“Fact-checking” from Uniates, or Who accuses UOC Metropolitan of falsehood

On September 6, Metropolitan Antony (Pakanich), the UOC Chancellor, gave a detailed interview, one of the main theses of which was put in the headline: "The split in Ukraine is a problem for all Orthodoxy."

It would seem that the idea for adequate people is obvious and does not need confirmations, and, moreover, refutations. However, as it turned out, not for everyone.

Since 2001, RISU – Religious Information Service of Ukraine, established by the specialists of the Ukrainian Catholic University – has been operating in Ukraine. It is positioned as an independent resource, but it is not difficult to notice its pro-uniate position, as well as an evident vector of its activity against the UOC. The UOJ has repeatedly written about lies and manipulations on the pages of this site. Its chief editor Taras Antoshevsky is one of the main persons invited to anti-church video plots of various central channels as an "expert." It will just suffice to mention his speeches in the ZIK broadcast with the eloquent title "Get Moscow Patriarchate"!

Therefore, it is not surprising that it was on this resource that the authors were found who took the liberty of assessing the level of veracity of the UOC Chancellor, Metropolitan Antony in his last interview.

On September 11 RISU expert Sergey Gnatiuk in the coverage "Truth and falsehood in the words of his eminence of the UOC (MP): fact-checking of metropolitan Antony`s interview" with the help of beautiful graphic symbols (red crosses and green checkmarks), as well as endowments for logical thinking, arranged the interview properly. Expert Gnatiuk figured out how much, in his opinion, the words of Bishop Antony are false and how much they are true. Unfortunately for the Metropolitan, the red crosses (symbolizing lies) turned out to be a great deal more.

Right in the very title, which uses the ancient Ukrainian word "fact-checking", the author makes it clear that there will be no mercy.

Let us, in turn, conduct our "fact-checking of the fact-checking" and briefly analyze the phrases of Metropolitan Antony and the author's crosses, with the help of which the RISU expert acted as an animated lie detector.

1. "One of the most important things in this issue for the Church is that so-called "UOC-KP" has no apostolic succession."

Gnatiuk marked it with a red "false" cross, explaining this by the fact that Filaret was ordained in the middle of the last century, and, "ordaining" the "hierarchs" of the UOC-KP, Mikhail Antonovich did not lose his apostolic succession.

Let us briefly remind the expert of RISU that by the time of these "ordinations" in 1992, Filaret, by the Council voice of the Church (herewith the ROC together with the UOC is an integral part of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church), was deprived of the priestly rank. This means nobody can speak about any ordinations. Let us recall the words of the Savior He told to the apostles, the founders of Christ's Church, "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18).

And, true is that NOBODY in the Orthodox world recognizes. Denisenko's "apostolic succession".

2. "The problem of the Ukrainian split has long ago transcended Ukraine and is a problem for the whole of World Orthodoxy. Obviously, this does not mean that among the Local Churches there will be expressed any other attitude towards the Ukrainian schismatics, or any other conditions for their return to the bosom of the canonical Church, than those we keep talking about.

Again, we can see a red "untruthful" cross from the author. Gnatiuk's argument is simple. According to his authoritative opinion, there are many ways of overcoming the church split, for example – state-administrative, when "state authority interferes in this process and adopts the corresponding legislation". Apparently, the fact that such methods contradict the Ukrainian Constitution (in Ukraine the Church is separated from the state), does not bother the author at all. Nor is he bothered with the fact that absolutely ALL representatives of the Local Churches are sure that the church split can be healed solely by church means.

3. “UOC-KP is building its identity on the protest, on the contraposition to the ROC, the UOC, other Local Churches, and basically to the entire Ecumenical Orthodoxy.”

The author asserts this phrase is wrong since the Kyiv Patriarchate “is laying an emphasis on the anticipation of its being recognized by the Ecumenical Orthodoxy.”

We suggest to recall on this occasion a recent statement of the Archpriest of the Polish Orthodox Church, Archbishop George of Wroclaw and Szczecin, where he declared that the recognition of the Kyiv Patriarchate by the world Orthodoxy (including Constantinople) is impossible, since "this is unacceptable for the Orthodox Church."

Vladyka also noted the alarm about the spread of the UOC-KP in Europe: "The fact that the Kyiv Patriarchate is trying to create the European Exarchate under the slogan of its pseudo-jurisdiction is a sad fact," said Archbishop Georgy. "The UOC-KP" is not recognized by any Local Church, and we must remember this."

