"The statement that the center of the UOC is in Kyiv and not Moscow is yet another lie,” said Patriarch Filaret, commenting on yesterday's decision of the Bishops’ Council of the ROC concerning the special status of the UOC (MP).
"The statement that the center of the UOC is in Kyiv and not Moscow is yet another lie,” said Patriarch Filaret, commenting on yesterday's decision of the Bishops’ Council of the ROC concerning the special status of the UOC (MP).
“There is no center of this Church in Kyiv, because it is in Moscow. If they really had a center in Kyiv, then why Metropolitan Onufriy should sit to the right of Patriarch Kirill (as the next in honor - ed.)?” said the head of the Kyiv Patriarchate at an official press conference held on December 1 at the Kyiv Patriarchate.
“If the center of their Church is in Kyiv, then why does Moscow appoint to a commission [commission on the dialogue on reconciliation with the UOC-KP - ed.] the Ukrainian bishops? If the UOC (MP) is so independent and independent, why does it have its representatives in the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church?” asks the First Hierarch.
The head of the UOC-KP believes that in this way the UOC (MP) is trying to get a way round and remove themselves from the definition of the Church, whose center is in a state recognized as the aggressor country. If the parliament adopts bills No. 4511 (on the special status for a denomination having the center in the aggressor country) and No. 5309 (on the name of the denomination having the center in the aggressor country), the UOC (MP) will have a chance to challenge the application of new norms to itself.
“We will insist that their center is in Moscow, not in Kyiv, because neither the people nor the Parliament should be deceived,” said Patriarch Filaret.
Earlier, on November 30, 2017, during the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow, a decision was adopted to make amendments to the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, in particular, the provisions concerning the UOC-MP were formulated in separate sections. However, experts argue that these amendments are cosmetic in nature and do not extend the rights of the UOC (MP).