Some of the myths propagated by ROC hierarchs are illogical and contain mutually exclusive arguments, serving as examples of Orwellian doublethink, as I discussed in my first column. My second column is a continuation of this discussion. Today, I will examine two more examples of ROC's myth-making.

The first myth: "The existence of two structures within the territory of one state is impossible and constitutes a schism." However, we easily create parallel structures ourselves.

Again, whether this is a sincere misunderstanding by hierarchs or another manipulation is unclear. Moreover, the opinion on this matter changes situationally. For those who are even slightly interested in the life of Orthodox Churches worldwide, it is well known that not only do several local Orthodox Churches coexist within the territory of one country, but they also exist absolutely in parallel. An example of the first situation is the existence of three structures in Greece: the Greek Orthodox Church based in Athens, the Autonomous Cretan Orthodox Church within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (comprising nine dioceses), and the Metropolis of the Dodecanese, which is directly under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. An example of the second situation is the canonical territory of the Orthodox Church in America (which received autocephaly from ROC in 1970), where four parallel ROC structures coexist peacefully: the ROCOR (MP), Patriarchal Parishes in the USA, Patriarchal Parishes in Canada, and the Argentine and South American Diocese. Strangely, there are no appeals from ROC to these parallel structures regarding the disruption of the Church's unity or calls to respect the canonical territory and come under the omophorion of the Orthodox Church in America.

One can also mention that the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) establishes its communities and dioceses in the territory of Europe, even though, according to the canons (the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon, 151 AD), these lands are the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, the ROC prefers to interpret this canon differently. Nevertheless, there is no schism in Europe: any believer can attend a church of any jurisdiction they choose. There is no schism, no pain in this. However, lies, manipulation, and incitement of the congregation, pitting people against each other with calls to "stand to the death," which are characteristic of the ROC, always and invariably breed division, hatred, and pain. Indeed, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15).

So, when hierarchs deceive and speak untruths, when they open and support their parishes and entire structures in the same territory as other Churches without fearing schism, OR when they assert that the existence of another structure in the territory of Ukraine will inevitably lead to a "schism"?

Myth 2: "We believe that church borders should follow state borders," but... we strongly oppose these rules for Ukraine.

A striking example of the reason for autocephaly is the history of the Georgian Orthodox Church. The Georgian Church obtained autocephaly in the 5th century, several centuries before the ROC. After Georgia's annexation to the Russian Empire, this autocephaly was abolished, not by a church council but by secular authority, and in a cunning manner. On July 30, 1811, by the decree of Emperor Alexander I, the Georgian Catholicosate was transformed into the Georgian Exarchate of the ROC, and its head, Catholicos Antoniy II, was summoned to St. Petersburg to participate in the work of the Holy Synod and... never returned to Georgia. Russian archbishops were consistently appointed to lead the Georgian Exarchate of the ROC (with the sole exception of the first exarch, Varlaam (Eristavi)). In this state of affairs, the Church in Georgia persisted until the collapse of the Russian Empire.

On March 12, 1917, in the city of Svetitskhoveli, a Council of the clergy of all of Georgia took place in Georgia. This council, citing the illegitimacy of the revocation of autocephaly and changes in the political situation, "unilaterally" proclaimed the restoration of the autocephaly of the Georgian Orthodox Church (GOC). The next day, a representative of this council informed the Exarch of Georgia, Platon (Rozhdestvensky), that he had been removed from his position as exarch and stripped of his rank. Platon, understandably, rejected this decision as "unlawful" and stated, "I remain, of course, your exarch and will exercise the rights of an exarch and authority." He then convened his council, which was canonical (as one would say today), mainly composed of Russian clergy in Georgia. He unanimously decided that the autocephaly of Georgia was invalid, reaffirming unity with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). However, on August 23, 1917, people forced Archpriest Platon to leave his residence and depart from Tbilisi.

Subsequently, a Council of the Georgian Orthodox Church was held in Tbilisi, confirming the autocephaly of the GOC. The ROC characterized these events as "unlawful actions" and called for the "unauthorized gathering" to repent. Once again, the rhetoric of "indivisible friendship of fraternal peoples" was heard, and the churches of the Georgian Exarchate of the ROC became "mouthpieces of pro-Russian policy," and so on. The standard accusations of illegitimacy and calls for repentance were made.

But here comes an incredible twist: Stalin, a Georgian, becomes the secular ruler in Russia, and, miraculously, the aggressive rhetoric against the GOC fades away, the idea of the "indivisibility of the Orthodox faithful" is forgotten, and finally, on November 19, 1943, the ROC decides to recognize the autocephaly of the "unauthorized and self-appointed assembly." And, pay attention, they justify this recognition by citing the canons of the Church, arguing that an independent state should have an independent church, which is entirely lawful and in accordance with the laws.

So, when do our hierarchs deceive and speak untruths? When they believe that according to the canons of the Church, church boundaries should follow state boundaries, and the Church in a formally independent republic like Georgia during the time of the USSR has every right to autocephaly. OR when they assert that the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church cannot be recognized solely by the decision of the First Church of Constantinople?

In the upcoming columns, I will continue to dispel the double-minded myths of the Moscow Patriarchate regarding the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.