How anti-church media shape our agenda

When the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) separated from the ROC, it did not break Eucharistic communion with it or pronounce an anathema against it (much as the politically driven Orthodox crowd might wish otherwise). Yes, we rightly expressed our disagreement with the actions of Patriarch Kirill, who blessed the war against our homeland, Ukraine, and we condemn the bloodthirsty pro-war rhetoric of many ROC clerics.

But together with ALL the Local Orthodox Churches, without exception, we continue to recognize the ROC as part of the Church of Christ.

And UOC clergy are perfectly entitled to concelebrate with ROC clergy, just as they may concelebrate with clergy of any other Local Church with which the UOC maintains Eucharistic communion.

The only thing that might prevent such concelebration is an openly pro-war and anti-Ukrainian stance on the part of a particular ROC cleric. Even then, the objection would not be canonical but a matter of conscience.

Just as one of our clerics serving in a Romanian church must commemorate the Patriarch of Romania, or the Patriarch of Georgia when serving in a Georgian church, so too, under the canons, the Patriarch of Moscow is commemorated when serving in an ROC church.

Not as our ruling hierarch, not as our Primate, but as the hierarch under whose jurisdiction that particular church falls.

Yes, our cleric does not share his political views. But he acts much like the monks of Mount Athos who, to put it mildly, are far from pleased with the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew, yet faithfully commemorate him during services in obedience to the canons.

And let me say it again: Isn't it time we stopped trembling at the thought of what outsiders hostile to the Church might say about us? Isn't it time we listened to our consciences and acted according to the Church's principles, rather than trying to please a handful of outsiders who have appointed themselves judges of our Church – the UOC?