The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has established the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) as a global unifying platform for all Orthodox Ukrainians. For this, all the ordinations of the clergy and episcopate of the UOC-KP and UAOC were restored with great ICONOmy. However, as practice has shown, OCU has failed to cope with the task.
…Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard;
they have trampled down my portion;
they have made my pleasant portion
a desolate wilderness.
They have made it a desolation;
desolate,it mourns to me.
The whole land is made desolate,
but no man lays it to heart.
Jeremiah 12:10-11
The Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is scheduled to take place on October 22-24, where the “Ukrainian issue” is once again planned to be discussed. At stake is the First Chair of the Orthodox World’s involvement into the dispute settlement between the OCU, the UOC and the state. It can be assumed that Ukraine has given the synods many reasons to doubt whether everything is really good in the Kingdom of Denmark.
This synod is very important for Ukraine: at the Phanar, the new head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry intends to convince the Patriarch that there is no reason to worry, and on the contrary, everything is fantastic.
But the real events go into gear and suggest otherwise.
Cherkasy syndrome
“Words are refuted by words, but how to refute life?” St. Gregory of Nazianzus once said. An epic battle over the St. Michael’s Cathedral took place in Cherkasy on the night of October 17. It is the cathedral church of the Cherkasy Diocese of the UOC, which was once headed by Metropolitan Sophrony, the greatest sympathizer of autocephaly in the UOC. Now, unfortunately, the diocese is headed by a fervent supporter of the “Russkiy mir” and a professional provocateur, Metropolitan Theodosy (Snigirev). A person whose religious and political identity was formed in Russia chose the role of a “pillar of canonical Orthodoxy”, gathering around him naive believers in order to “throw to the wolves”. For which he deservedly received criminal cases. Realizing that this was his last tour, Theodosy went all out, provoking society and calling the flock to the catacombs. Even court sessions were used by him for demonstrations that had a target audience in Moscow. On the eve of the conflict, it became known that Theodosy had excluded the words about power and the army from the Prayer for the State. Such a demarche in the war is a public support for the enemy, which could not remain unnoticed. After police searchers in the diocese administration, in particular, Theodosy’s office, they found piles of special literature such as “Project Russia”, which only testifies to his principled position, which he instilled in his followers.
The person of Theodosy does not deserve sympathy. It is impossible to understand an obsessive idea of the OCU to take away all churches from the UOC, forcing its believers to pray in garages and basements. Not to mention the temptation to use chaplains, veterans and military personnel in such actions. In such cases, post-traumatic stress disorder turns from traumatic events into a usual social behavior, and those who do not have PTSD are forced to simulate in order to “fit in with the group”.
It should be noting that the mass brawl took place already after the Affiliation Law came into force, but before the moment when UOC communities will be given orders to remove their affiliation with the Russian Orthodox Church. This may suggest that the opponents of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church already understand that the law (it has been repeatedly warned), will be “valid but inactive”, that is, it will not fully fulfill its goal – to separate the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Russian Orthodox Church by a conventionally civilized (secular) method. The civilized development of events becomes less and less likely. So, we will get the era of religious wars. Unfortunately, these purely intra-Ukrainian wars are dangerous to the entire Ecumenical Orthodoxy.
Thus, there are three irrefutable conclusions from this story:
- The OCU seeks to destroy the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, excluding any peaceful coexistence or dialogue. This is a gross violation of the tomos terms by the
- The UOC has no other way (or even choice) but to restore good relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with the prospect of transitioning to its canonical jurisdiction.
- The Ecumenical Patriarchate is faced with a difficult choice: either to refuse any intervention in the Ukrainian issue (with all the corresponding severe consequences), or to take a problematic structure under its umbrella, as well as its structural subdivision with a significant anti-rating in society (also with the corresponding serious implications and risks).
“The Battle of Hierarchies”
It is very disadvantageous for many forces in Ukraine and abroad to resume the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s mission. Therefore, all possible actions, proposals, signals are immediately become conspiracy theories, interpretations, manipulations and misinformation.
The visit of the patriarchal delegation of Metropolitans Illarion of Winnipeg and Iov of Pisidia, as well as deacon Epiphany Kam’yanovych in August this year to Ukraine has attracted great attention of the Ecumenical Throne.
As usual, Russian (and some Ukrainian) media, present this situation as a hardware struggle between two influential hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate – the head of the American Archdiocese, Archbishop Elpidophoros, and Metropolitan Emanuel of Chalcedon, who directly controls the “OCU project”. The logic is simple: the members of the patriarchal delegation are geographically attributed to Elpidophoros, which means that it is in his interests to undermine Emanuel’s achievements in the development and promotion of the OCU.
