One more point can be noted in the participation of the “OCU” hierarch in the ordinations of the clergy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: in addition to him, several hierarchs of Constantinople and a representative of the Alexandrian Patriarchate participated in the ordination. Formally, this means that even without taking into account the representative of the “OCU”, deprived of apostolic succession, consecration is legal. At the Phanar, they may well reason in a similar – formal – way, leaving a loophole to justify their actions.
In this case, this is evidence that the phanariots still consider the “OCU” hierarchs to be the “second class”. After all, theoretically, in order to prove their absolute confidence in the canonicity of the “OCU”, they could ordain someone with the presence of two hierarchs, one of whom would be a representative of the “OCU”. Then it would be impossible to delete him from the “genealogy” of an ordained priest.
Of course, this is too hypothetical reasoning. In any case, this hardly means Phanar’s uncertainty in his course or worries about the real canonicity of the ordination. Most likely, this is insurance in case the balance in the Orthodox world changes and the Orthodox Churches really press down the phanariots, confronting them with the fact that the clergy of the “OCU” have no apostolic succession.
Anyway, this still proves our thesis – we need to raise rates. Whether the Phanar burned the bridges completely, or not yet, in any case, the Local Churches must make a decision in principle and make Constantinople accountable for their actions in a conciliar format. Otherwise, feeling his impunity, he will freely continue his anti-canonical adventure, “saturating” the Orthodox world with toxic elements from the “OCU”.