Why Constantinople does not recognize Kyiv Patriarchate
On Thursday, on Volodymyr Hill, during the celebration of the Day of the Baptism of Rus', President Petro Poroshenko made a "program" statement on behalf of the current authorities regarding the situation in Ukrainian Orthodoxy – a course toward autocephaly and a hope that it will be granted by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. But the fact is that Constantinople has already given its answer to Poroshenko's request! Archbishop Job (Getcha) of Telmessos has arrived in Ukraine!
This is a very important figure in the structure of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. He is referred to as the person overseeing the "Ukrainian question" on behalf of Constantinople. He came to take part in events organized by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. If Constantinople intended to recognize the Kyiv Patriarchate, this visit would hardly have taken place. Or, having arrived in Kyiv, Archbishop Job could, in one format or another, have met with representatives of the self-proclaimed Patriarchate. For example, he could have taken part in the "Ukrainian procession" it organized. In a word, he could have sent a clear and unambiguous signal. However, this did not happen. On July 28, on the day of the celebration of the anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' on Volodymyr Hill, Filaret twice invited the archbishop to walk with representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate through the streets of Kyiv, and both times received a polite refusal.
The day before, the emissary of Constantinople concelebrated with the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Onuphry. In church diplomacy, to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy with someone signifies the highest degree of recognition and respect. The Kyiv Patriarchate and the ultranationalist forces standing behind it can impose the myth of a "Moscow Church" for as long as they like and speak of their claims to a central role in Ukrainian Orthodoxy, but for serious church figures such arguments are not sufficient.
Moreover, Bartholomew's envoy saw with his own eyes the UOC's prayerful procession and, the following day, the Kyiv Patriarchate's "Ukrainian procession." Undoubtedly, he drew conclusions: that the Kyiv Patriarchate is not a church organization, but is solely a political project of Ukrainian nationalists. In the UOC's procession, tens of thousands of believers prayed and turned to Christ and the Mother of God; in the Kyiv Patriarchate's "Ukrainian procession," several thousand people (60% of whom were clergy of the UOC-KP) walked with the flags of political forces and sang folk songs. What could be more telling?
Thus, there is not a single serious ground for claiming that Constantinople is planning to recognize the Kyiv Patriarchate. The spokespersons for the UOC-KP may recall that the Phanar accepted for consideration the appeal of the Verkhovna Rada to grant autocephaly to the "Orthodox Church in Ukraine." But, firstly, the text does not speak directly about the Kyiv Patriarchate, but about Ukrainian Orthodoxy in general. Secondly, in case anyone does not understand, in the diplomatic language of the Phanar, to refer some question to a commission for consideration means to send it to the "wastebasket." Naturally, Bartholomew could not directly and bluntly refuse the Ukrainian parliament, so he found a way out – "to send it to a commission," which is tantamount to a refusal. Likewise, in yesterday's meeting with the President of Ukraine, Archbishop Job limited himself to a diplomatic avoidance of direct promises.
"In Constantinople, they are well acquainted with the situation of the Church in Ukraine, and if the Phanar had wished to respond to the appeal of the deputies, it would have done so long ago," commented Clement (Vecheria), head of the UOC Information and Education Department, on the meeting of Archbishop Job and the President of Ukraine.
And one more thing. What do you think: if someone is counting on recognition from someone else, will they be rude to them and slander them? No recognition of any church can take place without the consent and confirmation of all the Local Orthodox Churches. And now let us turn to the statements of the official spokesman of the UOC-KP, Yevstratiy Zoria. It should be noted that Zoria is the official spokesman for the Kyiv Patriarchate. All of his statements can be regarded as the official position of the UOC-KP.
So, Yevstratiy Zoria has already managed to accuse Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria of being corrupt, and the representative of the Patriarch of Antioch, Metropolitan Niphon, of being a "Soviet-minded relic" and a sycophant. And these are two of the most ancient patriarchates, which belonged to the so-called "Pentarchy." In addition, Ivan (Yevstratiy) Zoria managed to to take a swipe at the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Georgian Orthodox Church, and all the other Churches that expressed solidarity with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC).
However, in Zoria's classification, the label "pro-Russian" (which in his mouth is something dreadful and ungodly) applies to most of the primates of the Local Orthodox Churches. The Patriarch of Jerusalem for urging Ukrainian deputies to "reconcile with the Russians," Serbian Patriarch Irinej for calling the Kyiv Patriarchate "Orthodox only in name", the head of the Polish Church for being outraged by the seizures of UOC churches, the primate of the Albanian Church for calling the actions of the UOC-KP "diabolical". The list could go on.
Many respected representatives of the Orthodox world have found themselves on the receiving end of Yevstratiy Zoria's sharp tongue and fiery temper. This points to just one conclusion: Yevstratiy Zoria quite well aware that recognition is not going to happen, which is why he is addressing exclusively his domestic audience, without worrying about how the Primates of the Orthodox Churches and their representatives will react to his rude trolling. The main priority for the UOC-KP is to convince its supporters that everything is fine and that everything is going according to plan. The Kyiv Patriarchate's spokesperson skilfully dangles the prospect of imminent recognition like a carrot on a stick. However, he always has a fallback argument: "The Russian Orthodox Church waited 150 years for recognition, and we can wait too."
Moreover, in addition to verbal insults, the Kyiv Patriarchate has offended many Patriarchates through its actions. For example, it has supported schismatic movements within the Bulgarian and Serbian Churches, issued a declaration expressing support for a potential schism within the Moldovan Church, and so on. The Kyiv Patriarchate is playing the role of a Trojan horse within Orthodoxy, a "Trojan" as computer specialists call one type of virus that infiltrates a computer disguised as legitimate software, unlike viruses and worms, which spread automatically.
Archbishop Job, of course, can make diplomatic statements and give interviews, from which the UOC-KP will once again, like a magician from a hat, pull out a "rabbit" of hope. But judge for yourselves: is recognition possible for those who have managed to quarrel with most of the Orthodox Churches? Can one imagine a scene in which "Archbishop" Yevstratiy Zoria concelebrates with those whom only yesterday he was reviling on his Facebook? Moreover, the Kyiv Patriarchate’s "love" for the Ecumenical Patriarchate is also short-lived, as soon as the latter finds itself in the "unpatriotic" camp. And does the Kyiv Patriarchate even need recognition? They recognized themselves long ago and do not need anyone’s approval, getting along perfectly well without the Orthodox Church.
