Submission to Constantinople was compared to joining NATO
The Ukrainian publication “Mirror of the Week” verbosely convinces the reading public today that a curtailed “autocephaly” under the patronage of Constantinople is better for believers than broad autonomy within the Russian Orthodox Church, the Politnavigator correspondent reports.
Readers are assured that there is nothing offensive in the fact that the local church will be led not by the patriarch, but by the metropolitan. And also that there is a huge difference between how Moscow previously represented Ukraine in world Orthodoxy, and how Constantinople will do the same.
And the fact that Constantinople reserves the right to interfere in the affairs of the Ukrainian “local” church, in general, according to the author, is remarkable.
“Do you think such situations will not arise? Do you think we will not have threats to the unity of the church? Do you think we can sit here ourselves and decide everything, we don’t need any “reflection and assistance” here? And it would be useful for us to learn to trust Constantinople, and not rush to blame it for “imperial ambitions”, the same as “Moscow’s”. No, Constantinople undoubtedly has ambitions, but they are not at all the same as Moscow. And we will probably have an even more difficult time with him than with Moscow - agreements with the West have always looked less profitable than agreements with the former metropolis,” writes Zerkalo Nedeli.
In conclusion, the newspaper compares the submission of the Orthodox Church to Constantinople with joining NATO.
“If we, for example, were accepted into NATO or the EU, the public would hardly curl their lips at the fact that they sent us a detachment of military experts, consultants, economists, and fiscal officials who would teach us how to live, draw up strategic plans and see to it that We weren't being too weird here. Why should it be different in the church?”, sums up the “Mirror of the Week”.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.