ARCHIMANDRITE KIRILL HOVORUN: “MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE HAS SEVERAL CANDIDATES FOR THE NEW CHURCH PRIMATE”

Archimandrite Kirill Hovorun: “Moscow Patriarchate has several candidates for the new church primate”

Mikhail Glukhovsky 29.10.2018, 22: 020 0 0

 "This Synod will be the first and last, where the participation of bishops will be voluntary. To act very quickly "After the historic synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, who declared his willingness to give to the Homeland a Ukrainian Church, in Kyiv they began preparing for the Unity Council. The bishops of the three Orthodox churches: the UOC-KP, the UOC-MP and the UAOC should take part in it. Taking into account the position of the UOC-MP, which after the synod of the Russian Orthodox Church declared the rupture of relations with Constantinople, as well as the position of the UAOC, which is already criticizing the UOC-KP for not wanting to compromise, the organization of the Synod is not a simple matter. On October 24, Patriarch Filaret announced that more than 40 bishops from the Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, 14 from the UAOC and some number from the church of the Moscow Patriarchate will take part in the Unity Synod. The UOC-MP has the largest number of bishops among all Ukrainian Orthodox churches. The paradox is that had this church agreed to take part in the Unity Council, it will dictate the agenda and, presumably, had a precondition. But the categorical position of the Russian Orthodox Church holds back the Ukrainian episcopate, which in the future threatens the UOC-MP with complete marginalization.

In an interview with Glavkov, a professor at the University of Loyola-Merimount in Los Angeles, the Archimandrite of the Moscow Patriarchate Church Cyril Hovorun, described who has the greatest influence on the decisions of the UOC-MP top hierarchy that deprives herself of church power and prospects in Ukraine.

Proponents of a single local Orthodox Church are now in anticipation of the Unity Council. How to accelerate the process and hinder the last step towards the dream of autocephaly?

The contradictions were cultivated for a long time, from the very beginning of church separation in Ukraine. On the one hand, there are disagreements between the Kyiv Patriarchate and the UAOC, but there is perhaps even more discrepancy between these two structures and the UOC-MP. They accumulated over a long time and it is really difficult to solve them, but it is possible. Now everything depends on the will of the leaders of these churches and those who help them.

Ukrainian churches are now lacking in gospel altruism, abandoning their own ambitions and their own rights. During the period of independence, each church was more or less opportunistic in terms of power. There was, for example, a Ukrainian President who approvingly approached the Moscow Patriarchate, then the Moscow Patriarchate immediately enjoyed this. When this President changed, he approached the Kyivan Patriarchate, and the Kyivan Patriarchate immediately began to use this favoritism. This is a certain fact. Now also there is a certain political situation, which wants to use some of the churches. It seems to me that everyone must give up this political opportunism, be humble and altruistic. Only then can they reach agreement.

No agreement have been reached throughout the entire period of independence.Where do you come from now?

There was no such a chance to unite before. The window of opportunity that is now open to Ukrainian churches gives the right to speak about it. It is unknown how long this window will be open. But it should encourage Ukrainian churches to forget about the controversy, the old images.

Opportunity window may close? Do you mean that Constantinople can review its decision on Tomos?

We see how much pressure exerted now and on the Ecumenical Patriarchate and on Ukraine. We do not know how long the people who decide on Ukraine will have the strength keep this siege and resist. Therefore, we must act as soon as possible. Constantinople has taken a step that it is impossible to cancel or ignore - he resumed its metropolia. Metropolis is most in line with the corporate interests of Constantinople Church. But this very little answer the autocephaly. Had Constantinople had the same motivation to defend its corporate interests as some Ukrainian churches show, it would stop at this step (the Metropolia's restoration - "Glavkom") and did not continue to go on the path to autocephaly. But he made it quite clear that he intended to give an autocephaly, provided of course that the Ukrainian churches would unite. If Ukrainian churches continue to emerge from their corporate interests without taking care of the general interest of Ukrainian Orthodoxy and society, then nothing prevents Constantinople from returning to its corporate interests and leaving everything as it is: to the restored Kyivan Metropolia of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In this case, Constantinople will not rush to provide autocephaly.

What are the interests of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, about which nobody speaks?

For example, have their jurisdiction in Ukraine.

Could there be some sort of secret agreement, since the example of pressure and bribery in 1686 suggests that such a practice might be?

I do not think that there are currently any existing arrangements between Moscow and Constantinople.

