Photo generated by AI
An editorial publication by “Orthodox Ukraine”
A brief summary for those who don’t like to read long texts:
– Orthodoxy in Ukraine is still not unified for one reason: because the followers of the Moscow Patriarchate reject all resolutions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate regarding Ukraine, reject the authority and rights of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and continue to voluntarily remain dependent on Moscow. Further more, they hypocritically accuse the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the OCU, and the Ukrainian state of such behavior.
The project of a “temporary Exarchate” under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for some supporters of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine isa Russian “Trojan-horse” concealing the long-standing dream of the Russian Orthodox Church to destroy the foundations of the OCU, to cast doubt on the Tomos of autocephaly for the Church of Ukraine, and to cause long-term systemic discord in relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukraine.
– This project is being propagated exactly when the court is to consider the issue of deregistration of the Metropolitanate of the MP in Ukraine, because it isaimed at preserving the structure that is internallyand mentally dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as at creating obstacles to the unification of communities and hierarchs of the UOC (MP) with the OCU.
– If there is indeed a request for a “temporary Exarchate” with in the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Onufriy, then why is the Stavropegia, which already exists with in the walls of St. Andrew’s Church in thecity of Kyiv with its millions of inhabitants, not actually filled with those faithful who allegedly have the need for it?
The Greece-based website Orthodox Times (OT), despite the generally objective coverage of events in the Ecumenical Patriarchate and autocephalous Churches, has in recent years become a platform for regularly publishing openly biased articles. The sepublications are spread for party political purposes, namely to support the position of some hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and cast a shadow on others. In doing so, facts are completely or partially distorted, and references to anonymous sources are used, which are either invented by the authors of the publication or repeat rumors heard by the authors. Such publications are often signed with the names ofnon-existent persons or persons unknown to anyone, which means that the real initiators of the texts arenot responsible for them.
Unfortunately, Greek websites about the life of the Church have long been known for their widespread practice of publishing commissioned materials, propaganda, and falsehoods in the interests of tho sew ho pay for them. Romfea is a vivid and sad example of this, having worked for many years in the interests of the Moscow Patriarchate. Unfortunately, this problem has not bypassed the generally respectable OT website.
A direct example of such propaganda is a series of publications on this website over the past few years, directed against the person and activities of Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine Epiphaniy. Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon, who had been the head of the Unification Council in Kyiv in December 2018, was also subjected to unfounded attacks in the publications, and the refore his name and personality are associated with the development of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The latter resorted to legal protection of his name from the falsehoods spread by OT. Some of the publications even went so far as to accuse His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of allegedly misjudging the situation in Ukraine – apparently because the Patriarch does not listen to the falsehoods spread by the authors of the publications and the interested parties behind them.
On November 4, 2025, when there is an official holiday in Russia, OT published a lengthy articlesigned by “theologian Paul (Pavel) Lieberman.” A Google search does not show any relevant results forthis person. In the Ukrainian religious community (and the author claims to be supposedly familiar with Ukrainian church life), such a person has also not been known until now. These signs give reasons tobelieve that the author’s name and identity arefictitious.
What is the essence of the article by “Paul (Pavel) Lieberman, a theologian,” entitled “The Ukrainian Case: The temporary exarchate from the Ecumenical Patriarchate as a potential solution”?
The essence of this lengthy article, which claims to offer a unique understanding of the Ukrainian church problem and supposed know ledge of how to solve it better, is summed up in the following theses.
1. Despite the resolution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Tomos, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine has not become unified.
2. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine has not been able to unite all Orthodox Christians, some of whomremain under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The process of transition from the MP to the OCU is full of problems and being politicized, accompanied by violence and not in line with the canonical and evangelical spirit
3. Any Orthodox believers who don’t want to be part of the OCU but also don’t want to stay under the jurisdiction of the MP should find their place with in the “temporary Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,” which is supposed to be set up for them and is allegedly a way to unite Orthodox believers in Ukraine in a canonical and peaceful way.
4. The creation of such a “temporary Exarchate” is allegedly justified by the Ecumenical Patriarch’s rights to eklektos (appeal) and to the Exarchate in Ukraine and stauropegia, as stated in the Tomos of Autocephaly.
Let us examine these theses and prove that each of them is un true or only half-true, and that all of them together lead to fundamentally erroneous conclusions, leading readers to such conclusions.
The refore.
