Photo from open sources
Yaroslav Fedorchuk, religious observer, exclusive to the website Ukrainian Orthodoxy.
Recently, strikingly similar comments have begun to appear across the Internet claiming that Ukraine is preparing, or intends, or desires to establish some sort of «jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate» as a home for those who still cling to Moscow’s yoke and are not ready to let go. The obvious trigger for these statements is that the draft law banning the activities of Russian (pseudo)religious centers in our country is scheduled for first consideration when the plenary sessions of the parliament resume.
Such comments were spread by seemingly very disparate sources: former MP from the Radical Party Mosiychuk, who positions himself as a supporter of the UOC-KP; former editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate and now Russian researcher in the United States Sergey Chapnin; and the website Religion in Ukraine, created under the patronage of the then-head of the Department of External Relations of the UOC-MP, Archimandrite Cyril Hovorun, during Gundyaev’s first visit in 2009 and recently reawakened from long dormition, as they say, still under the patronage of the same person, now in the status of «defrocked» by Gundyaev. This chorus was joined by the «UOJ» and other similar «sources».
But if you trace all these disparate sources, you will find a single common denominator – Moscow.
It has long been known about Mosiychuk that he is in the orbit of Fr Vadimiy, the «godfather» of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine. In the same subordination – «Union of Orthodox Journalists» (site of news presented in the spirit of Russian propaganda).. Although Chapnin has left Moscow, Moscow is only too slowly leaving him. And the patron of Religion in Ukraine remained a cleric of Moscow to the end, even after the fullscale invasion. So different tunes have been played, but it is not surprising that the music sounds the same.
The main idea behind most of the comments is that the adoption of the bill banning Russian control over religion in Ukraine allegedly encourages the structure headed by Metropolitan Onufriy to seek a new «canonical roof», and this roof is supposedly an «Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate», which is supposed to exist in parallel with the OCU. This is for those who cannot stay with Moscow but do not want to join the OCU.
Different authors write in different ways (some with hope, some with condemnation) that this is supposed to be a «way out of the impasse». But is this really the case?
In fact, this is a continuation of the same strategy of undermining the Tomos that Moscow and its allies have been pursuing since 2018. After all, canon law, which is directly quoted in the Tomos itself, defines there be only one jurisdiction on the territory of Ukraine – the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. By proclaiming the autocephaly of the OCU, the Ecumenical Patriarchate affirmed the independence of the new Church and that no one – including itself – can interfere by creating another jurisdiction.
That is why the stavropegial mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate headed by Exarch Bishop Mykhail is not «a parallel jurisdiction» or «an alternative center» (although a small circle of people would like it to be seen that way), but a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine. In diplomatic terms, this is an embassy, and Bishop Mykhail is an exarch, that is, an ambassador to Ukraine, not «exarch of Ukraine». It is possible that a common past of serving within the Moscow Patriarchate encourages the exarch to have friendly relations with supporters of the Moscow Patriarchate, but this probably stems more from his personal vision of his ministry than from the purpose of the institution he now heads.
Since the fullscale invasion, both Archimandrite Hovorun and some figures in the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine (who later became known as «signatories» because they distributed petitions signed by them to metropolitan Onufriy, which remained fruitless) have been doting on the idea that those from the Moscow Patriarchate who do not want to be under Moscow’s rule but also do not want to be in the OCU should enter under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch. For them, this idea is attractive (especially if we take into account the role that its originator hopes to play in such a hypothetical construction). But it is definitely designed to preserve and even deepen the church division in Ukraine (and by the hands of the Patriarch who granted the Tomos). It transforms the Tomos from a document of historical significance into a beautifully painted scroll of parchment – because what is written in it must be officially rejected as empty.
For the sake of «calming the delicate mental state» of the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine, who find it «difficult» to comply with the canonical norms and the regulations of the Tomos and find their place in the OCU as many of their brethren have already done, a new structure should appear. It would formally be a structure of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but in essence it would be the same as the Moscow Patriarchate, only without the obvious presence of toxic Moscow. It would be filled with those people who, for the most part, have faithfully worn Moscow’s yoke and who still reject the authority and decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate regarding Ukraine.
The hope of those who create these plans is clear: to prove both to themselves and to the world that the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine is acting correctly by adhering to the ROC, because only this would be «canonical». They suggest hypothetically that the Ecumenical Patriarch himself, by giving them the opportunity not to honour the Tomos, acknowledges their correctness and his «error». The project leaders also hope that they could then demand «a new foundation of the autocephalous UOC», demand «a new election of the Primate» and a new formation of structures in which the dreamers of this plan will take leading positions.
