Non-canonicity in the Third Degree

Article by Nadia Bazuk -1/11/16
(This is an independent article & does not reflect the official stand of Orthodoxy Cognate PAGE Society)

According to some sources, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is considering the possibility of accepting UOC-KP under its omophorion after Kyivan “patriarch” wrote a letter of repentance and agrees his position as Metropolitan. Let us recall that EP styles itself as the Mother Church of the Kyivan Metropolia and lately tend to bring up the precedent of the Polish Orthodox Church’s autocephaly. Thus, with this letter of repentance, the Constantinople palns to object the fact that Filaret was anathematized and that the same was recognized by all Local Orthodox Churches.

However, the non-canonical status of Ukrainian schismatic leader is not because of the complexity of his relations with Moscow, but  there are many reasons for not recognizing him as a cleric of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We all know that the self-styled “Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus’-Ukraine” was disfrocked and thereby  excommunicated by the ROC Council’s decision in response to his anti-church activities, including his persistent support to schismatic movements in Serbia, Bulgaria and other countries. Thus, anathematization of Filaret was pronounced not merely based on the internal contradictions within the Russian Orthodox Church ( to which the rebellious metropolitan belonged). It was not Moscow’s plot against the rebellious hierarch. This step was taken for the benefit of the whole Church, and that was the exact reason why all the Autocephalous Churches supported the excommunication of Filaret.

Moreover, the UOC-KP is still violating Canons of the Orthodox Church. Here is an example of “Metropolitan” Michael of Paris (whose secular name is Philippe Laroche). In 1972, he became a member of the Orthodox Catholic Church of France under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Patriarchate. In 1978, he moved to the non-canonical Greek Old Calendarist “Synode Auxentiite” (fr.). In 1987, he got admitted to the Romanian Orthodox Church once again, but this time directly under its Western European Diocese. In 1996 Laroche, (by then an archpriest), betrayed the Church again  and joined the non-canonical “Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Milan, Aquileia, Western Europe and Canada” (so called “Holy Synod of Milan”).

In 1990, this jurisdiction separated from the “Synode Auxentiite”, and established communion with the UOC in the US, and  in 1994 moved to the UOC-KP as an autonomous church. (Perhaps the only act of “loyalty”  by Philippe Laroche was done in 1996. After the break-off from the “Holy Synod of Milan” and Filaret, he decided to stay with the latter). He was elevated to the rank of a monk with the name Michael. Later, along with the head of the “Holy Synod of Milan” Eulogy (Hessler), he attempted to overcome the schism and establish communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. Despite of these events, in 2014 the Synod of the UOC-KP decided and declared that “in the absence of evidence of Metropolitan Michael’s (Laroche) departure from the jurisdiction of the Kyivan Patriarchate, to decree that the Right Reverend Michael (Laroche), Metropolitan of Paris, belongs to the episcopate of Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate.”

It becomes clear that in the very jurisdiction of the “patriarch” Filaret there are people who fully understand their schismatic status. Perhaps that’s the exact reason why these “bishops” are ready to violate the canons of the Church again and again. So, they’ve admitted that Petru Parvu, is an overt ‘mitered archpriest‘ of the so-called “Orthodox Diocese of Paris and All France (Kyivan Patriarchate)”.

Prior to these events, Parvu was with the schismatic community called “The Orthodox Patriarchate of Nations” led by “the patriarch of Europe” Nicholas who does not even have a valid apostolic succession. As it turned out, even believers of the so-called “Orthodox Diocese of Paris and all France” themselves are seriously concerned about this fact. They call Petru Parvu as a heretic and did not accept Eucharist from him and believes that the Sacraments administered by him are invalid.

Nicholas

As it is known, the 12th Apostolic Canon states: “If any absconding cleric or layman who is excommunicate is received (into communion) in another city without systatic letters, both the person received and the person who received him are to be excommunicated.” Hence the UOC-KP leader Filaret not only failed to take any action against the promiscuous behavior of his “Metropolitan” Michael but also concelebrated with “archpriest” Petru. Therefore, the question arises: how will the Phanar justify such non-canonical actions of Filaret? Are members of the special commission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Holy Synod aware of these facts? Have they advised their Primate of these realities? What consequences would Patriarch Bartholomew face if he accepts UOC-KP leader (the one who promotes schisms supports “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and thus lead the children of the Orthodox Church away from Chris) under his omophorion?

Source:
Independent