1. Why is the Orthodox Church in Ukraine not unitedyet?
In October 2018, the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate officially and finally revoked any obligations under the letter of Patriarch Dionysius IV, which granted the Moscow Patriarch only the right to ordain the candidate for Metropolitan of Kyiv who had been previously elected in Kyiv, but the Metropolitan him self, as well as the Kyiv Metropolitanate, remain under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Russian Church and the tsarist government never fulfilled these conditions, because they immediately regarded Patriarch Dionysius’ forced consent (the story of how his letter appeared under pressure from the ambassador of the Moscow kingdom and the Ottoman government is widely known) as the alleged complete transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate – which in fact never happened!
There fore, by having with drawn the letter and the obligations under it and having indicated that the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate had been restored in Ukraine since the Synod’s decision (October 2018), the Synod paved the way for the convening of the Unification Council in December 2018. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew personallysent letters of invitation to the Unification Council toall Orthodox bishops in Ukraine, as those who, regardless of their previous jurisdiction (the UOC within the MP, the UAOC, or the UOC-KP), are now subordinate to him. The Patriarch appointed his special Exarch (authorized representative), Metropolitan Emmanuel, to preside over this Council. At the same time, in a letter addressed to Metropolitan Onufriy, the Patriarch specifically noted that he could be nominated at the Council as a candidate for Primate of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (the heads of the UAOC and the UOC-KP were explicitly prohibited from doing so), but from the moment of the Council, only the hierarch elected by the Council would become the sole canonical Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine.
As it is known, all bishops from the jurisdictions of the UAOC and the UOC-KP who had previously officially decided to dissolve their state-registered structures in order to remain within the unified structure of the OCU took part in the Council. Only two bishops from the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC) attended the Council, although more than ten had previously written appeals to the Ecumenical Patriarch (this is an important detail, and we will return to it later).
Consequently, the Council in Kyiv was convened from the outset as a Council of ALL Orthodox bishops of Ukraine, not just some of them. The refore, the decision of this Council and the Tomos, which was granted following the Council, is a founding document for all Orthodox Christians in Ukraine, not just some of them.
As for those bishops and their subordinate structures who did not attend the Council and did notimplement its decisions, that is, all those who still reject the Tomos of autocephaly, the text of the Tomos it self clearly states: “Matters concerninginternal church administration shall be considered, judged, and determined exclusively by him (i.e., the Primate of the OCU – author) and the Holy Synod, following the Gospel and other teachings, inaccordance with the Holy Tradition and the revered canonical decrees of our Holy Orthodox Church, and the provisions of the 6th canon of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which states that “if, in a joint vote of all, which shall be fair and inaccordance with church canon, two or three, due totheir own inclination to dispute, object, then the decision of the majority shall prevail.” The refore, the fact that some bishops in Ukraine, due to their own disposition to dispute, did not accept the decisions ofthe Council and the provisions of the Tomos, in no way can these decisions and norms be questioned orinvalidated.
There are many examples in history of how opponents of the truth, due to their absence from the Council, tried to cast doubt on its decisions, but the Church never accepted the absence of some of the canonically invited members of the Council as a basis for rejecting the conciliar resolutions as such. In particular, at the Third Ecumenical Council, Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople and his supporters refused to participate in the sessions, but the conciliar condemnation of Nestorianism issued at that time was legitimate and generally binding as a decision of the Ecumenical Council. During the sessions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, approximately one-third of the participants left before its official closing, but this in no way undermines the authority and validity of the dogmatic and canonical decisions of the Council.
It is also worth recalling here the direct provision of the Tomos, which obliges ALL Orthodox institutions in Ukraine and all Orthodox Christians to be part of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine: “We un animously determine and proclaim that the entire Orthodox Church, located with in the politically formed and completely independent state of Ukraine, together with the Holy Metropolitanates, Archdioceses, Dioceses, monasteries, parishes, and all church institutions with in them, which is under the protection of the Founder of the One, Holy, Catholicand Apostolic Church of God-man, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, shall henceforth exist ascanonically autocephalous, independent, and self-governing, having the First in ecclesiastical mattersand recognizing each canonical Primate bearing the title “His Beatitude, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine.” This is not a proposal, not an optional suggestion, but a canonical imperative requirement.
Bishops who did not accept the invitation to the Council and did not comply with the provisions of the Tomos, which obliges (does not ask, does not propose, but obliges!) to be part of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, are recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate as bishops without sees, who personally fall under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church and only reside in Ukraine, but have no jurisdiction there. This is confirmed by the official Calendar of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, where all hierarchs under the authorityof Metropolitan Onufriy are listed in the section of hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church.