"UOC-MP could play a key role in the unification process."

If the Moscow Patriarchate Church agreed to take part in the Synod, it could have the largest representation on it. Why is she losing this chance?

Your remark is absolutely right that the UOC-MP could play a key role in the unification process. I think at the time of Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) it would be. I think he would be involved in this process. There is an important moment in the decision of the Constantinople Patriarchate on October 11: the Kyiv Metropolia of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was once transferred to the Moscow Church, was restored. So, in fact, this decision was applied precisely to the UOC-MP, because it was once a part of Constantinople, then it became a part of Moscow, and now Constantinople is actually giving it the most chances to lead this unifying process. Unfortunately, there is a big discrepancy between the UOC (MP) leadership, the church leaders and the majority of the UOC (MP). It was the position of the establishment to actually prevent it from being involved in the creation of a local church in Ukraine. I think this will not do anything good for either Ukraine as a nation or for the structure of the UOC (MP). It will continue to marginalize, rolling down the eagerness of church processes. The reason for the elimination of these processes lies in the enormous distance between the church leaders and the majority of people. Some political forces and oligarchs are involved in this development, in particular, the curator of the UOC-MP from the opposition bloc Vadim Novinsky is well known to all.

Are you aware of the pressure exerted on the members of the synod of the UOC-MP? What makes this church even in such circumstances to move in the lines of Moscow?

No direct pressure, there is indirect pressure. It should be understood that the head of the UOC, Metropolitan Onuphriy, is a strong supporter of unity with Moscow. In fact, he knows very little about the World Orthodox, nor does he understand the motivation of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Although he travels to Athos, which is on the territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, I do not think he knows well this church. This is not close to him. He is closer, of course, to the Russian Orthodox Church. This, also, apparently concerns the other hierarchs in the UOC-MP. They do not need to be particularly persuaded to remain loyal to Moscow. They grew up in a certain environment, in a certain subculture, which is rather limited and focused on Moscow. This is accompanied by the political factors that I mentioned, including certain pro-Russian oligarchs. I think many in the UOC MP motivate these levers to stay in the horizons of Moscow. Moreover, there is a very dangerous tendency in the UOC MP, which is the desire of the collapse of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Rhetoric, which was previously applied to unrecognized groups in Ukraine, to the Kyiv Patriarchate, to the UAOC, is now used for Constantinople. Phrases like "Istanbul Dad", etc. This is absolutely dangerous, first of all, for the UOC MP itself, because it is actually pushed into self-isolation. I do not want to use this word, but I may have to use it once for the UOC (MP) - it is in schism (the schism in the Church). This vocabulary of hatred does not contribute to understanding, inter-church peace in Ukraine.

The money of the pro-Russian oligarchs may be a big motivator for the UOC-MP top not what they will point out from the Russian Orthodox Church?

If we are to speak in a rude way, then one can make such an assumption. Moreover, one can extend this assumption and say that not only the UOC-MP or the leadership of this church depend on this money, but also some other structures in Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

Cyril Govorun "The church should be distanced from Novinsky"

Which exactly?

I will not clarify. I'm just guessing. The same Vadim Novinsky made a lot of effort to make the UOC-MP difficult to deal with. He did everything to ensure that the church did not adapt to the changes that have already taken place in Orthodoxy. If to name things directly by their names, I can say so: the activity of Mr. Novinsky is one of the reasons for the crisis in which the UOC appeared. This is an illustration of the famous proverb of how you can pray to God and break your head. I do not rule out that he realized and, perhaps, even feared the consequences of his activities. Perhaps a little honey - at least: I do not hear and I do not see lately that he would act as publicly as before. But you cannot not overturn these activities. And in order not to continue to make mistakes at least, he should simply distance himself from the church, and the church should be distanced from Novinsky. Because the benefits of this symbiosis, the symphony between the UOC and the oligarch will neither be the oligarchate, nor the church or the Ukrainian society.

How representative, legitimate Unity Council will be, if the UOC-KP cannot agree with the UAOC, and the UOC-MP will not change its mind and ignore the assembly?

