WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CANCELED MEETING WITH PRESIDENT POROSHENKO AND IN THE UOC MP NOV 13 MEETING The first great interview with Metropolitan Simeon interview

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CANCELED MEETING WITH PRESIDENT POROSHENKO AND IN THE UOC MP NOV 13 MEETING The first long interview with Metropolitan Simeon

Michael Glukhovsky,November 15, 12:00 

Simeon is the only Metropolitan who has publicly opposed the scandalous decision of the UOC-MP

Earlier this month, President Petro Poroshenko invited the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate Church to Kyiv. The meeting was scheduled to take place on November 13. However, at the last moment, the assembly broke down, allegedly because of the uncertainty about its venue. The Moscow church insisted on the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, which it administers with the permission of the state. The president wanted to see everyone in the Ukrainian house (convention centre of the Ukrainian State). Some hierarchs of the UOC-MP, wishing to remain anonymous, spoke to the "Glavkom" that in reality the church simply invented a reason in order not to accept the offer of the head of state: the upper echelons of the UOC MP are afraid of the possibility that some bishops can publicly declare support for the Local Church. As a result, the episcopal Council of the UOC-MP adopted a statement that can be considered as an attempt to burn bridges. In particular, it was officially announced at the meeting that UOC-MP would not take part in the Unity Council.

Despite this position, some bishops of the UOC-MP met for a few hours with Petro Poroshenko. According to the "Glavkom", this included Metropolitan Alexander Drabinka of Pereyaslav-Khmelnytsky and Vishnevsky, Archbishop Filaret of Novokakhovsk and Genichesk, and Metropolitan Simeon of Vinnitsa and Barys. The latter is called one of the closest bishops of the UOC-MP to the head of state. Simeon heads a diocese that is also considered the constituency of both the president and the prime minister.

Metropolitan Simeon was the only one among the 83 bishops of the UOC-MP who did not sign the final statement. He does not agree with the rupture of eucharistic communion with Constantinople, advocating for the provision of autocephaly. The Metropolitan also signed a letter to Patriarch Bartholomew asking for a Tomos.

In this interview with the Glavkom, Bishop Simeon explained the reason for the failure of the president's meeting with the bishops of the UOC-MP, mentioned what most bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate are afraid of, and commented on why he is now hailed as a compromise candidate for the election of the head of the new Local Church.

Your Eminence, please comment on the scandalous events of November 13. Why did the meeting of the bishops of the UOC-MP with the president fail? What was the main reason?

The Blessed Metropolitan Onuphry was with us at the Synod, and before that he spoke with the president. The Metropolitan said that an agreement (on meeting the president) was made and everything went according to the plan. We came to Kiev and gathered together, first of all, through the invitation of the president. The letter, signed by Bishop Anthony, testified that the meeting should take place at the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra at 14:00. But then we received an invitation from the president, which said that it will be held at 14:00, but ... in the Ukrainian house. There was some commotion: why did this happen? We gathered in the lavra, although the president said that everything for the meeting was prepared in the Ukrainian House. That fact remains. As a consequence, the meeting with the President unfortunately did not take place.

Whose fault was that?

I cannot answer this. In my opinion, the organizers planned something in advance in such a way that it did not take place. From the very beginning, as soon as we came to the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra and the Synod of the Bishops began, I had the occasion to think so. The first question posed by the Blessed Metropolitan Onuphry to the meeting participants was whether they should meet with the president or not and whether to go to the Ukrainian house.

The bishops began to speak, express their own opinion. They said that there should not be a meeting because they were offended by the statements of the authorities, the actions of the authorities related to Ukrainian Orthodox issues. Others, including myself, said that we ourselves have asked for such a meeting since summer and have waited for it. We cannot refuse, especially when there is an invitation. Upon arriving at the lavra, by the way, we did not know that after the meeting of the synod, there would be an episcopal council. All this was decided literally within an hour.

Was it a surprise to you to convene a council?

Exactly. But, you know, interestingly, it is thanks to the invitation of the President that we, for the first time in the past four years since the election of the head of our church, have finally gathered in a Bishops' Council. Yes, we all arrived in Kiev for celebration the anniversary of the baptism of holy Rus’. But that was no gathering as a council in a working environment.

You participated in the council and were the only one of the 83 bishops that did not sign the final resolution because you disagree with the decision to break the eucharistic communion with Constantinople and support the provision of autocephaly to the Ukrainian church. Why have you not publicly voiced pro-Ukrainian views earlier?

