The Kiev Theological Academy of the UOC (Moscow Patriarchate) has published the book “The Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Milestones in History”, which, as the preface says, “covers events from the beginning of Christianity in Russia (sic) to the present.” “This allows us to better understand the winding path that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has traveled in its more than 1000-year history.”, – explain in the UOC (MP), created, in fact, not 1000 years ago, but only 30 years ago by the works of the unforgettable first primate of this structure of the ROC Filaret (Denisenko).
In the same historical perspective, the book examines such events as the announcement of autocephaly to the Russian Church in response to the departure of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Union of Florence with Rome (including the dioceses of Constantinople, on the territory of modern Ukraine, and then Catholic Poland). The book puts it like this: “The dioceses on the territory of the Muscovy separated from the historical Kiev metropolis”… Let us note here, by the way, the “derogatory” toponym “Muscovy”, instead of “Russian kingdom / Russian state”, which was officially used in the 15th century.
The reunification of Little Russia and Great Russia (desired by generations of our ancestors), and then – of the Russian Church (contested today by Phanar and other “well-wishers” of the unity of the ROC) is “interpreted” practically according to the tracing of the freemason Grushevsky and his followers: “In the second half of the 17th century, the Left-Bank Ukraine came under the protectorate of the Moscow Tsar (not Russian, again. – D.S.)… As a result, in 1685-86, the Kiev metropolis came under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate ” (and from which patriarchy, they were “ashamed” to mention. – D.S.)… And finally, “Only after the collapse of the Russian Empire began the revival of the traditions of conciliarity and the autonomous life of the Orthodox Church on the territory of Ukraine.”… What a blessing: the collapse of the Orthodox kingdom and the coming to replace it of all sorts of “Ukrainian powers”, under which the church was constantly forced to declare autocephaly, this, it should be assumed, is “the revival of autonomous life.” Which was expressed, in the end, in the anti-canonical institution of the Phanar so-called. “Polish Orthodox Church” in the western part of the territory of present-day Ukraine, as well as the creation of the so-called. “Ukrainian Autocephalous Church” and the closure of thousands of Orthodox churches in the Ukrainian SSR.
The publication was carried out with the blessing of the Primate of the UOC (MP), His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry, with the assistance of the Administrator of the UOC (MP) Metropolitan Anthony (who is also the chairman of the editorial board of the book). The members of this editorial board were the rector of the Kiev Theological Academy, Bishop Sylvester and the pro-rector prof. Vladimir Burega.
Respected in the Orthodox world, the rulers thus became the object of ridicule even of such inveterate Ukrainophiles as self-saints (the speaker of the UOC compared this “Ancient history of the UOC” with the memorable publication “History of the USSR from ancient times …”), and the Uniates, who posted a replica of the escort on their website.
From the point of view of current realities, the “historical” approach of the authors and inspirers of the opus differs little from the Russophobic “discoveries” of Zelensky, announced by him at the parade of Soviet military equipment in honor of the 30th anniversary of independence. Which, by the way, was attended by His Beatitude Onuphrius, despite the assurances that he would not participate in the events where there will be a “veri special guest” from Istanbul.
Almost simultaneously with the entry into wide circulation of this book, the Information Center of the UOC (headed by Archbishop Kliment) announced that “We managed to find a cave where, presumably, the outstanding Ukrainian saint, the Athonite elder and polemicist writer of the 17th century, the Monk John Vyshensky, could bear the feat of hermitage.”… Again: “An outstanding Ukrainian saint of the 17th century”… We are now not talking about the selection criteria according to which in the Synodal department of Vladyka Clement (the Supper) some saints are classified as outstanding, and others as ordinary. We say that the ascetic himself, in fact, signed himself as “John Rusin”. Rusin is one of the ethnonyms by which Russians identified themselves from Ugrian Rus to the northern seas. For example, this is what the Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin called himself in “Walking Beyond the Three Seas”. But no one knew the ethnonym “Ukrainian” until the 20th century, until the Poles invented it and the Austrians introduced it into circulation. Therefore, when your humble servant asked the authors of the announcement whether the saint of the 17th century knew that he was a “Ukrainian”, he did not receive an answer.
Although what else to expect from the department, whose boss, with a blue eye, declares: “The only connection between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Moscow Patriarch is in common prayer, reminding that through the Russian Orthodox Church the believers in Ukraine have prayer unity with the entire Orthodox world.”… And this is when the Patriarch of Moscow is commemorated at the services of the UOC (MP) as “Our great lord and father”, when the direct and immediate superior ow. Clement’s Beatitude Onufriy is a member of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, not to mention a dozen points of the statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church and the UOC (MP), indicating that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is part of the Moscow Patriarchate. As for common prayer, the UOC (MP) has a common prayer, for example, with the Albanian Church.
By the way, it was under the editorship of Met. Clement published the first version of the Chronology of the History of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Let’s omit the tautology “chronology of history” typical of the “enlighteners” from this department. Let us dwell on the fact that the history of the UOC (established in 1990) has been counted in it since … 944! That is, somewhere from the Ukrainian Viking Ingvar the Old. In general, this “History of Chronology” contains the entire gentleman’s set of “scientific and historical discoveries” of Zelensky: the “Old Ukrainian Mova” of the Gospels of 1570, and the beginning of printing “in Ukraine” of the 16th century, and the ubiquitous “Muscovites”, and so on and so forth.
Why is it that, under the leadership of a traditionalist primate, such a head of the synodal department, an open enemy of the Russian world, makes such a rapid rise (in 2019, the 42-year-old vicar bishop is already a metropolitan)?