I think that there will be representatives of the UOC-MP in this Synod anyway. We do not know how much they will be, but they will be. In addition, it must be understood that, unlike many other Councils, where bishops are invited and required to participate, this Synod will be the first and the last, where bishops will attend on a volunteer basis. Each member of the Synod will make a decision for himself: to go to it or not to go. This also applies to the delegates from the Kyivan Patriarchate, which has to be self-disputed by this time, and the UAOC. Each of the participants will represent at this Synod not their own previous church but will represent themselves and their flock. That is, it will be a Synod, which will represent people rather than structures. And in this sense, of course, it will be representative. I think that there should be no doubts about the legitimacy of the Synod, given these circumstances. The great problem of the UOC is that many hierarchs do not publicly express their position. Only a small number of bishops openly adhere to pro-Ukrainian views. But even now they are not openly declaring their readiness to move to a new church.

Are they afraid of something?

There are several reasons. The first is the lack of understanding of what will come from it (from the process of unification). They want to join a stable structure, a stable church, which has not even been created. The second factor is a certain inertia. People have not yet realized what changes have taken place in the church's landscape. And the changes really did take place radically. There is no split. Now they are trying to create a new split, where the UOC-MP is an antagonist. But the split that existed all this time is put to an end. This changed the configuration of the church field in Ukraine. Very few people in the UOC-MP understood this. In fact, few people realized this even in the Kyiv Patriarchate and in the UAOC. Therefore, they continue to live with the old mind, as if their existing structures are legitimate. The slowness of awareness of the new configuration is related to the inertia of church consciousness. The church people are very slowly adapting to new realities around themselves. There is still a third factor. Speaking about the candidacy of Filaret, as the head of the united church, who now holds the title of Metropolitan Filaret, he has promised a patriarchate in the new church; and many people in the UOC MP are asking: Is that the way they would unite this church, and they do not want to join under Filaret's omophorion. This is not a secret, it is widely discussed in the UOC, this is a factor to take into account.

Metropolitan of the UOC MP Sofrony: If my brothers do not go to the Synod, they will already be blamed for the split.

In non-public conversations between the hierarchs and the Moscow and Kyiv Patriarchate, one can often hear that the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not really want to see Filaret (Denisenko) as the head of the Local Church in Ukraine. This position may be the subject of "trades", if it is appropriate to use such a word? Rather than negotiations. Are there hierarchs in the UOC MP, who enjoy great support and could be compromise candidates for prosecution in the new church?

Such that the UOC-KP would likewise be pleased. There are several, they are being discussed. I will not name the names. In principle, the Synod is not programmed in advance for who it should choose, what configuration of the new church they should approve. There must be discussion, a lively and sincere discussion. According to its results, decisions on the candidacy of the next primate should be voted on. Therefore, this question remains open. I think there will be worthy candidates not only from the Kyivan Patriarchate.

A compromise candidate from the UOC-MP will be from the pro-Ukrainian wing of this church?

Probably this would be the most rational and ethical. That the person who consistently advocated the Ukrainian character of the church should also represent its program. One way or another, everything will depend on the decision of the bishops, delegates at the Synod.

The Metropolitan of the UOC MP Sofrony in an interview with "Glavkom" admitted that he would support you as a candidate. Do you see such a perspective for yourself in the new church?

(smiles) Well, I cannot stand. I am in the status of a priest who will not be able to stand. The process that is taking place now requires maximum altruism from each participant, up to complete self-denial. In my view, if one first thinks about his own plans and ambitions, then this is the shortest way to destroy the process of unification. My benefit is to watch a bit from outside and give an estimate. Of course, they are often subjective, but still, I think they are based on some experience and knowledge that I have acquired.

Has the ROC influenced Ukraine after the decisions of the Synods in Constantinople and in Minsk?

This is a very complex issue, which requires analysts, who have special services, power structures. It is this line that has a significant impact. And it will intensify. If we talk about ideology, then the power of Russian influence will largely depend on how the Ukrainian churches themselves operate. If they get bored already at this stage, they will start to rush, then Russians do not have to do anything at all, but just show pictures and twist the statements of Ukrainian churchmen. In order to make Russian influence minimal, you need to maximally rally, put aside the ambitions and understand the purpose to which we must come.

How long can it take to establish a new church?

Many are burnt on forecasts. Remember the statement from our political circles, which promised (that Ukraine will get Tomos) almost before the end of July, to celebrate the anniversary of the Baptism of Kiev, but then nothing happened. One can only hope that by the end of the year the process will reach its final stage. But the terms will again depend on the contractual ability of the parties.

Archimandrite Cyril Govorun "The oligarchs mobilize the church under their own revanchist political projects."

There are many talks in Ukraine that the status of the Moscow Patriarchate Church should be changed to a church with a foreign residence permit. Recognition of the Church of the UOC MP in Ukraine will benefit the autocephalous church that is being created?