Maybe my views are not generally known all over Ukraine. In fact, I have been a bishop for 22 years and my pro-Ukrainian position has always been known. They know about it even in Moscow, because at the anniversary Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000, during the time of Patriarch Alexy I, being bishop of Vladimir-Volynsky, I already raised the issue of autocephaly. I then said that the Russian Church should provide us with autocephaly in order to unite the Ukrainian people and that another church-sister who is friendly with the Russian Church could live in good neighbourly relations and communion with her. But they heard me out and that was all ...

In an interview with Glavkom, Metropolitan Sofrony said that during the Council some bishops were in favour of removing you from the administration of your diocese.

It was such a "quagmire" with some of our fellow members. They turned to Metropolitan Onuphry. Your Bliss, they said, see how Simeon behaves, you need to think about replacing him. I replied jokingly: ‘what about you are also replaced?, or let's change places!’ They were, rather, jokes. Some bishops would really like some kind of replacement, for example, of Metropolitan Sofrony. It was like, ‘look at which side he takes, then we can make a decision about him.’ But Onuphry reassured everyone. He said that no one should go anywhere, nobody should violate anything, on what grounds should he be deprives of governing the diocese? That is, he said, Metropolitan Sofrony has not done anything yet, and we need to make some decisions.

That same evening, there was a meeting with the president. What did you talk about?  

We were already going home after the end of the Council. We were called and said that the president wants to meet with the bishops. It was almost eight o'clock. We drove up to the Ukrainian house, where security measures had been organized since the morning. Then I said to myself: Why didn’t we come before? In the Lavra, we had been sitting in the usual half-circle, and here such a beautiful round table, where each seat had been prepared with a microphone, water, tea, coffee, cookies. Everything was ready, if we had just come. That is, a format of conversation that was not quite as formal, over a cup of tea, was foreseen. The meeting was to be held in a warm and friendly atmosphere ...

The president had wanted to meet all the bishops, as he told us three (Metropolitan Simeon of Vinnitsa and Barys, Metropolitan Alexander Drabinka of Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky and Vyshnevsk and Archbishop Filaret of Novokakhovsk and Genichesk). He regretted that this was not the format of the meeting, because he would like to communicate with all the bishops. He said that before the beginning of the Unity Council, an attempt would be made to organize a meeting or several meetings with groups of bishops, for example, at regional levels.

After talking with the president, I was very sorry that our bishops did not come and did not hear what he was saying, because it was a unique opportunity to put direct questions. The purpose of the president is to help create a local Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine. On November 13, he wanted to explain to our bishops what personal steps he had done, what had been discussed in the Verkhovna Rada, and how he met with the Ecumenical Patriarch.

According to the decision of the UOC-MP, the MP does not support autocephaly. In other words, your church itself has burned the bridge for dialogue with the president. Is there any sense in such meetings in the future? Why continue to talk?

There is weakness is in every human being, even in a bishop. The old and forgotten Soviet devise "all in favour" also worked at the Council when questions were put to the vote. But believe me, in the heart and in the thoughts of many bishops, it is completely different. I think that meetings and talks with the head of state will have some effect, he might be able to change the attitude of the bishops towards autocephaly. Although I'm not talking about the majority.

By the way, during the council, and not for the first time, Metropolitan Onuphry uttered the following words: dear bishops, each of you represents his own local church, which is called the diocese, and everyone has the right to decide how to act without instructions. Do as your conscience tells you, as your heart tells you. You see the situation on the ground in your dioceses, in the parishes, so it is up to you to decide. That is, the Council made a general decision, but our personal decision remains our own. Everyone can think and decide for himself how to go forward.

What do you personally remember most from the meeting with the president?

He said that we in no way create a state church, as it is our fears (of the bishops of the UOC-MP), because of the rumours that he supposedly creates a state church. The president and the state do not themselves create a church, they instead turned to the church ... In this case, it was the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Patriarchate has the experience of solving church conflicts and the right to provide autocephaly. Only the Patriarchate of Constantinople has historically granted autocephaly to another church. I mean an autocephaly that is recognized by all the Orthodox world.

The President of Ukraine played an active role in the process of obtaining autocephaly. What exactly can the head of state do to help unite Ukrainian Orthodoxy?

