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
.png "English"){kind=small}
