honorary,” not under any title whatsoever. That alone makes the line in the Ukrainian presidential press service’s report sound astonishingly implausible.
Why did Dumenko sit in Metropolitan Onufriy’s chair?
The head of the OCU has his own residence – and Filaret’s residence as well. But what he needs is the Lavra, Metropolitan Onufriy’s office and chair.