The President is an Orthodox Christian, he takes care of and does not renounce his church, but as the head of state he also worries that there should be no separation among Orthodox citizens. It is enough that we do not have unity through party divisions, our political field resembles a swan, a pike, and a crawfish (a reference to an 1814 fable by the Russian poet Ivan Krylov, about three fellows dragging a cart in three opposite directions, not moving it from the spot). You see that in the state we cannot arrive at a common denominator, because everyone pulls a blanket on himself and demands his own. And the president wants that there should, at least in the church issue, not be such a painful division in society. Therefore, the state helps to resolve the issue of the schism, which we, churchmen, unfortunately, have not been able to move from dead point for 25 years.

But it turns out that we in turn refuse assistance. As long as this Unity Council is being prepared, there is still room for thought. I had a speech at the Bishops' Council. I turned to Metropolitan Onuphry with the following words: today our 83 bishops are present here, we are 90 in total and you are the head. If we go all the way to a Local Orthodox Autocephalous Church, we would automatically again choose you as the head of the entire Ukrainian Orthodox community, then in a united church. Because the numbers are such that we, the bishops of the UOC-MP, would be the majority at the Synod.

What did Metropolitan Onuphry answer to this?

Instead of Onuphry, some bishops came to me saying that I cannot decide for everyone, I should not speak out on behalf of all. The arguments were that it would be non-canonical, etc. The topic again switched to Constantinople, many began to criticize it, and it wenton and on ...

What is the attitude of the believers and the clergy of your diocese in the Vinnitsa region regarding autocephaly?

We are divided. It depends on whether you talk about a village or a city. Vinnitsa is more favourable to "Russki Mir", as it is now expressed (‘Russki Mir’, or ‘Russian world’ is the idea that Russians all across the world share a Russian identity, which is characterized especially by Russian Orthodoxy. The idea is a political one, but has very improtant religious undertones), and the village – not at all. There are some people who are very clearly in favour of the autocephalous church, others are categorically opposed. And most of the laity, and also, I think, of the bishops and priests (of the UOC-MP) in Ukraine are now in a position of expectation. Everyone is waiting for what will happen, above all, regarding the Unity Council and the Tomos. There are other interesting developments: Today, priests from other dioceses called me, saying that although their bishops are opposed to autocephaly, they wish to move to the new Local Church together with their parishes.

Do you participate in the preparation of the Unity Synod?

I am also in the process of waiting. I'm looking at what will happen, although my all-Ukrainian position is well known. Moreover, my opinion about what happened at the Council, now everyone knows, is clarified through the media. Looking at the talks that are going on now (on the unification of Ukrainian Orthodoxy) everyone can see everything: who is on what side and against whom, who supports and who opposes whom. I'm sure that when the Tomos of autocephaly is given by the Ecumenical Patriarch, some parishes will move to the new church. I do not say that it will be a massive movement, but there will be some ... This process will be especially pronounced once a law is adopted that regulates the procedures of subordination of parishes. But I will emphasize that the president assured that as head of state, he will not allow confrontation, illegal seizure of churches, lavras, or monasteries. People have to decide for themselves whether they are in the Ukrainian autocephalous Church or in the Russian church. Nobody should hinder their choice.

On the one hand, your church publicly states that it does not support autocephaly, on the other - many in the UOC-MP, and you, in particular, support autocephaly. Maybe it's time for you to realize that and take the first step?

We still do not know what the reaction of people and priests will be, but the process has started and will continue. We understand that it may take several years for it, because each vote is "for" or "against" matters, each community is a legal entity, so everything will depend on people. I hope that common sense will prevail and we will have a single Church, a single state, where the power of one will correlate with the other. But the main thing is that Christ remains among us. We will not lose purity of faith if we have autocephaly. The main thing is to have faith.

What do you say about the fear of some bishops that they might lose their eparchies? Are there any fears from your side?

Perhaps the organizers deliberately made sure that the meeting with the president did not take place, because he would answer questions such as this one. It is clear that there will be no violent policy, there will be a choice.

Obviously, in the process of unification, everything is not so smooth. What is it that most of all hinders unification of the churches?

In the decision adopted by the Council of Bishops of the UOC-MP, we are dissatisfied with the decisions of the Synod in Constantinople, with the fact that the schismatics were accepted into the church without repentance. Also the identity of Patriarch Filaret (the head of the UOC-KP) is perceived as problematic. The bishops said that he constitutes a problem both for priests and for believers. To date, it is said that the leaders of the two structures, namely the UOC-KP and the UAOC, withdrew their candidacy for the leadership of the new church. Perhaps this information, if true, will affect the opinions of our bishops. But for now, it remains speculation.