What is the main reason why these hierarchs remained in the MP? They have clearly and repeatedly stated it in their statements and documents: these hierarchs – each of the mindividually and all of them collectively as a single community – did not recognize the decisions of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of October 2018, did not recognize and continue not to recognize the accomplished fact that all those who received holy orders during the separate existence of the UAOC and the UOC-KP, together with their then leaders Makariy and Filaret, have been reinstated. There fore, all of them are true bishops, priests, and deacons of the Orthodox Church. The followers of Metropolitan Onufriy have not recognized and do not recognize any of this. It ison this basis, and not on any other, that the hierarch sand clergy of the MP jurisdiction in Ukraine do notjust refuse to unite with the OCU, but do not even want to begin any negotiations with it
Meanwhile, the OCU has repeatedly and continues to officially call on those who remain under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Onufriy to engage in dialogue. Only communities and priests have responded to these calls, and since 2019, more than 2,000 communities have voluntarily complied with the Tomos and joined the Orthodox Church ofUkraine.
Representatives of the jurisdiction headed by Metropolitan Onufriy often say in their statements that they are waiting for some kind of “pan-Orthodox decision” on Ukraine, just as those in the autocephalous Churches who reject the right of the Ecumenical Patriarch to independently proclaim new autocephaly and demand , as Moscow does primarily, that before such autocephaly is proclaimed, such a decision be agreed upon by all the Primates (which in reality has never happened and will never be possible!).
Summarizing all of the above, we come to the following conclusion.
The Orthodox Church in Ukraine is not united because some Orthodox Christians, primarily the bishops who lead them, do not recognize either the decisions of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of October 2018 the Unification Council of 2018, or the Tomos of Autocephaly of 2019. They continue to consider the erroneous judgments of the Moscow Patriarchate onissues concerning the autocephaly of the Church inUkraine to be more authoritative. They also categorically refuse to communicate with the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, either officially or even unofficially, considering it a secular political organization rather than a Church.
All this is clear and obvious to anyone who has a clear mind and is not biased against the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. However, the anonymous authorof the article on OT and the forces behind this article insist on presenting the case as if the OCU is the only institution to blame for the fact that supporters of the Moscow Patriarchate remain in it and do not want unity.
2. The article on OT accuses the OCU of allegedly being responsible for the failure of the unification process, citing violence and a lack of evangelical spirit as the reasons for this.
I would like to ask all the hypocrites behind the vile, serpen tine text on OT the following questions:
– Is the Ecumenical Patriarch also to blame for the fact that his decision and the Tomos have not yet been accepted by the Moscow Patriarch and a number of other autocephalous Churches?
– Is the Ecumenical Patriarch also to blame for the fact that the Orthodox Church of the Czech Landsand Slovakia has still not (for more than a quarter ofa century!) fulfilled the provisions of the Tomos granted to it?
– Is the Ecumenical Patriarch also to blame for the fact that the Church in North Macedonia, having received from him and the Mother Church the restoration of communion with the hierarchy, took an uncanonical path and accepted the “autocephaly” proclaimed not by the Ecumenical Patriarch, but bythe Serbian Patriarch, and is doing nothing further toremedy its situation?
In fact, the fault for all these examples lies primarily with the Moscow Patriarchate, which uses all possible means to encourage resistance to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its resolutions in the Local Churches. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine are all casualties of the Russian Orthodox Church’s aggression. To accuse the victim of aggression of being attacked by the aggressor iscynical and immoral.
If anyone has forgotten or is living in a fantasy world, they should be reminded that Russia is waginga war of destruction against Ukraine, and the Moscow Patriarchate is one of the main instrumentsin this war. Doesn’t everyone know how the Russian authorities have always controlled and used the Russian Church as a political tool and continue to doso? The text on OT is written as if neither Russia’swar against Ukraine nor the problem of the ROC hierarchy as a tool of the Russian authorities used inthis war exist.
The “problem of violence” against Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine is a topic artificially created by Russian propaganda, similar to the “oppression of Russian speakers in Ukraine” and other similar accusations. Yes, there are indeed isolated cases ofviolence, but these are exceptions rather than the norm. At the same time, the problem of using the MP in Ukraine as a tool of hybrid war fare, as a source for propaganda of the “Russian world,” is quite systemicand real, as evidenced by hund reds of cases of accusations against the clergy and laity of the MP of collaboration with the aggressor, espionage, andsabotage activities in favor of Russia. And these facts exist not only in Ukraine, but also in other European countries.
