Bartholomew’s reaction to Filaret’s demarche: there is no “patriarch” in Kyiv and never has been
The Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew believes that there is no “patriarch” in Kiev and never has been, reports a PolitNavigator correspondent.
BBC News Ukraine writes about this with reference to a source in the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
This is how Bartholomew commented on today’s loud statements by the founder of the Kyiv Patriarchate, Philaret, made in a special address to the believers of Ukraine and at a special press conference in Kyiv.
Filaret published an appeal in which he announced that the Kiev Patriarchate continues to exist, and he remains the current patriarch. “Only the Local Council of this church, which created the Kyiv Patriarchate, can cancel the decision to create the Kiev Patriarchate. There was no such cathedral. The Kiev Patriarchate does not need to be restored, because it was, is and will be. Patriarch Filaret remains the current hierarch. It has its own diocese - the city of Kyiv, a permanent member of the Holy Synod. And since there is an active patriarch, then there is the Kiev Patriarchate. The UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate remains registered with state bodies. In particular, the Kyiv Patriarchate is registered. This means that legally the Kiev Patriarchate continues to exist,” Filaret said.
According to him, Epiphanius should be responsible for the external representation of the church, and the patriarch should be responsible for the internal church life in Ukraine. Filaret stated that this was exactly the agreement between him and Petro Poroshenko before the unification council on December 15, 2018, at which the Orthodox Church of Ukraine was created. Filaret noted that such a distribution of functions between him and Epiphanius was a condition for his refusal to fight for the post of head of the OCU. However, then Epiphany and Poroshenko deceived him.
“Poroshenko retreated from the promised agreements and actually agreed to the liquidation of the Kyiv Patriarchate,”
says Filaret.
In the statement, he adds that the renunciation of the Kyiv Patriarchate was a requirement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in order to hold a unification council of the Ukrainian Orthodox churches and obtain a tomos of autocephaly.
“Why did the Ecumenical Patriarch demand the renunciation of the status of patriarchy? Because the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in the status of a patriarchate, cannot be part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But it was necessary for the UOC to theoretically become part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. What were we supposed to do?
Refuse theoretical entry into the Patriarchate of Constantinople? Then the Ecumenical Patriarch would not have the canonical right to grant a tomos to a part of the church that is not his. To receive a tomos, you must first become the Kyiv Metropolis within the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” says Filaret’s appeal.
Filaret states that because of this, the Ecumenical Patriarch asked and set the condition that “I do not put forward my candidacy for the post of primate, and Metropolitan Emmanuel is the chairman of the cathedral, so that I do not put on the patriarchal doll at the cathedral.”
“They may object to us that the renunciation of the status of the Patriarchate was at the Local Council in St. Sophia on December 15, 2018. Yes! At the Local Council, but this cathedral was not the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, but the Cathedral of the Kyiv Metropolis as part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” Filaret said.
“Therefore, our rejection of the status of patriarchy was purely situational,” added Filaret.
“One lie,” the BBC’s interlocutor in the Patriarchate of Constantinople assessed Filaret’s statement.
“As Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew said, there is no patriarch in Kyiv, because there has never been a patriarch. Filaret is the former Metropolitan of Kiev,” he commented on the situation.
In turn, the conservative Orthodox publicist from the Russian Federation, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, assessed what happened in Kyiv as an actual split of the OCU created by Poroshenko and Constantinople.
“The veteran of intrigue will certainly not be afraid to remain in the minority in terms of the number of “bishoprics” - in the 90s he once went together with Jacob (Panchuk) against everyone else. The main thing is that Poroshenko is leaving, and soon no one will particularly oppose Koshchei’s Ukrainian church politics in secular politics. The “patriarch of Kiev” himself will not go anywhere and will never yield to anyone - while he is alive. Now “KP” will probably begin to exist parallel to “SCU”, and will claim worldwide jurisdiction, and will start with Russia (Denisenko was supported by three “hierarchs” operating in the Russian Federation, including one in Crimea).
And “SCU” is Poroshenko’s project. Q.E.D. Apparently, adherents of this project and Filaret’s supporters will soon begin to squeeze each other’s churches,” Chaplin wrote in his Telegram channel Orthodox Politics.
However, in his opinion, the events in Kyiv are in no way a victory for the Moscow church and secular bureaucracy.
“It would be very stupid for our church and secular bureaucracy to see their victory in all this. This bureaucracy has nothing to do with the split of the “OCU”, as well as with the “Cypriot” initiatives. It’s just that events develop as they develop, and sometimes they develop well. Moscow remains in the role of observer,” Chaplin added.
English version :: Read in English Bartholomew's reaction to Filaret's demarche: there is no "patriarch" in Kyiv and never has been