While a relatively peaceful confrontation is taking place in the Lavra, in the regions the problem of property is being solved more effectively - due to the smaller scale, probably. And also due to the fact that the local authorities, having felt where the wind is blowing - what is the request of the local electorate and the authorities of Kyiv - took up the "

[pics_lr left\u003d" ua/img/forall/u/495/25/31741d0ad7800fdc0b0e27d5a2c45e5b. jpg" ua/img/forall/u/495/25/8da823ddf6d66ac5395c9d90a5093d63. jpg"

So, one by one, the cathedrals in Ivano-Frankivsk and Khmelnitsky were confiscated from the UOC-MP.

Temple Keys.

" " Numerous videos made during the assault demonstrate everything that you (dis)love in such scenes: strong guys in balaclavas, women's sobs off-screen, tear gas puffs, a screeching grinder, the crunch of broken glass underfoot and, in the finale, the mayor of the Greek.

The picture turned out to be so bad that even potential beneficiaries from the OCU hurried to disown this dubious “peregozhenka”: Metropolitan Epiphanius condemned such methods in relation to God’s temple.

In Khmelnitsky, on the contrary, everything went like clockwork. Almost. The beginning - a fight in the temple right during the service with the participation of a veteran (who, judging by the video, provoked the scandal) - does not decorate this plot. But the main result: the townspeople pulled themselves up to the scene of the event and right there on the spot voted for the transfer of the cathedral from the UOC-MP to the OCU.

If you subtract the fight in the temple from the equation, it turned out almost decently.. But there are still a few awkward questions.. For example, about the legality of the “transition” organized by the “citizens of the city”, and not by the community of parishioners of the temple, as it should be according to the law. But who is the parishioner - that is the question. Firstly, our membership in the church community is not fixed.. Secondly, we are talking about the cathedral - the main temple of the city. This means that any resident of this city can be considered a "

On the example of these two transitions of communities, not so much as " The main thing that is needed for this is to be able to direct the energy of citizens to the implementation of current political tasks.. And make it beautiful and convincing. The problem of Frankivsk is essentially only that it turned out “ugly”.

But already in Khmelnitsky everything was done correctly. The line between friends and foes was clearly drawn: on the one hand, the veteran is a figure truly sacred to Ukrainians at the moment, and on the other hand, the pseudo-sacred figures of “Moscow priests”. The people made their free and fair choice. From the point of view of a good story, everything is in its place. Including the white-bearded bishop who hands over the “keys to the city” to the winner right on the steps of the temple.

Word to the people.

From the point of view of power, this scenario is the optimal one.. It is not she who “commits persecution”, but people themselves make a choice, refusing the UOC-MP and expelling her from their land. Presenting the process of redistribution of church property as an initiative of the “revolutionary masses” could be a good strategy for the authorities. This got her at least partly out of the hit of the critics.. First of all, Western. Violation of the rights of believers and violation of freedom of conscience are serious accusations against the authorities. But the voice of the people is the voice of God.

But it's not just criticism from the outside. Inside, everything is also not going quite as expected: perhaps “according to plan”, but with a clear violation of the schedule. The government’s plan finally emerged quite clearly: a constant and gradual increase in pressure until the opponent caved in. Or won't break. So, the next point of this plan - following the decision to break the lease of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (KPL) - apparently, was the arrest of Metropolitan Pavel Lebed. This, on the one hand, was supposed to show the seriousness of the intentions of the authorities, on the other hand, to deprive the Lavra protest of the leadership.

But what is happening between the SBU and the UOC-MP is somewhat reminiscent of a match-fixing. Take at least the story with the CPL: the governor is always ahead of the opponent by half a body. He knows in advance that they will come with searches, he was given time to take everything that is dear to him out of the monastery. And even that the monastery would be “evicted” from the Lavra, he seems to have known in advance - his recent trip to the Orthodox East in the light of recent events looks like a preparation, a search for support from the centers of Orthodoxy, still loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate. Finally, calmness and restraint - not at all characteristic of him - at the moment of arrest. Looks like he was ready for this too..