Such conspiracy refutation is as follows: the patriarchal delegation actually traveled within the synodal commission mandate created in 2023. This is how the mission of the visitors was formulated in the Ecumenical Patriarch’ credential letters on the August trip: “With these letters of our Patriarchs, we inform… that we instruct you… to come, as the Patriarchal Representation, to Kyiv in order, on the one hand, to fulfill the synodal decreed to visit the local church and state institutions and organizations and convey to them the blessings and warm interest of the Mother of the Church, on the other hand, to convey greetings and wishes from the Mother of the Church and from His All-Holiness on the occasion of the national holiday of Ukraine, which is celebrated on August 24.” That is, there was a synodal consensus on the formation of the commission, which significantly exceeds the bureaucratic capabilities of Archbishop Elpidophoros. Thus, the influence of his potential opponent on the synod is slightly exaggerated.
According to the editorial office, after the delegation’s visit and negotiations with key figures at the September Synaxis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the speaker on the Ukrainian issue, Metropolitan Emanuel of Chalkcedon, failed to convince the participants not to intervene and to let the OCU to settle by itself. ¾ of the hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate concern about it. That is, those people who believe that the apparatus struggle is the only yardstick of all religious processes may see this situation as the apparatus struggle within the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Patriarchal delegation does not represent one of the “competitors”, but rather the Patriarch and the Synod.
The UOC as a victim of its own ultimatums
It so happened that the UOC has found itself in the center of the pan-Orthodox conflict, in a big trap, betrayed by the powerful KIRILLarchal church. The OCU is blocked by the state and the society at the domestic level; outside the country – by the local churches, which themselves are victims of the powerful canonical hypocrisy. Most of the processes are controlled by The Russian Orthodox Church and the Kremlin.
The UOC continues to heroically fight the reasons, instead of reacting on the causes of such an end. Even at the beginning of the war, several conditions were given to start a dialogue with the OCU, the first of which was “to stop a seizure of temples.” Expectedly, this ultimatum was met with mockery and sarcasm. During the meeting with the patriarchal delegation in September 2024, the UOC chancellor, Metropolitan Anthony (Pakanich) demanded to publicly condemn the temple wars with the OCU, as the reason to begin negotiations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The only possible diplomatic answer was that the Patriarch supported the dialogue between the two sister churches, advocating peaceful settlement, and was very upset by the situation.
And what did the UOC functionaries expect? The reality is that the UOC can have any protection (not to mention guarantees) from the Ecumenical Patriarchate only in one case – after the transition to the canonical jurisdiction of the Mother of the Church (forms of such protection can be negotiated). Then it is the Ecumenical Patriarch who responsible for preserving the structural integrity of the UOC (at least its adequate part that does not understand a heroic death under Patriarch Kirill and doubts that the canonical subordination of a cannibal still ensures the grace of its sacraments).
Do not feel illusions: no one owes nothing the UOC. It is easy to guess how the proud rejection of Constantinople hand will end. The events in Cherkasy show how the shortcomings of the Affiliation Law to be addressed. Roughly speaking: in less than a year, the UOC as a canonical subject legalized by the state will no longer exist. It is unlikely unregistered UOC communities to pray in the “catacombs” – such monitoring started in rented non-church premises, as well as pressure on its owners (which, by the way, is provided for by the Affiliation Law). Therefore, all calls by pious provocateurs in Panagias to go underground are a crime against their flock. No good intentions can justify the destructive consequences of such demagogy.
Are the UOC “lower clergy” ready to negotiate?
As it is known, it takes two to tango. Is there a critical mass of bishops, clergy and believers in the UOC (in various proportions), who are ready to compromise with the Ecumenical Throne, and then to conclude some kind of non-aggression pact with the OCU? Is the church leadership ready to hear these voices?
The decision to break off relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate was made in November 2018 (i.e., even before the Tomos) without taking the “lower classes” into account. It was completely artificial. Although over the past 5 years the UOC leadership, on the ROC’s order, has organized a powerful anti-Phanar campaign, making the fight for the holy canons as an argument. However, they have failed to convince anyone that this was the right decision. Many local UOC priests, although not delighted with the “legalization” of competitors, concluded that in 2018 the bishops made the wrong decision. After all, now only the Ecumenical Throne is the only powerful force that could act as an effective protector of the UOC. As the saying goes, cast no dirt into the well that gives you water.
