Monks of the UOC-MP do not want to be evicted from the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra: how Ukraine will act
Representatives of the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate stated that they would not leave the territory of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. Subsequently, NSDC Secretary Aleksey Danilov commented on this, noting that physical force would not be used against “priests”.
Until March 29, 2023, Moscow priests must leave the territory of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in the capital. At the same time, the abbot of the monastery Pasha “Mercedes” turned to the president and said that “he is not going to go anywhere with his parishioners.” Also subsequently, the secret of the National Security and Defense Council told how the authorities would act.
“Old story”
According to Danilov, pro-Russian clergy – and in fact, agents of the 5th and 1st departments of the FSB in cassocks – do not have the right to hold the state hostage and dictate their agenda to it.
As for the church, it's an old story. Of course, there will be no use of physical force, violence. We are not Russia. But we will definitely fulfill what belongs to us, taking into account the regulatory legal acts that are on our territory,” said the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council.
In addition, he stressed that the Ukrainian government does not oppose the church and those people who are related to certain religious processes.
The Kremlin obviously stands behind the UOC-MP
- Recall that, in particular, the Center for Combating Disinformation reacted to the odious appeal of the rector of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and his henchmen to the president.
- The report says that the Kremlin skillfully manipulates the topic of the church, exposing its subordinates as victims. And he also uses this topic to escalate the situation and increase the audience of fans who will go to “save” Orthodox Ukrainians.
- At the same time, the representative of the President of Russia, Dmitry Peskov, generally stated that the fact that Kiev had evicted Moscow priests from the Lavra, in particular, allegedly justifies the so-called “special military operation.”