You believe the information is correct that the head of the UOC-KP Filaret and the head of the UAOC Makarios will not be nominated for the leadership of the new church. "Glavkom" has no reason to suspect that these news are just rumours from the UOC-MP.

I have seen exactly the same media reports as you. In official sources I did not yet see information about it. 

Given the controversial attitude of the patriarch of the UOC-KP Filaret, are there worthy people in the UOC-MP who could take on the burden of heading the Local Church?

It is difficult to say this, since the last decision of our church officially means that the bishops of the UOC-MP cannot take part in the Unity Council. Therefore, I do not know who will come to the Synod, which is tentatively due on the 20th of November, and therefore I do not know which of our bishops to indicate.

In August 2014, you participated in the election of the head of the UOC-MP as one of the candidates. Do you now feel the power to lead a new church?

We do not have the right to nominate candidates and we do not even know clearly the procedures by which the nomination and voting at the future Synod will take place.

Are you going to visit the Unity Synod?

I am for the autocephalous church. But my decision will be visible when this Synod happens. So if you see me participating, then I am a member of it and I will vote for the decisions it will make.

What or who will affect your final decision to come?

First and foremost the will of God. This is how Metropolitan Onuphry always speaks, so I repeat it. I think that everything is approaching a good result - the construction of an autocephalous church in Ukraine with the common efforts of all religious organizations in Ukraine who call themselves Orthodox. So far, that is the only answer I will provide.

And yet in recent weeks, your name turns up among the main contenders for the leadership position. You are treated as a compromise candidate for the various Orthodox churches in Ukraine. What do you think, what makes you such a "match" for the role?

Because Vinnitsa (smiles). But seriously, perhaps because I was once, in 2014, a pcandidate for the leadership of the UOC-MP, so I am remembered and talked about.

Did you ever meet with Patriarch Bartholomew?

Never personally, in the sense that we had a private conversation. I saw him at the divine service, when I was still a hieromonk. Later, when I was a bishop, I participated in celebrations in Poland headed by His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. The last time I saw him was in 2013, when the late Metropolitan Volodymyr sent me to represent our church in Montenegro for the consecration of the new cathedral (in Podgorica). That liturgy was also headed by the Ecumenical Patriarch. 

What should be the main qualities of the head of the new Local Church?

First of all, he must be a unifying figure for the episcopate and for the people of God. The second important detail - he must be ready for communication, because we need to talk with everyone and understand each other. I mean the communication both inside and outside the church. There must be a normal communication with the authorities and, of course, with the society. Whosoever the future leader would be, he should be a loving and just spiritual father for the whole great family: for the faithful, for the bishops, for the priests, and for the monks. Basically for the whole Orthodox flock, which should see in him a father who does not distinguish between ‘we’ and ‘them’, but sees everybody as relatives. 

You met with the Exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who came to Ukraine. What did you talk about?

They asked about the mood in the diocese, what people are thinking, both believers and priests, and whether there are any conflicts. But they did not say anything about the future Council. As far as I understand, that was not part of their authority.

Do you have an understanding of what this Unity Council should be, by which rules it should be held? The Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, for example, proposes to hold it in accordance with its statute.

If we have turned to the Ecumenical Patriarch, then the powers regarding the holding of the Council belong to him. He should give us a road map, which clearly states what we have to do in order for this process to take place on a canonical footing. And it should say how the process will work and who will be responsible for what. I think that there will be some transitional provisions in order to avoid disputes between the two primates (Metropolitan Makariios of the UAOC and the Patriarch Filaret of the UOC-KP). These statutes would also clarify how the church will live and who will lead it etc. I think that the exarch who will come from the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Council will have to clarify how this process will take place.

There is no such roadmap yet?

Right. Now we cannot say specifically what will happen and how, because we do not know for sure, but we hope that everything will happen peacefully and calmly, and as a result, the winner will be not the first or the second or the third party, but Christ who unites all the Orthodox Ukrainians around Himself.

Michael Glukhovsky, "Glavkom" Read the original text here: https://glavcom.ua/vinnytsia/publications/tomu-shcho-vinnickiy-pershe-velike-intervyu-z-mitropolitom-simeonom-545059.html