“The Metropolitan insisted that Moscow’s approval was not required for the establishment or recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
Similar quotes
“According to Metropolitan Epifaniy, the Tomos granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate provides the canonical foundation for the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, irrespective of whether Moscow accepts it.
“Metropolitan Epifaniy of Kyiv and All Ukraine issued strong criticism of the Patriarchate of Moscow, accusing its supporters of challenging the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, interpreting its calls for dialogue as weakness and promoting the ideology of the “Russian World.”
“Indeed, it was not from Moscow that we received our autocephaly. It was not Moscow that granted us the Tomos, nor did recognition of our Church’s authenticity depend upon Moscow—just as the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship did not depend upon the opinions of his opponents,” Metropolitan Epifaniy stated. “Just as Paul was called to become an apostle by the Head of the Church Himself, so we received the Tomos and the proclamation of our status as an autocephalous Local Church from the first among the Primates of the Orthodox Church—the Ecumenical Patriarch, who alone, according to the conciliar canons, possesses this authority.
“he declared his organization's right to judge the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
“They accuse us, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, of not being from them and not having received recognition according to the rules invented by them
“He argued that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine had chosen dialogue and reconciliation rather than stricter canonical measures.
““The fact that, instead of imposing strict demands upon the followers of Russian Pharisaism in Ukraine, we demonstrate humility and call them to fraternal dialogue, mutual understanding and unity—rather than judging them according to the canons, as the Patriarchate of Alexandria has done with similar Russian ecclesiastical usurpers in Africa—does not mean that we lack the right to act in this way,” he said. “Our conciliatory approach must not be interpreted by anyone as supposed evidence that we do not possess this right or that we ourselves harbour doubts about it.