This may be an ambivalent solution. First, it will give a certain forum to an independent church. On the other hand, how the church will take advantage of this. If it falls into the sickness of the Ukrainian Orthodox, namely opportunism - will use the opportunity to harm the opponent, it will eventually quickly lead to the discrediting of an independent church. This is often the case when a person who has suffered repression begins retaliation on a just occasion. It is necessary to take care that this does not happen, because there is no need to invent any worse defamatory.

Do you want to say that changing the status of the church of the Moscow Patriarchate will worsen the situation?

No. I say that the legislator has the full right to consider and accept any proposals that the people who elected him want. This is the nature of the parliament and a normal political process. The question is how the churches will take advantage of this process. If the united church takes advantage of this process in order to humiliate a church that will be in a minority in Ukraine, it will be very harmful both for it and for Ukraine.

Strengthening inter-church confrontation in case of changing the status of the church of the Moscow Patriarchate is real?

It may not be like that. The ideal model is the harmonious coexistence of two canonical churches in Ukraine. One is an independent and the other church of the Moscow Patriarchate. Of course, they will be in a certain competition, but nonetheless, they do not destroy each other, they do not curse, they do not use rhetoric of hatred. Another model when two canonical churches begin to curse and humiliate each other. This model will be harmful to Ukraine.

Changing the status of the church of the Moscow Patriarchate may shake up the interest in supporting this church in Ukraine by the oligarchs? In an interview to Glavkom two years ago, you talked about those people who funded the UOC-MP.

Perhaps. These oligarchs themselves may think that they sincerely help the church. In so doing, they proceed from their own considerations, which are in the favor of the church. These oligarchs did not study theology. Instead, they earned their first, second, and tenth million in different ways. And the church had very little affection. Then they suddenly began to study the church and, based on their life experience, acquired in the process of earning millions, they begin to govern the church. In my opinion, it is harmful to the church. Let the oligarchs help the church build temples, support educational projects, but without interfering in church decisions that require theological training, understanding the nature of the World Orthodoxy. I do not see this understanding from the oligarchs who interfere in the affairs of the church in Ukraine. Instead, I see political interest. They mobilize the church under their own revanchist political projects, in particular on the eve of the presidential and parliamentary election cycles. If they see that the conflict in the Ukrainian Orthodoxy can be converted into political dividends, they will strengthen it. If they see that there will be no conflict, which means that it is impossible to convert something, they will lose interest in this process. It is important that the state at the very beginning stop any potential conflict, prevent this revanchist forces from converting it into its electoral support.

In what way should the state stop this conflict?

This is a question for the state. I think that she must remain in the legal field, to preserve the principles of democracy and religious freedom. This is the most important thing. Churches should also enter the legal field, and not be an exception to it. The law should be one for all, and the state must ensure equality before the law.

In the mid-2000s you served in Moscow. In 2006, then Metropolitan Cyril (Gundyayev) ordained you to the priesthood. How much do you know Patriarch Kirill? What words would you characterize this person?

I do not want to share personal things right now. I think I knew him quite well when he was a metropolitan. I do not know who he is as a Patriarch. I am not convinced that there have not been major changes in the process of transformation from the Metropolitan to the Patriarch. I would have left wider ratings for private rather than public reflections.

"The ideology of the Russian Orthodox Church was the driving force behind the military aggression against Ukraine." Would the ROC, under his leadership, be able to do otherwise than to break the eucharistic communion with Constantinople?

I think I could. The potential that Metropolitan Cyril had in his time would be enough to peacefully and constructively resolve the Ukrainian issue. I once gave an interview in which I said that the new Patriarch has the potential to constructively resolve the Ukrainian issue (at the beginning of the Patriarchate of Cyril (Gundiaev) - "Glavkom"). I think that this potential really was then, and I saw it. I was sure this was an opportunity. But now, Patriarch Cyril did not use this potential and instead of resolving the issue of the Ukrainian Church, he left the case to others, in particular to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Constantinople came to Ukraine, not competing with Moscow, but filling the vacuum left by Moscow. And this is the fault of Moscow.

How could Cyril act differently, taking into account the influence on him of the political leadership of the RF, the special services?