Giving that the UOC leadership does not take into account the opinions from “below”, then the chances of any movement (except to be trapped) cause skepticism. Although the UOC builds its independence on the ability to independently cope with management challenges, in fact we see the opposite: without the Lord and Father, the leadership of this church can only freeze all independent initiatives.
So time is against the “only canonical” church. There will be no Russian flag on the Kyiv hills. At one time, the UOC ignored a more or less suitable solution to the current impasse (not to mention the invitation to the Unification Council). No matter how cynical it may sound, it remains to take the line of the least resistance. Black-and-white thinking with a lack of will usually does not cope with such a task and falls into the trap of fatalism, betting everything on zero – “it will be as it will be, and as God wills.”
As is known, God’s most precious gift to man is the ability to think and free will. This is a key talent that is given to everyone according to their abilities, and for the use of which they will have to answer to the Creator. Currently, the UOC looks like a servant who is unable to multiply the talents given to him. In the Gospel parable, everything ends with the Master taking away the silver from the wicked and lazy servant and giving it to those who are able to multiply it, explaining such “injustice” as follows: “Take the money from this servant, and give it to the servant who doubled my stake”… What will the Lord see in a year? The UOC had 25 years of maximum assistance, privileges, the largesse of the state and patrons. This church invested all its resources in temple construction and self-promotion. And it may be deprived all of this.
If Metropolitan Onufriy does not mobilize the remnants of his will and refuses further dialogue, he will probably face an autocephalous demarche in the UOC. From time to time, there are appeals to the UOC leadership with the demand to finally break with the ROC. There are already priests in this church who pray for Metropolitan Onufriy after the Ecumenical Patriarch. Some priests are ready to serve with Exarch Mykhail, some declare recognition of the OCU sacraments and their readiness to serve with its clergy (where there are friendly and fraternal relations). This is what the priest of the UOC, member of the Sophia Brotherhood Olexands Sorokin says. There are communities that do not want to join the OCU and in the event of ultimatums from the State Service of Ukraine for Ethno-Politics and Freedom of Conscience (DESS) to “eliminate affiliation with the ROC” they plan to re-register as independent communities. Some of them will also pray for the Ecumenical Patriarch. So far, the state is not ready to accept the fact that the law does not prohibit communities from not identifying themselves as part of any religious center. All human rights activists in the world will be on the side of such communities.
True, there is another side of the coin. According to the Archpriest of the UOC Olexandr Fedchuk, all the years of its existence, the UOC was actually held hostage by the “Easterners”, who were strictly oriented towards Moscow and eliminated all autocephalous sentiments. To be more precise: they were taken as hostages by the “Donetsk people”. The same opinion is shared by the UOC Archpriest Igor Kovrovsky, explaining the reluctance of Metropolitan Onufriy to make any steps by the fear of a demarche (“anti-schism”) of this UOC pro-Russian wing.
Practically, a demarche of pro-Russian bishops would create problems only for these bishops. By and large, most conversations about models of church unity envisage lustration: there is no shelter for those with a Russian flag hidden under the cassock. The most famous of the “Moscowphiles” are Metropolitan Luka of Zaporizhia, Theodosy of Cherkasy, and Longin of Bancheny. Let them solve their own problems themselves.
Does the majority of the UOC want to join the OCU? No, they don’t. As we can see, there are enough reasons. The first is mutual dislike, even if there are no personal claims of “betrayal” or “seizure of churches”. The problem would be easy to ignore if the UOC were a marginal group without any real influence on any processes. But Metropolitan Onufriy still controls a large number of believers – even without refugees and those on the occupied territories. Fans of statistics often use opinion polls, according to which the share of UOC supporters is decreasing from month to month, and the share of OCU supporters is increasing. But such polls often omit information on whether practicing believers were polled, so the results look more like a public plebiscite, as the majority (up to 70 %) of the respondents do not get to the churches of their declared jurisdiction. However, there are also interesting results. Thus, according to the latest KIIS poll, disoriented Ukrainians, on the one hand, would like the UOC to cease its activities, and on the other hand, would like a unified Orthodox local church to be created under the omophorion of the current primate of the OCU, Metropolitan Epifanii. It directly indicates that the current state of Orthodoxy is not final, complete, or desirable.
Let’s be realistic: the “One city, one bishop” canonical model is impossible for Ukraine. Therefore, the UOC Archpriest Igor Kovrovsky once said, “everyone must abandon some of their ideals of the canonical structure of the Church, recognizing the temporary nature of the situation of “communal living.”