The SBU, for its part, demonstrates vigorous activity: it leaks photos of the interiors of the governor’s residence, publishes records of interceptions of telephone conversations - it plays on the feelings and emotions of the public. The service likes that in the confrontation with the " But in reality, everything is not so rosy - they act belatedly and inefficiently.. Tasteless interiors are not a crime. And the published fragments of telephone conversations are grandmother's chatter, which at the beginning of the war could be heard at every second Kiev intersection.

In general, looking at the maneuvers of the UOC-MP and the SBU, you involuntarily recall that both structures grew from one common root - the KGB of the USSR. And, it seems, they still can’t forget about it: the raven pecks the raven so that, God forbid, it doesn’t get into the eye.

Well, not only them - no one wants to be zealous and take responsibility for the " But having gone so far, the authorities simply cannot back down.. Too many advances she made to the public. Now the retreat from the Lavra will be equal to the loss of face.

What remains? Hope that " The only question is how long the authorities will be able to balance on the crest of a wave of " And why do we need power and law enforcement agencies, if the Ukrainians once again have to do everything themselves?

UOC-MP strengthens defense.

For its part, the UOC-MP over and over again makes it clear to the authorities that it will not play giveaway. From the latter: in response to the transfer of the cathedral in Khmelnytsky, the Holy Synod, meeting remotely with unprecedented efficiency, dismissed Metropolitan Anthony of Khmelnytsky and appointed the energetic Archbishop Viktor Kotsaba in his place. This is a signal both to their masters: “Russians do not surrender”, and if they surrender, they will be punished. So the authorities - that they should not count on the systematic capitulation of the parishes of the UOC-MP.

Recently, personnel decisions in the Kyiv Metropolis, as you can see, are made at lightning speed. True, still not in relation to the bishops and collaborating priests. The preservation of its structure, property and control is more important for the UOC-MP than the interests of the country and the people, among whom this church is called to perform a Christian mission..

It is also interesting that the leadership of the UOC-MP almost did not react to the arrest of Metropolitan Pavel - neither words of support, nor words of condemnation. None of the bishops came to the courtroom to support a colleague. Metropolitan Pavel himself suddenly changed his mask - from a boorish priest he turned into a humble old man who submits to fate and, contrary to his habits, does not curse the " In response, Orthodox publics became myrrh-streaming: the “Vladychenka” shows herself to be a “true servant of God” and that and look, she will be declared, if not a martyr for the faith, then at least a hero.

Well, from the point of view of the leadership of the Kyiv Metropolis, the role of a “martyr” is most preferable for Vladyka Pavel.

The voice of one crying.

The question of support - one's own, others' and other important things - against the backdrop of recent church events looks no less entertaining than the maneuvers of the security forces.

On the part of the UOC-MP, an insistent refrain is heard “why are you silent? ”, addressed to representatives of other churches. First of all, for some reason, the OCU. According to the priests of the UOC-MP, all true Christians and people of good will in general, regardless of confessional affiliation, should protect them: after all, we are talking about a violation of civil rights.

The OCU spoke cautiously - not in support of the UOC-MP, but in condemnation of the methods of struggle for churches. In general, the leadership of the OCU decided not to interfere in the process of transfers and transfer of property. But after the scandal in Ivano-Frankivsk, Metropolitan Epiphanius dissociated himself from the event and called on the “liberators from the UOC-MP” to be more scrupulous in their methods: you can’t do this with the temple of God. Also, on behalf of the laity of the OCU, the organization "

But in the UOC-MP, of course, they counted on much wider support and resonance in society.. As it turned out, it was completely wrong.. The fact that the feelings of the majority of Ukrainians towards the UOC-MP fluctuate in the range of “indifference-contempt”, the church persistently explains that a powerful state propaganda machine is working against them.

Not without it, of course. But that's not even half the truth.. The problems for the UOC-MP began when another — no less powerful — propaganda machine, supported by another state, stopped working for it..

But the main reason for the loneliness in which the UOC-MP faces the current trials is that she herself created a desert around herself, where she now screams.

Over the decades of work in Ukraine, she has not created an authority in society so strong that propaganda could not cause serious damage to her.. The UOC-MP failed communication with Ukrainian society, but (worse) also failed its mission in Ukrainian society. Just because I never wanted to listen to him and learn to understand him.. She was always above this: she demanded obedience, not participation and cooperation.. And at a critical moment, society repaid the church in the same coin - they did not want to hear it. Moreover, support.

[votes id\u003d"