This influence is as strong as the church itself allowed. That is, at the beginning of the Patriarchate (Cyril Gundiaev), or even before that, I think the ROC had much more freedom in relations with the state than now. It was not a state decision, but an exclusively voluntary decision of the church, which allowed subordination to the state. How does this subordination happen? It is multifaceted, multilevel, and now it is possible to say about the echelon system of dependence, from which it is difficult to get rid of one solution. Although everything started from one solution: to cooperate, to compromise with the state on certain issues, which, in my opinion, and in terms of the church, do not allow compromise.

What exactly do you mean?

For example, the most flagrant form of cooperation between the state and the church in Russia is the formation of an ideology by the church, which became the driving force for Russia's military aggression against Ukraine. This is a well-known ideology of the Russian people. This ideology was constructed by the church and proposed to the state. The Kremlin has adopted this ideology and used it to brainwash and armed aggression against Ukraine. This is one example. Moreover, I want to note that the state did not require the church to create such an ideology. The state at that time remained virtually without ideology, but the church itself created it, offered the state and insisted that the state adopted it. This is just an illustration of what I said, illustrating the voluntary dependence of the church on the state in Russia. This is the choice of the church itself.

 Does the episcopate of the UOC MP know this terrible truth?

I think many people are aware that, in principle, they are not stupid people. But not everyone is aware of it. There are bishops who are adherents of the ideology of the Russian people. There are more pragmatic bishops. Most of them even in the UOC MP are Ukrainian patriots. The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Minsk broke the Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, at the disposal of the UOC MP to the eparchies (dated August 16), it is stated that the prohibition of concelebration with representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate proceeds through the blessing of Metropolitan Onuphry and not through the decision of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Is this an awkward attempt to hide dependence on Moscow?

There is some inconsistency on the part of the UOC-MP on this issue. Metropolitan Onufriy, incidentally, and Metropolitan of Zaporozhye Luka, participated in the meeting of the Synod in Minsk, who made this decision (to break the Eucharistic communion with Constantinople). They also supported this decision. And Metropolitan Onufriy at the same time hardly rides to Athos. During the Synod, as far as I know, some bishops of the UOC MP were in Athos. Therefore, it can be predicted that many bishops are unlikely to follow these decisions. Most important, perhaps, is that the possibility of communicating with the monks of Athos, and with the bishops of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy was opened to the priests of the Kyivan Patriarchate. Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin is one of the few well-known public critics of the Russian Orthodox Church and personally of Patriarch Cyril. Chaplin is particularly dissatisfied with the fact that decisions in the church are taken individually by Patriarch Cyril, without taking into account other points of view. Unfortunately, the statements of Father Vsevolod Chaplin should be treated with great caution, because he was extremely radicalized. He turned into a horn of the radical wing in the church. Obviously, there is a tendency for consolidation of power (in the hands of the patriarch - "Glavkom"). In the church, the tendencies of co-ordination are being leveled out or ignored. Unity is a feature of the Orthodox tradition, which assumes that one bishop has no absolute power. The authorities of a primate and bishops are always balanced by the Synod, representatives of other churches. This principle is very important for Orthodoxy here. Unfortunately, in recent times in the Russian Orthodox Church there is a tendency to ignore the principle of unity. But before criticizing others I would still want to return to our Ukrainian realities. It seems to me that this tendency persists in other churches; it certainly remains in the UOC MP. Attempts to stifle the protest, or some other point of view on the events taking place in Ukraine, to make the priests, bishops and speakers silent silent, is a tendency in the UOC, unfortunately. Such was not the case at the time of Metropolitan Volodymyr. Then different points of view were voiced, they sometimes did not coincide with the general voice of the church. But tolerance to the other point of view was quite high. Now tolerance is very low. But this applies not only to the UOC. In the Kyivan Patriarchate, in my opinion, there are similar tendencies. It seems to me that in the new local church, one should avoid such. Although I understand it, this is a slightly unrealistic scenario, because the forces involved in the creation of this church are quite authoritative. However, efforts should be made to make the new church more co-operative. Not only bishops, but priests, laymen should take part in the Synod, which will establish this church. It is very important. One of the authoritative bishops of the UOC-MP spoke to the "Glavkom" that the top of the church threatened priests.

Like, if you go to a new church, you will be immediately deprived of parishes. What do you know about this?

Yes, such threats are heard. They are just an example of suppressing the different points of view, the diversity of thoughts that I have been talking about.

Is this the initiative of Metropolitan Onuphrya or "legs grow" from Moscow?

