Filaret's "toxic" claims: Will Lavras be taken away from UOC?
Recently, Filaret has already twice publicly threatened to take away the Kiev-Pechersk and Pochaev Lavras from the UOC. How realistic are such prospects?
In modern political science, toxicity means that an entity that is characterized as toxic causes more harm than good to its partners and friends. For example, after the US had withdrawn from a nuclear deal with Iran, the latter has became a toxic partner for all companies that do business with America. If these companies continue to cooperate with Iran, they are in for trouble in the US. Similarly, after the US introduced personal sanctions against Russian officials and businessmen, they became toxic to their partners, who now have to choose: to continue dealing with them or turn off, fearing problems.
Using this terminology, it can be noted that right now, after all his belligerent statements directed against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Mr. Denisenko became very toxic to the whole project of the so-called Single Local Church. In Ukraine, no one now discredits the idea of getting the Tomos on autocephaly, as he does.
A striking example of this is the recent statement by Mr. Denisenko that in the event of Tomos receiving, Ukrainian Lavras, like many other temples, will be transferred to the SLC.
After an interview of Mr. Denisenko with the "Priamoi" ("Direct") TV channel, many Ukrainian and foreign editions ran a front-page story with similar headlines. Moreover, the media promoted this topic regardless of their religious sympathies and antipathies. Phanar, the office of the Constantinople Patriarchate, is probably aware of this interview. Thus, the warnings of UOC hierarchs of a real religious war, which could start in Ukraine in the case of granting the Tomos, are confirmed. And the confirmation does not come from anyone, but from the most important candidate for the post of the head of the SLC. The European governments, international organizations, and human rights activists know (or will soon learn) about these words from the relevant publications or reports by the UOC Representative Office to the European international organizations.
After such statements of Patriarch Bartholomew, even if he wanted, no Tomos would be grant! After all, it is clear who and how will seize the monasteries. There is a pretty good reason why a year ago the UOC KP signed an agreement on mutually beneficial cooperation with the paramilitary nationalist organization "Right Sector".
In general, the best negative publicity of the SLC project for Phanar cannot be invented. Of course, Mr. Denisenko's entourage recovered, and the very next day he began to say that he was misinterpreted.
But no one believes him anymore and there is a reason for that.
First, such claims that the Lavras should be taken from the UOC and transferred to the "Ukrainian Church" have already sounded from his lips more than once.
Secondly, a word spoken is past recalling. Here is a quote from the interview: "The state transferred its property to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate for use. But when the Ukrainian Church is recognized here, the both Lavras – (Kiev-Pechersk and Pochaev – Ed.) – will be handed over to the Ukrainian Church. <...> The fact is that the Moscow Patriarchate has no property in Ukraine. The property of the Church in Ukraine is the property of the Ukrainian Church." According to Mr. Denisenko, "the Moscow Patriarchate" is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which was denied the right of ownership to any religious buildings and other property.
Thirdly, Mr. Denisenko can deny or interpret his words in any other way, but in radical nationalist circles they have already been heard. Yes, a day later, justifying himself for his threats, he said, "There will be no violence after the Tomos, and property will belong to the communities, as now," but the fact is that there is still such a thing as "the excess of the performer". Translated from the legal, this means that the performer can execute the order, based on his own understanding or diligence. Thus, one way or another, the Tomos will still provoke a wave of violence against the UOC. Does Patriarch Bartholomew want to become responsible for this development?
On what basis will the Lavras and other temples be handed over to the SLC in the case of the Tomos? Yes, the communities of the UOC use some religious buildings and other facilities, as well as land plots under them, on the rights of permanent use or long-term lease, which is properly legalized. And the relevant laws among the reasons for the dissolution of such relations do not indicate such a thing as "Mr. Denisenko’s wish". That is, there are no legal grounds for the transfer of the Lavras and other temples to the SLC.
There are no religious grounds either. According to the latest statistics published by the Ministry of Culture (2017), there are 208 monasteries in the UOC, including 4,807 monastics, i.e. about 23 monastics per monastery, on average.
The UOC KP has 60 monasteries, numbering 219 monastics, i.е. less than 4 people per monastery. Currently, in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra alone, 220 monks struggle in the case of God. This is more than the whole Kiev Patriarchate has! If we fancy what will happen if Mr. Denisenko's dreams are fulfilled, then we must admit: to populate the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, all the "monks" and "nuns" from all Filaret's monasteries should be brought there. But Filaret is dreaming of taking the Pochaev Lavra as well. Who will settle there?
The scenario, according to which all monastics will pass under his, Filaret’s, "patriarchal" omophorion, are untenable. Monasticism is the salt of the Church, its stronghold, its most faithful and zealous part. When Mr. Denisenko in 1992 fell into schism, no monastery supported him. The fact that believers, and especially monastics, will remain faithful to their Church and will not fall into schism, was vividly demonstrated by the Cross Procession of the Holy Spirit this year. When despite all the obstacles on behalf of the authorities and pseudo-patriots, despite the use of an administrative resource to gather people for the procession of the UOC KP, the headcount of the Orthodox religious processions many times exceeded the number of schismatics, along with the tourists brought from all over Ukraine by the authorities. Orthodox monks and nuns shall not go under the anathematized and as yet unrepentant former metropolitan of Kiev! No way! They will protect their shrines! And what will this be like if not a religious war?
The statements of the head of the UOC-KP are understandable from the psychological point of view. He is so impatient to become a true patriarch, that he allows himself to dream not only aloud, but also on camera. By the way, he understands perfectly well that he is not a true patriarch, and this is even expressed in one interesting detail.
The fact is that the cowl on Mr. Denisenko’s head is patriarchal, but the mantle is metropolitan. And such cowls are a tradition of exclusively Moscow patriarchs, so unloved by the head of the UOC KP. As for the mantle, again, in the traditions of Russian Orthodoxy, it is black with monks (including in a sacred rank), purple with the bishops and archbishops, blue with the metropolitans and green with the patriarch.
So why did Mr. Denisenko borrow a cowl from the Moscow priests but not a mantle? It can be assumed that this is how his subconscious understanding of the falsity of his present position manifests itself, which he is eager to correct with the help of the SLC and the Tomos. And in his impatience, he discredits the idea of the SLC more than anyone else. His statements about what will happen in the case of the Tomos speak louder and more eloquent than statements on this by representatives of the UOC, who can be suspected of inflaming passions. The potential leader of the SLC itself sends a clear message!
Now Petro Poroshenko and his Administration need somehow to distance themselves from such a toxic partner in the SLC project. It is necessary to send someone again with a special flight to Phanar to justify themselves for the words of the candidate for the Kiev Patriarchate. True, there is no one to send. Rostislav Pavlenko, responsible for the Tomos in the Presidential Administration, was dismissed from his post as deputy head of the AP immediately after the 1030th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus’: he fell short of expectations for quickness in achieving autocephaly. And after Filaret’s current confusion, the envoy must have truly phenomenal communicative and intellectual qualities, which Bankovaya, alas, has not demonstrated yet.