That is why two bishops of Ukrainian descent, who are connected to the Moscow Patriarchate in their past (and perhaps not only in their past), were involved in the promotion of this plan in Tsargorod. One is a graduate of the Lavra school, the other is a personal spiritual friend of Metropolitan Onufriy. In the past, both of them brought the structures they headed to a catastrophic state, but the dream to «lead Ukraine» is so attractive!
That is why they invent fables that they try to present in Tsargorod as something serious and potentially successful. They entice with talk of «uniting Orthodoxy in Ukraine», and they do not care that in doing so they would destroy the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, destroy the Tomos, and all during a terrible war from which the Ukrainian people are suffering.
Obviously, they and their partners in Ukraine, who see the OCU as a bone in their throats, have been spreading this rumour about a «new jurisdiction» like wildfire. But all this is just an empty and harmful project.
Has the movement of «signatories» among the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate produced any tangible results? Even the participants in these actions now say that everything has fizzled out into so much empty noise. The Phanar has not forgotten how many bishops of the UOC-MP signed letters to the Patriarch about autocephaly compared to how many showed up at the Unification Council: two out of the fifteen expected. So, the most these movements are capable of is making statements and putting signatures. When it comes to real matters, they dispeerse and hide.
Moreover, those who were truly concerned about the fate of the Church and about Ukraine either have already joined the OCU or are on their way into it. As to the rest, do they really represent a foundation on which the «unification of Ukrainian Orthodoxy» is possible?
Some voices, acknowledging the absurdity of such plans, suggest only to «try». They say that «practice itself will fix everything». By that logic, maybe we should first try passing a law eliminating the power of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine and adjust everything that needs to be corrected in the course of implementation of that law? This would certainly be more logical than the project «let’s divide what we have in order to unite it later if we can». Second, recent practice has shown that Moscow is capable of destroying even quite adequate plans. North Macedonia’s drifting towards the Russian Orthodox Church and the scandalous outcome of the Church election in Bulgaria are two clear examples. Does Ukraine need to become the third proof in this sad sequence?
Metropolitan Hilarion of Canada, whose return from a long tour of Europe has been, judging from the few publications about his ministry in the UOC of Canada entrusted to his care, hopelessly anticipated, came to Kyiv a month ago for a Prayer Breakfast. Taking advantage of the invitation, he decided to «talk about the future». However, the only publicly announced interlocutor of the hierarch was the ex-Medvedchuk deputy Kachura. Powerful support for a powerful project!
The Ukrainian state is not interested in taking the risk of destroying a predictable and stable situation against the background of Russian aggression and the struggle over the influence of the Moscow Patriarchate to please a really small group of dissatisfied people. That is why neither the State Service for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience, nor the government in general, nor the Office of the President of Ukraine have any plans to «register a new jurisdiction», and do not even consider the above plans to be a subject for consideration.
Metropolitan Hilarion was only one of hundreds of guests at the Prayer Breakfast, and has no declared authority to conduct negotiations (other than that reported by anonymous fantasists).
Rather, the actual official representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon, emphasized both at the meeting with the Prime Minister of Ukraine and at the meeting with the Primate of the OCU, «The Ecumenical Patriarchate fully supports and cooperates with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, all Orthodox hierarchs were invited by the Patriarch in 2018 to the Unification Council that formed the OCU, and those who did not attend now have only one canonical path: to unite with the OCU».
It should be noted that after his visit to Ukraine, Metropolitan Emmanuel went to Lithuania, where the process of establishing an Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate required a great deal of time and where every step was very cautious and balanced. And, this was all under conditions where there was no other canonically established Orthodox jurisdiction in Lithuania (because the Moscow Patriarchate has non-canonical power there), the state’s support for the establishment of the Exarchate was demonstrated at all stages, and this was unanimously desired by both the clergy and the faithful, who were not looking for any other alternatives for themselves. As such, if in the case of absolutely favourable factors in Lithuania the Ecumenical Patriarchate acted carefully, deliberately, and without haste, so only promoters, fantasists, or enemy propagandists can believe that in Ukraine the Patriarchate would act recklessly, against canonical order, its own decisions and interests, and against the Local Church and the state.
In conclusion, it is necessary to note: the wave of intrigues and lies, the attempts to disorient and cause confusion, will increase as the ROC’s power in Ukraine approaches collapse. Moscow involves all its agents (including those mothballed in other churches) along with their useful local helpers. But, as the Church in Ukraine successfully overcame the challenges of 2018-2019, it is all the more capable of overcoming this wave.
