The European dean of the UOC-KP commented on the interview of the hierarch of the OCU Dymytriy Rudyuk for DetectorUA, where he noted that “all attacks of Filaret against Tomos are very easily debunked.”
“We should agree on one thing: indeed, every bishop could cook holy myrrh, but why does he not cook – because it is not permitted, and since it is not permitted it means that it is limited, and once it is limited it is not independent. Moreover, what kind of autocephaly is this, if even autonomous churches (that is, partially independent) can brew myrrh, while this one, being autocephalous (completely independent), cannot? How can they pretend this is something normal, an autocephaly? Nonsense!”, dean of Europe Volodymyr Chaika wrote on Facebook.
He also refuted the main argument of the supporters of Tomos, that “the OCU is now, they say, the fifteenth Orthodox Church in the diptychs and is part of the family of world Orthodox churches…” – Not true! If you carefully examine the subtleties, then we find out that there is nothing like this. There is perhaps a place in the list of autocephalous churches on the Wikipedia page, where everyone can write what they think is right.”
In addition, “the absolutely groundless solemn statement of metropolitan Dymytryi that the diasporas of all churches have always obeyed the Patriarchate of Constantinople is being debunked. As a historian by secular specialty and as a clergyman by church, he should know like no one else that the diaspora of other churches could obey Constantinople only until the fall of Constantinople and only within the Byzantine Empire. This clarifies the situation with the Greek diaspora, which they set as an example to us, as the Greeks all over the world obey the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and then the Ukrainian diaspora should. But in fact, the opposite is true: the diaspora of the Greek (Hellenic) Church does not actually obey the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but it is its official representative abroad, that is, it is identified with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and is a part of it, since it happened historically”.
In addition, the European deanery objects to the thesis of the OCU that “they are, as it were, the legal successors of the UOC-Kyiv Patriarchate. This statement usually has only one goal, to sort out all the property and property of the Kyiv Patriarchate, as they say, “in one fell swoop.” However, it has no legal basis or canonical. In addition, until now there has not been an “entry into canonical communion with the fullness of Orthodoxy,” that is, the recognition of autocephaly by all Orthodox Churches. However, the UOC-KP was liquidated with the help of political forces. In this, the OCU became not the legal SUCCESSOR of the entire property of the Kyiv Patriarchate, but its RADER, capturing everything, having neither legal nor moral right to do so.”
Volodymyr Chaika suggests that in response to the actions of the head and the bishops of the newly formed OCU, who left the Kyiv Patriarchate, “Patriarch Filaret, who is canonically recognized as metropolitan of Kyiv, can convene a holy synod and by his decision ban all bishops ordained by him in the OCU, who once belonged to the Kyiv Patriarchate”.