Does Patriarch Kirill behave as if Ukraine does not have Sabodan?
Bukovyna started preparing for the visit of the Russian patriarch a month before its visit with the energy worthy of a better cause. The traffic was paralyzed in one of the main streets of Chernivtsi, Ruska Street where the procession was supposed to travel from the central Bukovyna cathedral of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP) to the village of Bancheny where the largest East-European cathedral (called so by the eparchy press-office) had to be consecrated.
They urgently repaired Ruska Street, laid the new asphalt and changed the road curbs. The work started in September when the traffic doubled or tripled as compared to the vacation summer time. The road to Bancheny was repaired yet better. Road service workers literally did it with a ruler. They even painted the fronts and fences of private mansions situated along the patriarch’s route.
They finished repairing the landing strip in Chernivtsi airport for the visit and hung the banners reading “Bukovyna greets its patriarch” above the streets. The word “its” made the regional office of the All-Ukrainian Organization “Svoboda” address the court. Its representatives prosecuted Chernivtsi oblast governor Mykhailo Papiiev blaming the local authorities of hanging the banners. Svoboda lost the action since the author of the doubtful slogan was the Bukovyna Eparchy of the UOC MP. However, it should be noted that patriarch Kirill’s behavior really looks like the Ukrainian congregation of the Moscow Patriarchate does not have its hierarch Volodymyr (Sabodan).
Taking into account that following the Soviet tradition they promised to block half of the city during Kirill’s visit, a lot of people left the city The Day before. Moreover, the weather was good and the mountain village of Pidzakharychi where Ivan Mykolaichuk shot his filmThe White Bird with a Black Sign hosted the popular ethnic festival Zakharetsky Harchyk for the eleventh time.
Kirill was waited for by his faithful authorities and a thousand policemen supposed to keep order. In the airport something unexpected happened. The only person who kneeled down in front of the guest was the acting Chernivtsi mayor Vitalii Mykhailishyn.
The procession left the airport and headed to St. Spirit Cathedral of Chernivtsi where the patriarch had to conduct the night service. Two local TV channels transmitted it live and the enormous screen had been installed on the cathedral territory. When the patriarch stepped on the live carpet made of periwinkle leaves, white and red roses there were about 3,000 people who had gathered on the cathedral territory but when the service began fewer and fewer people stayed.
Probably, people reserved their strength to go to Bancheny next Sunday. With this purpose there were minibuses going directly to the village. However, there was no expected fever. According to the preliminary information, about 300,000 people were suposed to be present at the consecration of the new cathedral but in fact there were about 10,000 people at most despite the fact that the Moldovan population of this part of Bukovyna is traditionally attracted by the UOC MP and the dean of the new cathedral Longin (Mykhailo Zhar) has the incontestable authority there.
The second surprise was Dmytro Firtash in Bacheny. The patriarch awarded him the order of St. Seraphim of Sarov for his generous donations for the construction of the cathedral.
The celebration in Bachany lasted almost the whole day but since it was far away from the city the people finally caught their breath.
COMMENTARIES
Den asked the representatives of various confessions and experts how the last Patriarch Kirill’s visit to Ukraine should be regarded.
Yevstratii (ZORIA), Bishop Vasylkivsky of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church at the Kyiv Patriarchate, Head of the Information Department at the Kyiv Patriarchate:
“It has been the fifth Patriarch Kirill’s visit to Ukraine over the last two years. It is obvious that just like all the previous visits this one was presented as pastoral but in fact it had the political background. As far as I know and as far as it can be seen in the media one of the tasks of this visit was the meeting of Patriarch Kirill with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. This visit has been prepared since June. Then it was supposed that the Ukrainian president would be present at the patriarch’s service, consecration of the cathedral and inauguration of the house for the handicapped children in the monastery orphan. The Day before the visit, on September 30 the Russian media spread the information that Patriarch Kirill would meet the Ukrainian president during his visit. I think that it actually was one of the main patriarch’s tasks: to demonstrate the level of his possibilities, his influence at the si-tuation in Ukraine and the fact that he can directly speak to the Ukrainian president. However, the result was quite the opposite. Despite the expectations, preparation and the information spread, the president did not come and did not meet Kirill. I think it should be a very serious signal for Kirill and his environment. Now not only the politicians, oppositionist towards the Moscow Patriarchate and the supporters of the Kyiv Patriarchate criticize his attitude to Ukraine and his activity in Ukraine but those who supported him not long ago and actively participated in all the events Kirill held in Ukraine now refuse meeting him and participating in the events of the Moscow guest. As for me, it proves the failure of the policy Kirill pursues in Ukraine. If we compare his first visit to Ukraine as the patriarch of the Russian church in 2009 and what happened now we can see the worse attitude to Kirill from the Ukrainian society, authorities and the UOC MP that is obviously unsatisfied with frequent visits of the Moscow patriarch. Patriarch Kirill tries to emphasize with his visits that he is the head of the church in Ukraine and Metropolitan Volodymyr is a local head representing the interests of the Moscow Patriarchate. The supreme hierarch is Kirill. He tries to come here not as a guest but as a master. Neither the Ukrainian government nor the UOC MP like it since the latter are used to being independent and making most of decisions themselves. That is why nobody likes such bossy visits and interference into the life of the Ukrainian church that only aggravate the tension between Kyiv and Moscow including the clerical area.”
Bohdan (DZIURAKH), secretary of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Synod:
“We did not follow the patriarch’s visit since we had other pastoral tasks, in particular the meeting of the bishops of the Universal Church of whole Europe. However, I think that he has the right to visit his parishioners wherever they are as the primate of the church. This is his full right and nobody should deprive him or be surprised with it. The other thing is the messages sent across during the visit. We have to estimate to what extent they touch upon the spiritual values or have other information that might bring some anxiety or misunderstanding to the Ukrainian society. We should leave it for the analysts; finally there is the notion of sensus fidei, the feeling of the church members that are also able to assess the message of certain hierarchs or preachers: to what extent their sermons reflect the gospel teaching and whether they are filled with other, non-evangelic elements.”
Olha KHARCHENKO, Hanna HARHALIA
