ARCHBISHOP YEVSTRATIY COMMENTS ON ''CONDEMNATION OF PATRIARCH CYRIL GUNDYAEV''BY PRIESTS OF THE UOC-MP

                  

Фото: Укрінформ / Євстратій (Зоря)

A spokesman for the OCU, Archbishop Yevstratiy (Zorya), commented on the “condemnation of Patriarch Cyril Gundyaev” by priests of the UOC-MP.

Below is the text of the OCU spokesman:

“My assessment of such an initiative cannot be unequivocal.

This is GOOD because:

1. The clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate admits the guilt of their leader in unleashing and continuing the war in Ukraine. They recognize that his actions and rhetoric are criminal, that they are punishable.
2. Addressing the Primates, the clergy of the MP acknowledges that the doctrine of the “Russian world” is false and even criminal as it prompted the war with Ukraine and justifies it.
3. Under such conditions, the MP clergy considers it impossible to continue to remain under the leadership of Cyril Gundyaev and within the Russian Patriarchate.
4. The de facto appeal confirms that there is no REAL conciliarity in the MP and there are NO internal mechanisms to bring Gundyaev to justice. All synods-councils-inter-council presences and other sham forms within the MP have the same relation to catholicity as Putin’s “sovereign democracy” – to real democracy. Therefore, the authors are forced to turn to the Primates, because they simply do not see another real mechanism.

This is NOT good because:

1. The authors of the appeal focus a lot on Gundyaev’s fiigure and actions, giving the impression that what happened is his PERSONAL fault. Thus, although perhaps not directly, they diminish or do not accept the collective and systemic responsibility of the entire ROC and the Metropolis of the MP in Ukraine (“UOC”) as part of the ROC.

Just as untrue is that “Putin is to blame for the war, not the Russians,” it is also untrue that “Gundyaev is to blame for everything,” but not the entire ROC-UOC-MP system. Gundyaev was not the only one to personally preach to the elderly ladies in the parishes the narratives of the “Russian World” and “Triune Russia”, sell books about it, scare people with “the terrible sin of schism,” and so on.

Therefore, if the initiative is reduced solely to shifting ALL responsibility to Gundyaev, it will look like an attempt to remove / deny the responsibility of all others, the responsibility of both the system (MP ROC-UOC) and individuals.

2. The authors oppose the position of Metropolitan Onufriy and his team to that of Cyril and the ROC. However, as I wrote earlier, in reality, Metropolitan Onufriy has done NOTHING compared to what he CAN and MUST do. He did not even use his membership in the Synod in any way to influence the situation. He still commemorates Cyril, he never convened a meeting of the Synod of the UOC-MP, even remotely, to discuss everything that happened, and so on.

If the appeal of the clergy serves as an excuse for such blind deafness of the Metropolis in the Lavra – this is certainly not what will solve the problem.

3. The authors of the appeal to the Primates to condemn Cyril Gundyaev and the “Russian world.”

– Have the Synod and Council of Bishops of the UOC-MP already revoked all decisions by which they severed ties with the Ecumenical Patriarchate? If not (actually they haven’t – nothing has been canceled) – why not do it now? Is the Ecumenical Patriarch, who, according to the canons, is to LEAD the condemnation proposed in the appeal, still “non-canonical”? Will all this be decided “in post-war period”? Such a decision should and could have already been made.

– Have the Synod and Council of Bishops of the UOC-MP already condemned Cyril’s position and the ideology of the “Russian world”? Is it easier to demand the convening of a court of Primates?

Or is it all a technique to shift the responsibility onto someone and declare that “we are waiting for the decision of the Primates,” and therefore here in Ukraine, everything will remain as it was – for an indefinite period?

4. If “Cyril and the ‘Russian world’ are to blame for everything,” will the replacement of the ROC patriarch and the probable rejection of the ‘Russian world’ be a reason to say: “that patriarch was bad, but now he is good, he loves Ukraine and wants peace, so we will all remain in the canonical unity of the ROC, because otherwise it is impossible”?

I have no unambiguous answer to all these questions, so let the audience draw its own conclusions, including from the development of practical steps in the implementation of the published initiative.

I would like its consequences to be only correct, positive, and useful for the Church and Ukraine. But we should not let our guard down, especially when it comes to various maneuvers within the MP.

 df.news