At the same time, the head of the press service, an outstanding journalist who renounced a brilliant secular career for the sake of protecting the Church, Vasily Semyonovich Anisimov is openly “overwritten”. Moreover, with the hands of the same Met. Clement. Why is an open champion of the unity of the Russian Church, the first in the history of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, the governor-bishop Ippolit (Khilko) still not reinstated in the ministry, after he was slandered back in the Drabinka period of the UOC (MP)?
One of the answers is obvious: in order not to irritate the authorities of Ukraine-Anti-Russia and not to expose the church to another blow. However, the kind of “Jewish fear” could somehow be understood if it was a question of keeping silent once again, pushing the paladins of unity into a distant diocese … But who forces, on their own initiative, to renounce Russianness at every corner? Draw out your hand, like the first disciple of the “Dragon”, from the prophecy of the great Schwartz.
Simultaneously with the publication of the “History of Chronology …” the Kiev Theological Academy, then headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanych), published a book about Feodosiy Pechersky as a representative of “medieval Ukrainian literature” for its 400th anniversary. Moreover, the “founder of Ukrainian monasticism” not only became one of the founders of “Ukrainian cultural genesis”, but in the 11th century instilled in the “Ukrainian people” the rudiments of “universal human values.” Namely – “emancipation” in the form of … women’s monasteries!
Well, such is the level today in the once glorious Kiev theological schools.
And by Easter 2018, Metropolitan Anthony consecrated the icon of the “new martyrs of the Ukrainian land”. And this is when all the holy martyrs who served on the territory of present-day Ukraine, by their deeds, affirmed the spiritual unity of not Ukraine, but Rus. And if they were not in heaven, they would have turned over in their graves from such manipulations with their memory.
The “iconographic Ukrainization” is especially dishonorable in relation to one of the central figures of the icon – the holy martyr Vladimir Bogoyavlensky. In Little Russia, the Metropolitan spent only five incomplete years of his seventy-year life. A native of the Tambov land, he, with all his ministry, – consistently occupying the episcopal chairs of the three historical capitals of Russia (Moscow, Petersburg and Kiev) – symbolized its unity. And directly, before the threat of death, he defended this unity as a Kiev saint: “It’s scary for us to even hear when they talk about the separation of the South Russian Church from the single Orthodox Russian Church … Did not preachers of Orthodoxy come from Kiev all over Russia? Among the saints of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, do we not see those who came here from various places of Holy Russia? Did not the Orthodox of South Russia work in all parts of Russia as church leaders, scientists and in various other fields, and, conversely, the Orthodox of the North of Russia did not asceticism in all fields in South Russia? Did they not jointly build the great Orthodox Russian Church? “
Someone will say, however: there are separate cathedrals celebrating Siberian saints (mostly Little Russians), Volyn, Crimean, Carpathian, Kholmsky and Podlyashsky saints … There are. However, there is no distinction based on ethnicity. Especially on a regional basis.
Cathedrals of Serbian, Bulgarian, Czech and Slovak saints are celebrated on a “national-historical basis”. But unlike the Bulgarian and Serbian saints, who considered themselves Bulgarians and Serbs, respectively, all “Ukrainian” saints considered themselves Russian! Even if they were foreigners by birth.
In the same 2018, Vladyka Anthony, in response to a bill to rename the UOC to ROCVU, said: “Politicians, with the help of schismatics, want to rename us from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which we are, to the“ Russian Church in Ukraine ”, they want to make us strangers … So that the canonical Church would become … stranger to its people.”… Yes, on the one hand, the renaming of a religious (or any other) organization as a state, which is constitutionally separated from the church, is flagrantly anti-constitutional (no matter how much a significant part of believers and clergy would really want to return to the status of the exarchate of the Russian Church). But now we are talking about something else: from the statement of Vladyka it followed that the Russian Church was alien to the “Ukrainian people”. This is how: a hundred years ago a special “people” was invented, and now it is necessary to adapt the millennial Church to it.
In this conformity with this age, the Kiev Metropolitanate draws in already convinced supporters of the unity of the Russian Church, who, at the “events of the laity” organized by the same Metropolitanate, are forced to prove to the camera with the same conviction that the church must be Ukrainian, since “Christ confesses on the territory of Ukraine”: So what kind of Church are we, if not Ukrainian? Which?!” Well, according to this logic, until 1990 there was “no Church” on the territory of the UPR, Directory and Ukrainian SSR? And is there really “no” Russian Church in Western Europe (such a coveted part of the hierarchy of the UOC), in Southeast Asia, in Kazakhstan, in Lithuania? Or the Jerusalem Patriarchate in Jordan and Palestine, where there are no separate Jordanian and Palestinian churches?
And if such people are already beginning to break through the knee, if there are almost no people left in the church in Ukraine who are capable of reprimanding practically official “speakers of the UOC” like crypto-Russophobes – Met. Kliment, the representative of the UOC in international organizations of the bishop. Victor, Deputy Head of the DECR UOC Archpriest. Nicholas, then, probably, the time has come to wash dirty linen in public. Even in spite of the persecution that the church in Ukraine is already undergoing.
There is no need to indulge in illusions: the anti-Orthodox nature of Ukraine will not go anywhere, just as the church has not mimicked Ukrainianity. But Ukraine will not (suddenly) – these persons will be the first to change their clothes, and will teach us how to love Russia. But won’t the UOC itself disintegrate internally by that possible time? After all, the Head of the Church, promising that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her, did not say anything about its individual “self-governing” parts.
If you notice an error in the text, select it and press Ctrl + Enter to send the information to the editor.