I think this is the position of Moscow, of course, but it completely coincides with the position of some of the leaders of the UOC, such as Metropolitan Anthony (Metropolitan Borispolsky and Brovarsky Anthony (Pachanych)). Many call what happened in Constantinople, the defeat of the ROC: the efforts of Cyril, who himself went to refuse Patriarch Bartholomew, did not produce results.

Will this defeat affect the authority of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church? Is it possible to change the presiding officer?

I would not interpret these events in terms of defeat or victory. Because some kind of local church can defeat or defeat, and the entire church will be defeated in this way. We are now talking about the whole Church of Christ, which unites both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Ukrainian Church. Perhaps I will now say an unpopular thing, but I want to recall the words of the Apostle Paul. He likens the church to the body of Christ: if one organ of the body suffers, then the whole body also suffers. I believe that the defeat of Moscow is a defeat for the entire church. Defeat of Constantinople is a defeat of the entire church, and the defeat of the Church of Kyiv is a defeat of the whole church. Therefore, I propose not to speak of defeat, but of the fact that there are indeed misunderstandings that must be overcome and to go further, so that in the end, the peace in the church would be peace and then peace will be in Ukraine.

 Cyril Hovorun "Instead of hysterics there should be joy: the church is replenished by new members who have returned from the split."

However, Russia's political leadership perceives our Tomos as our defeat. Is it likely that the Kremlin will be able to change leadership in the Russian Orthodox Church?

I will not be responsible for the Kremlin. I emphasize that the Kremlin does not consider the Russian Orthodox Church as part of the Universal Orthodoxy. He does not consider the church at all as a church. He sees it as a kind of political instrument. Incidentally, this also applies to the Ukrainian oligarchs, about whom I spoke. For them, this is also a political instrument. Therefore, they see this struggle between churches as a struggle between certain sociopolitical actors. I think this is a completely false view of what's happening. The church view is the peace and understanding that must exist between churches. In an interview with Glavkov, Vsevolod Chaplin also said that Kiev is now not the center of the ROC. In Russia, such spokesmen as Father Chaplin come up with certain chimeras, ideologues and then fight with them. With such a fantastic notion that there is a church, Russia's loss to Ukraine is truly perceived as a tragedy. But if you look at the church as the body of Christ, then in Ukrainian autocephaly there is no tragedy and no achievement. It's just a routine administrative process. Because autocephaly is a technical process that optimizes the administration of the church and everything. From the church point of view, nothing happened at all. Indeed, millions of people have returned from the split to unity with the World Orthodox Church. But administratively they will simply create a new structure, and the church will remain the same. Therefore, all the hysterics that sounds even from church Hierarchs, on the part of the speakers of the UOC MP, are that they do not understand what a church is. Instead of hysterics there should be joy, because the church has been replenished by new members who have returned from the split. Constantinople with its decision threw the ball into the field of Ukraine. Unite yourself, and then the Tomos will be given to a new church.

And were there alternative solutions? Let's say create a new structure and give it a Tomos?

 Again, two worldviews come together. The first one is paternalistic, when I ask for something, it they give it to me and I use it. Previously, the Communist Party, then the oligarchs, and now the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Another outlook - when I work in partnership and in partnership to get something. This is exactly what the attitude towards this process should be - the formation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Maidan was opposed to the paternalistic model of society, which expects something from the person above. And now, in the process of forming a Ukrainian church, it is very important that there should not be paternalism - the expectation that someone will give something from above, instead of being responsible for their actions. In a responsible, non-partisan paradigm, Ukrainian churches should collaborate with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This is called synergy. When there is no conditional serf and gentleman, but there are partners who help each other. Therefore, Ukrainian churches must take steps for their own good. UOC rejects state interference in church affairs. As if not the president and the parliament should have initiated this process. In an interview with Glavkov, Archbishop of Lviv and Galicia Filaret complained that the president had ignored the request of the hierarchy of the UOC MP to meet. As far as I know, this is not true. Because the President also met with the bishops of the UOC MP. I noticed, communicating with the bishops that each one speaks the right things separately, gives correct marks, but they cannot rally together. They cannot transcend their own interests for the common good for their church and for Ukraine. In such a situation, they are looking for some external factors of unification: The president, it is not important  either Poroshenko or Putin. They need an external factor, they themselves are incapable of making a step. This is a sign of a deep paternalistic thinking model.

And whence all the offenses against the president come about that he did not meet and did not chat?

This is from the inability to do something for yourself and answer for it.