Non-canonicity in the third degree

According to some sources, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is considering the possibility to take the UOC-KP under its omophorion after Kyivan "patriarch" writes a letter of repentance and agrees his position as Metropolitan. Let us recall that EP styles itself the Mother Church of the Kyivan Metropolia and lately tends to bring up the precedent of the Polish Orthodox Church's authocephaly. Thus, with this letter of repentance the Constantinople plans to come round an objection that Filaret was anathematized and that the latter fact was recognized by all the Local Churches.

However, uncanonical status of Ukrainian schismatic leader is not only due to the complexity of his relations with Moscow. Even now, there still are strong reasons for not recognizing him as a cleric of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Let us recall, the self-styled "Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus'-Ukraine" was disfrocked and then 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 due to merely internal contradictions in the Russian Orthodox Church, to which the rebellious metropolitan belonged. It was not just a Moscow's plot against the rebellious hierarch. This step was taken for the benefit of the whole Church, and that was the exact reason exactly why all the Autocephalous Churches supported the excommunication of Filaret.
Moreover, the UOC-KP is still violating Canons of the Orthodox Church. Here is, for example, a timeline 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 was admitted to the Romanian Orthodox Church again, but this time directly to its Western European Diocese. In 1996 Laroche, by then an archpriest, betrayed the Church one more time 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 same "Synode Auxentiite", entered into communion with the UOC in the USA, and then, in 1994 "accosted" to the UOC-KP as an autonomous church. Perhaps the only act of "loyalty" was done by Philippe Laroche in 1996, when, after the break-off between the "Holy Synod of Milan" and Filaret, he decided to stay with the latter. He was tonsured a monk with the name Michael. Later, along with the head of the "Holy Synod of Milan" Eulogy (Hessler), he attempted to abandon the schism and enter into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. Despite this, in 2014 the Synod of the UOC-KP decided "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."

At that, it becomes clear that in the very jurisdiction of the "patriarch" Filaret there are those who fully understand their schismatic status. Perhaps that's exactly why these "bishops" are ready to go to the bad and violate the canons of the Church more and more. So, they've admitted Petru Parvu, an overt sectary, as mitred archpriest of the so-called "Orthodox Diocese of Paris and All France (Kyivan Patriarchate)".

Prior to that, Parvu was in a schismatic community "The Orthodox Patriarchate of Nations" led by "the patriarch of Europe" Nicholas who does not even have 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 refer to Petru Parvu as heretic, do not want to take the Eucharist from his hands and believe that the Sacraments administered by him are invalid. Needn't say how the canonical Autocephalous Churches are to respond to this situation!

As 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." Despite this, the UOC-KP leader Filaret not only failed to take any action against such the promiscuity of his "Metropolitan" Michael, but also concelebrated with "archpriest" Petru. Therefore, the question arises: how the Phanar is going to 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 them? And what consequences would the Patriarch Bartholomew have if after all he took the UOC-KP leader – the one who promotes schism, supports the "wolves in sheep's clothing" and thus leads the unwary children of the Orthodox Church away from Christ,– under his omophorion?

Lexo gjithashtu