On the struggle of Filaret's disciples after his death
After Filaret's death, the OCU intensifies its work to destroy his Kyiv Patriarchate.
The disputes among Filaret's disciples would be their internal affair if not for the constant juggling of church canons.
Perhaps the most expressive statement from the OCU is the non-recognition of the episcopal rank of all those ordained by Filaret after he revived his Kyiv Patriarchate in 2019. In particular, the official website of the OCU states that the new "patriarch" of the UOC-KP Nikodim Kobzar "is not even a hierarch".
"The OCU did not recognize, does not recognize, and will not recognize anyone's episcopal rank granted on behalf of the UOC-KP after December 15, 2018. Consequently, none of those persons who are now trying to act on behalf of the UOC-KP are, from a canonical point of view, hierarchs, and some of them are not even clergy," the text states. The same was declared at a press conference by OCU spokesperson Yevstratiy Zoria.
There is no point in arguing: neither Nikodim Kobzar nor other members of the UOC-KP are canonical hierarchs. But the problem is that from the OCU's own perspective, everything should be different.
Kobzar was "ordained" bishop on December 15, 2019, by Filaret and Iosaf Shibaev. By that time, they had already been "reinstated" by the Patriarchate of Constantinople for a year. But Zoria, Serhiy Dumenko, and other "hierarchs" of the OCU were previously ordained by Filaret while he was under anathema and defrocked. And this anathema was recognized by everyone, including Patriarch Bartholomew.
That is, all those "ordained" by Filaret after his legitimization by the Phanar have much more right to be called canonical hierarchs than the "hierarchs" of the OCU themselves. Of course, only from the perspective of Constantinople and the Churches that recognized its decisions regarding Filaret. And therefore, the attempts by OCU leadership to puff out their cheeks and portray themselves as champions of canons look both ridiculous and sad.
Special note should be made of the OCU's extreme level of manipulation in statements claiming that Filaret was against the UOC-KP existing after his death. Supposedly, since he did not make a separate statement on this matter, he wanted its dissolution. But then why did Filaret need to leave the OCU and recreate the Kyiv Patriarchate at all? Why endure mockery and insults from his own disciples? Why fight so hard for his old-new structure?
We see that the seeds sown by Filaret around himself have yielded abundant shoots. Lies, manipulations, divisions, struggle for power and property – these are the fruits that his "tree" has borne.
Even after death.