Indeed, in a small percentage of cases, when a religious community, in accordance with the law and in compliance with the Tomos, wants to join the OCU by the voluntary decision of the over whelmingmajority of parishioners, a minority of supporters of the MP try in every way to create obstacles, including provoking physical violence. But such violence is the result of provocation by supporters of the MP and is certainly not a common or de liberatephenomenon.
It is interesting in this context that those behind the publication of “OT” do not explain at all how they plan to ensure the transition of communities from the jurisdiction of the MP to the “temporary Exarchate” they propose, so that there are no conflicts, for which they criticize the OCU. Do they believe that the veryname “temporary Exarchate” should make all supporters of the MP devoted to truth and peace – something that no one has yet been able to fully achieve?
3. Regarding the very idea of a “temporaryExarchate” as a supposed path to unity.
Why did this idea arise right now, and why are its supporters so concerned that “tomorrow will be toolate”? The answer is simple: because right now, thestate, in accordance with the law, has begun the legal process of revoking the registration of the structure headed by Metropolitan Onufriy. The previous surgein activity in Ukraine by the same forces took place in the summer of 2024, just when this law was to beadopted. At that time, all forces were mobilized toprevent its adoption. For this purpose, even Metropolitan Onufriy himself began to pretend that he was allegedly ready to discuss something with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, all this had been going on until the moment when the law was adopted. Immediately after that, all the aforementioned activity disappeared because the goal for which it had been carried out had not beenachieved
Now that the court is to begin hearing the state’slaw suit to deregister the Metropolitanate headed by Onufriy, activity has in creased again. For what purpose? For the sole purpose of saving the remnants of the MP in Ukraine from having to comply with the Tomos and unite with the OCU.
We would also like to recall the history of the Russian Archdiocese in Europe. It is well known that for a long time it received canonical support from the Ecumenical Patriarch, who protected it from persecution by two Russian church structures: the Moscow Patriarchate under the authority of the Kremlin and the monarchist emigrant ROCOR. But as soon as the need for protection disappeared, a signifi cant part of the Archdiocese did not comply with the decree of the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and directly returned to the subordination of the MP.
At present, there are bishops of the MP who collectively severed relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in autumn 2018, rejected the decision of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of October 2018, and ignored the invitation to the Unification Council and its resolutions, and who rejected the Tomos of autocephaly, would, for obvious mercantile reasons, be willing to accept the status of a “temporary Exarchate” in order to protect them selves from the law. But when and as soon as circumstances change, isn’t it obvious that those who still despise the Ecumenical Patriarchate and all of its decisions will very quickly return to the authority of the familiar Russian Church? And what will stop them from doing so? These are the same hierarchs who hadsigned the appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch in April 2018 regarding autocephaly, but then did not attend the Council (and perhaps they are even the same individuals).
Those who support the idea of a “temporaryExarchate” can not fail to understand that, in practice, its creation would mean the creation of a NEW religious association. That is, instead of the two currently registered jurisdictions – the autocephalous OCU and the Russian UOC (MP) – there would bethree. Is it logical to increase division when the goalis unity?
Also, the authors of the idea do not explain what will change in the status of the hierarchy and clergy of the OCU from the point of view of potential participants in the hypothetical “Exarchate.” Why do the bishopsand clergy of the MP not recognize the sacred rank of the clergy of the OCU now, but will recognize it after receiving a “temporary Exarchate”? After all, there will be no new acts over the clergy of the OCU – everything that needed to be done to normalize the seclergy has already been done by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
So if the hierarchs of the MP in Ukraine do not currently recognize the clergy of the OCU, what reason would they have to change their minds? If the only reason is a change in their own administrative subordination, then their current position is pure hypocrisy. Since if they are ready to recognize the clergy of the OCU tomorrow, when they them selves become clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, then they should recognize this clergy now – after all, it is recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
One more argument should be mentioned. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has actually been present in Kyiv since 2019 in a certain form, namely in the form of a Stavropegia headed by an Exarch. If we areto believe the initiators of the text on OT, there is a signifi cant demand with in the jurisdiction of the MP in Ukraine for the possibility of not being in the MP, but also not in the OCU. If such a demand really exists, where are those faithful to the MP who wantso much to be in the “temporary Exarchate”? Why ist here so much free space at all services in St. Andrew’s Church? According to the logic of the inspirers of the text on “OT,” this small but well-known historical church in the capital of Ukraine should not be able to accommodate all those who would leave the parishes of the MP in Kyiv to attend the services of the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The absence of such mass interest in a city with a population of over three million people already proves in practice that the demands for a “temporary Exarchate” are entirely virtual, invented by the imagination of those who are fundamentally dissatisfied with the existence of the OCU, as defined by the Council and the Tomos.
