The speaker of the UOC-KP yevstratiy Zorya
Grounds for approval of the Autocephalous Church was not until the Ukraine was part of “Moscow’s Imperial project,” said yevstratiy Zorya.
The Church disappear when disappear of the state. This opinion was expressed in an interview with Credo speaker of the Kievan “Patriarchate” yevstratiy Zorya.
According to him, an independent Church can fully exist only in an independent state, therefore in Ukraine there were no grounds for autocephaly, while she was “part of the Moscow Imperial project.”
“And that is why, Metropolitan Filaret, as soon as the Ukrainian state became independent, immediately embarked on this path – said dawn. – Yes, it was not the state – it was not possible to have an Autocephalous Church. There was an independent state, once there and reason to have it. In fact, as happened with the Georgian, Bulgarian and Romanian churches.”
On the question of how to deal with such independent countries as Belarus, Moldova, Latvia, Kazakhstan, in which there is no autocephaly, Zorya replied that these examples only prove the rule.
“In the same Latvian Orthodox is the vast minority. As there may be a local Autocephalous Church?” – said dawn, adding that in the future in connection with changes that await the Russian Federation, including territorial, in these areas there will be a new Church.
“As soon as Patriarchal centre would be weakened and he will be weakened sooner or later, that will weaken the Kremlin center on these lines and there will be a new local Church. And, in my opinion, it is the prospect of the coming decades, including, if you implement one of the possible geopolitical scenarios, when the “Chinese Power will grow with Siberia”, I am more than confident that of the Orthodox in Siberia very quickly there is not even Autonomous, but Autocephalous Chinese Orthodox Church”, suggests the speaker of the UOC-KP.
Earlier, the Primate of the Serbian Orthodox Church Patriarch Irinej in his letter to Patriarch Bartholomew said that the modern secular state used the Church in order to serve their ideology, and to achieve this objective resorted to painful ethnophiletism and state-centered idea. This, in turn, “leads only to one thing – the threat to the universal nature of the Church.”