A minute of fascinating history
In this context, it is very interesting that the UOC spokesmen could not clearly say what the Mother of the Church means to them. Even if traditionally the Mother is considered to be the KIRILLarchal church, then there is a paradox with the UOC. The reaon is one historical event – the division of the Kyiv Metropolis in 1458.
We have what we have: more than 400 years later, two “parallel” Kyiv Metropolises emerged on the same historical territory, which are hostile to each other. The Autocephalous Kyiv Metropolis had no doubts about who was the Mother of the Church for them. But its own “daughter”, the Moscow Metropolis, rejected in the 15th century, received canonical authority over the other. No wonder the UIC functionaries do not want to call the ROC the Mother of the Church. This is a red line for any common sense. And this is really good news, because it gives arguments why breaking the canonical chain of the KIRILLarchal Russian Orthodox Church and returning it to the status of a historical Patriarchate of Constantinople’s structural subdivision is not only a justified decision, but also the only one right in this critical situation. The Kyiv Metropolis should, after all, be the only one.
If the Ecumenical Patriarchate has already made a historic decision to cancel the Act of Transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1686, signed in tragic times for Ukraine, it is necessary to restore the integrity of the Kyiv Metropolis, forcibly divided in tragic times for the Byzantine Empire. After all, the appearance of the Russian Church on the Orthodox map is a direct consequence of the division of 1458.
Oddly enough, there is a certain historical precedent, when Patriarch Kirill decided to subordinate the eastern and Crimean Dioceses of the UOC in the occupied territories. We are talking about the Decree of Patriarch St. Tikhon No. 362 of November 7/20, 1920. The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, annexing the Berdiansk Diocese, referred to paragraph 7 of this Decree, according to which, in the event of the absence of a bishop in the diocese due to the movement of the front line or a change in the state border, the diocesan clergy and laity may transfer to the jurisdiction of the nearest accessible bishop. But there is also paragraph 2 in this Decree, which allows a diocese that has lost contact with the “Supreme Church Authority” (i.e. the governing bodies of the Russian Orthodox Church, including the patriarch) due to military action, “to cooperate with the neighboring ones to organize the work of a higher church authority.” In fact, wasn’t it the reason for Moscow to subordinate the Kyiv Metropolis in 1686 – due to large distances, wars and the impossibility of direct communication with Constantinople?
As is known, neither Patriarch Kirill nor any bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church has been able to come to Ukraine for 10 years. Moreover, Kirill refrains from traveling to the occupied territories, although he has all the technical and political capabilities to do so. Thus, in order to stop the religious disorder within the UOC, it can use the same historical precedents experienced by the Russian Orthodox Church. And everything returns to the root case of the problem.
Epilogue
The question is why the Ecumenical Pariarchate needs this dangerous ride. In fact, the Phanar has very little room to maneuver, and in order to make a decision, it is necessary to compare the consequences for Ukraine, all of Orthodoxy, and the risk directly to the First Among Equals.
The main risk is that the OCU was created by the Ecumenical Patriarch as a global unifying platform for all Orthodox Christians in Ukraine. For this (precisely for this, I emphasize!), the canonical dignity of the clergy and episcopate of the UOC-KP and the UAOC was ICONomically rehabilitated: all negotiating groups must have equal canonical status. Practice has shown that the OCU has failed its mandate. Its main priority was self-affirmation (as if it really doubts in its own subjectivity), and its methods gave the opponents of the Ecumenical Patriarch a reason to talk about the “legalization of the schism” that threatened the stability of many local churches. Although the Tomos was applicable in peacetime, and could not foresee all tragic events in the future. However, the Ecumenical Throne as an “anti-crisis manager” is still there. The less specific anti-crisis mechanisms make its usage more flexible – from parental advices to the Tomos clarification.
In this context, I recall the pre-war interview of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who had already begun to receive alarming signs from pious Ukraine: “We read various reports of violence by extremist groups against Orthodox Christians in Ukraine. If, of course, it is true, then we condemn such actions, wherever they come from and who are a target, from the very first moment, just as we condemn all sorts of provocations aimed at creating tension among the people of Ukraine, and against the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”
Ukraine has irreversibly taken the path of restoring church justice. But, as is well known, justice without love makes a person cruel. And cruelty only leads to injustice. If there are red lines in Orthodoxy, when good intentions lead only to hell, then it is time to define them.
P.S. The Metropolitan Theodosy of Cherkasy asked the Ecumenical Patriarch to intervene in the situation in a video message which has appeared after the article was written.