4. Regarding the right of eklektos (appeal) and the right for the Exarchate and stauropegia.
Yes, both the right of eklektos and the right for the Exarchate and stauropegia are mentioned in the Tomos and in the Statute of the OCU. However, all this in no way contradicts the basis of the Tomos, which is mentioned at the beginning: “so that the entire Orthodox Church, located with in the politically formed and completely independent state of Ukraine, together with the Holy Metropolitanates, Archdioceses, Dioceses, monasteries, parishes, and all church institutions with in them […] shall henceforth exist as canonically autocephalous, independent, and self-governing, having the First in church matters and recognizing each canonical Primate, who bears the title “His Beatitude, the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine.” In Ukraine, there is also the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchand the Patriarchal Stavropegia headed by him. But these institutions appeared with the support and consent of the Council of the OCU, for its support, and not in opposition to the Tomos and not as an alternative to the OCU. If, under the guise of a “temporary Exarchate,” a jurisdiction parallel to the OCU is created, especially if this is done without the canonical consent of the OCU, this will clearly violate both the Tomos and the very principle of autocephaly. In general, it will be something that goes beyond the canonical order, because it will mean that any hierarchs and clergy who, for their own subjective reasons, are dissatisfied with their own canonical hierarchy, can form a parallel structure. Such a precedent would not bring order toUkraine, but would certainly bring even more chaos to the already turbulent Orthodox world.
More over, in a case completely analogous to Ukraine, where a parallel hierarchical structure of the MP was formed with in the Patriarchate of Alexandria, no one proposed that the clergy and hierarchs of the MP who were “not ready to unite now” should form some kind of “temporary Exarchate.” On the contrary, the Ecumenical Patriarchate clearly, un equivocally, and categorical lycondemns the un lawful activities of the Moscow Patriarchate on the territory of the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
Similarly, in the case of the scandal at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai, where the brethren were divided in their attitude toward their archbishop-superior, as well as in the case of the former Metropolitan Tikhon of Cyprus, who was removed from office by the Synod of the Church of Cyprus fornumerous violations, no one thought of creating a “temporary Exarchate” for the dissatisfied. In these cases, the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Holy and Sacred Synod directly called on those who were inviolation to submit to church order and the decisionsof their autocephalous Churches.
As for the right of eklektos (appeal), even the text ofthe Tomos it self states that this right applies toappeals against court decisions. More over, the right of ekleto applies when the possibility of appealing court decisions with in the Local Church has been eliminated. It is applied in such a way that the Ecumenical Patriarch accepts into the clergy of the Archdiocese of Constantinople those clergymen in whose favor he has made a positive decision
Has any of the hierarchs and clergy of the MP who are located in the canonical territory of the OCU ever been convicted by an ecclesiastical court of the OCU, or has any of them appealed this decision and not received protection? There are no such cases. There fore, before applying the right of eclecticism, in accordance with the procedure, hierarchs and clergy who are in Ukraine and intend to continue serving inUkraine must appeal to the competent ecclesiastical authority of the OCU – to the Primate and the Holy Synod, and, in the appellate instance, if they are not satisfied with the decision of the Primate and the Synod, to the Council of Bishops, and in the cassation instance, to the Local Council. Only after exhausting all possibilities in Ukraine should such hierarchs and clergy turn to the Ecumenical Patriarch. They should not ignore the structure of the OCU established by the decision of the Unification Council and the Tomos and, rejecting them, immediately turn to the Ecumenical Patriarch. For it is hypocritical to arbitrarily reject some decisions andactions of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Synod (the Tomos), but to expect something else from them (contrary to the Tomos) that is personally beneficialto oneself.
5. Conclusion.
In general, the text on “OT” testifies to the fervent attempts of certain forces to cause at least some misunderstanding between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukraine. Those behind the text are very keen to prevent church unity in Ukraine. They also want to give a reason to actually review the Tomos of autocephaly and the very principle of autocephaly and canonical territories. With the sediscussions, even if they, like many previous similar projects, lead to nothing, the in itiators seek to influence the environment of Metropolitan Onufriy’s followers. They want to persuade them to continue, in the vain hope of a “different decision,” not to comply with the provisions of the Tomos of Autocephaly and not to unite with the OCU.
Until now, His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has made decisions regarding Ukraine wisely, cautiously, thought fully, in accordance with canonical norms, realizing the consequences and caring for the true welfare of the Church of Christ. We believe that this will continue to be this way. And may the Lord duly repay those deceit ful people who are behind the commissioned publications on OT.