Significant in this context is the response of the UOC KP Spokesman Yevstraty Zoria, who accused Bishop George, as well as many other bishops who stand against the schismatics from the Kiev Patriarchate, of being corrupt.

Well, a very vivid example of the fact that the UOC-KP does not oppose itself at all to the whole Ecumenical Orthodoxy.

4. “There has not been a single day without the information dirt being poured out towards our Church on their part, or on the part of their supporters."

Sergei Gnatiuk does not directly refute these facts, but believes that they are caused by the activities of ... the UOJ, which, in his opinion, "incites inter-confessional enmity" against representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate.

In other words, the fact that the UOJ publishes opinions of the hierarchs of Ecumenical Orthodoxy about the UOC-KP, and also provides coverage of illegal seizures of the UOC temples by the representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate, constitutes this very "incitement". The latter, being vulnerable and easy to get by, cannot do otherwise than pour informational dirt toward the Church. According to the RISU expert, everything is logical.

5. ”Without our Church they will not get any recognition and even Constantinople will be helpless about it.”

The author calls this thesis untrue only because the Orthodox world has not developed a unified mechanism for granting autocephaly to a particular Church. However, here Mr. Gnatiuk obviously manipulates. Autocephaly can be received only by a church structure, RECOGNIZED by the World Orthodoxy as a Church. The UOC-KP is recognized by NONE of the Local Churches. Recall the words of Patriarch Irinej, Primate of the Serbian Church: "Schismatics from the so-called Kyiv Patriarchate have long been rejected by the Orthodox Churches and refer to Orthodoxy only by name. And their contempt for the norms of Christian morality, the willingness to hate, lie and shed blood is evidence to that.”

6. ”It’s pointless deceiving both people, public officials who are ignorant in these issues, and yourselves.”

This thesis is marked with a red cross with the wording "understatement". In the author's words there is a genuine resentment for the statesmen – how can it be so that Vladyka Antony called them insufficiently competent! After all, they even created an expert council to the Ministry of Education!

Well, we should just remind our readers that it was the “experts of the expert council”, according to Andrei Yurash (director of the Department of the Ministry of Culture for Religious Affairs), who drafted bills No. 4128 and 4511, which many religious and human rights organizations of the world and even the Pope’s Nuncio condemned as antichurch.

7. A way out of the situation for schismatics, suggested by Metropolitan Antony, is “to stop the hostile rhetoric towards the Church.”

The author refers to the call of Vladyka Antony to stop the aggression against his Church as manipulation. Do you know why?! Because he "actually identifies the structure of the UOC with the Ecumenical Church, while denies the UOC-KP the status of the Church."

What can I say? There is nothing to say, perhaps, except to state the frustrating illiteracy of Sergei Gnatiuk in the subject matter he expands on.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is recognized by all World Orthodoxy as the only canonical Church in Ukraine. And this means that through the spiritual connection with the ROC it forms an integral part with a single Universal Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox world, this is an axiom that does not need proving.

As regards the status of the UOC KP, we will recall famous words of Metropolitan Amphilochius of Montenegro, "The Kyiv Patriarchate lives on hatred ... Breaking the Church and the unity of the people of Kievan Rus, Denisenko (head of the UOC-KP) helps Satan."

In the article there are other red crosses intended to expose the Metropolitan of the UOC in "manipulations", "falsehoods" and "understatements," and there are a couple of green ticks, probably left to demonstrate the absolutely "objective" position of both the author himself and the RISU resource, where the publication is posted.

However, the wretchedness of argumentation, logical contradictions and low professionalism allow us to say that before us is a very bleak example of the "infomercial” (paid journalism), i.e., material written for the purpose of forming a certain public opinion. In this case – it is directed against the UOC in general and Metropolitan Antony in particular.

And this infomercial, unfortunately, is not an exception, but, rather, the rule in the policy of the RISU site. 90% of the information (even the news) that is furnished there about the UOC has an outspoken negative coloring, for which the whole range of journalistic manipulations is employed. Yet this site positions itself as an independent and impartial resource. Shall one believe such objectivity? After some publications it seems it would be more appropriate to add another letter before the abbreviation RISU – F, which would be deciphered as "fake-mongering."