Phanar's Exarchate in Ukraine: What's behind the ban on the UOC
In our latest article, we discussed the dilemma faced by the Ukrainian authorities regarding the UOC.
On the one hand, they promised to pass bill 8371, which is expected by those who cast the UOC as an "enemy", a view that has been fostered over the past years. On the other hand, passing bill 8371 is fraught with sanctions for all who vote for it.
As a result, it appears that the authorities are deliberately delaying the process of banning the UOC. Many deputies hope it won't be necessary at all. Nevertheless, speakers on behalf of the authorities continue aggressive rhetoric against the Church.
The issue of banning the UOC remains relevant, and at any moment the current pause could turn into an active phase. When will this happen? When the arguments in favor of the ban outweigh the fear of sanctions. The question is who will put forward these arguments and how. It is quite possible that our lawmakers will receive an offer they can't refuse. What kind of offer could this be?
A ban in favor of the Exarchate
Unfortunately, some decisions by our politicians (and not only ours) can be detrimental to both themselves and the country. This happens when the threat of hypothetical future punishment is overshadowed by present political pressure. In this case, there is a force that can create problems for the Ukrainian authorities right now, not when sanctions are imposed against individual state agents. What is this force? It is those who need full control over the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Our editorial team has information that in August, Ukrainian MPs will still decide to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, despite extremely unfavorable political consequences. Our sources name the main initiator and lobbyist of this decision as the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
It is clear that any Phanar official (such as Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon or Archbishop Elpidophoros of America), no matter how high their status, cannot have significant influence on Ukrainian politics without external support. Who exactly supports the patriarchate is well known. Just as well known is the fact who stands to gain the most from the ban on the UOC – not hypothetically, as with the OCU, but in the literal sense. This refers to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which would gain new dioceses, churches, and monasteries currently under the UOC. How? By the method that has been actively exploited for centuries – through the Exarchate.
According to our information, the adoption of bill 8371 should initiate the establishment of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Exarchate in Ukraine. Currently, it exists almost nominally, but in the event of a UOC ban, its position could be significantly beefed up. And then, the most interesting part begins.
The problem with the OCU
The fact is that for the past few months, the Phanar has been contemplating how to deal with the situation that arose after granting the Tomos to Epifaniy Dumenko. While in 2018 the Ecumenical Patriarchate hoped that the recognition of the Ukrainian schismatics would proceed smoothly, like a "domino effect", by 2024 it became clear that this would not be the case. The main reasons are the lack of canonical ordination for Dumenko and the extremely aggressive behavior of his structure's representatives towards the canonical Church.
While the absence of canonical ordinations among the representatives of the former Kyiv Patriarchate is still somehow being justified by the Phanar, given that Filaret Denysenko, who ordained all his "bishops", was a canonical bishop of the ROC for a long time, it is impossible to explain the beating of believers, the seizure of churches, and the destruction of shrines belonging to the Church that was recognized by all as the only canonical Church in Ukraine until recently.
Moreover, it is extremely difficult for Phanar to explain to the representatives of other Local Churches the low level of religiosity among the OCU faithful and its empty churches.
As of today, it seems the Ecumenical Patriarchate has realized that it has brought into its fold people who have only slight relation to Christianity. The granting of the Tomos to the OCU did not bring the Phanar the dividends that Patriarch Bartholomew repeatedly spoke of, but it significantly undermined his authority in the Orthodox world. This is evidenced by the almost complete lack of communion between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other Local Orthodox Churches (except for Greece and Africa).
In other words, the Phanariotes created problems for themselves by rejecting a multimillion-member Church with a vast number of believers, priests, monks, bishops, monasteries, and churches, and by granting legitimate status to people far from Christianity. How to solve this problem?
Exarchate and Law 8371
This problem can be solved by convening a Pan-Orthodox Council and listening to the opinions of the majority of the Local Orthodox Churches, revoking the Tomos from the OCU, and only returning it after the repentance of all members of this structure. However, this would mean admitting their mistake, which the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not want to do. This is why, a few months ago, the idea of maximally expanding the Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine emerged.
Nominally, this Exarchate already exists: its head, Bishop Michael of Komana, is trying to establish connections with a certain part of the episcopate and clergy of the UOC. However, this process is sluggish, and we do not see much enthusiasm for uniting with the Exarchate from the hierarchs of our Church.
Therefore, Phanar came up with the idea of "nudging" the bishops of the UOC into the structure of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Exarchate in Ukraine. To achieve this, it is necessary to adopt bill 8371, according to which every church community and monastery that fails to prove the absence of canonical ties with the Moscow Patriarchate will be subject to prohibition and subsequent liquidation. In this situation, the Exarchate will be presented as an alternative to both the OCU and the ROC, as the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian bishops do not want to have anything to do with either: it is dangerous to be friends with one and unpleasant with the other.
According to the information we have, negotiations about the Exarchate with the bishops of the UOC have been ongoing for at least the last three months.
Solving the "OCU problem"
By creating a powerful Exarchate in Ukraine, Phanar solves two problems. First, it gains a multimillion-strong flock with monasteries, churches, and clergy raised in the spirit of love for Christ and the Gospel, which is very important for modern Phanariotes. Second, it effectively solves the "problem" of the OCU. Because if 90% of the bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the same percentage of parishes join the Exarchate of Phanar, then the OCU and Dumenko will very quickly disappear from the historical stage, turning into a marginal group that remains unrecognized by all other Churches.
In this case, as we mentioned above, the OCU finds itself in an extremely disadvantageous position. As part of the Constantinople Exarchate, representatives of the UOC will be able to freely pray in Jerusalem, on Mount Athos, and in any other place, which most of Dumenko's organization cannot do. This will lead to the healthy forces of the OCU gradually migrating to the Ukrainian Exarchate of the Phanar, and the OCU itself will turn into a small marginal group of "bishops" and "priests", reminiscent of the UAOC in the last years before the granting of the Tomos.
Phanariotes hope that this process of the UOC transitioning into the Exarchate will occur painlessly, without physical violence and church seizures, which would add bonus points to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, the question arises: how legitimate is the Phanar's decision?
Essentially, if this happens, we will witness another arbitrariness on the part of Constantinople towards Ukraine and our Church. This situation looks not only absurd but also extremely scandalous, as it can be described as nothing other than the theft of someone else's property.
On the other hand, from a historical perspective, the Phanar is not committing such actions for the first time, "finishing off the weak". Recall at least the recognition of the "Living Church" in the 1920s, when the Bolsheviks almost destroyed the ROC, or the creation of the Western European Exarchate of Russian Tradition Parishes in Europe, followed by its destruction. Such actions, from our point of view, are sinful and unacceptable. However, the Phanar approaches them differently, justifying its actions as being for the good of those it targets with the good.
In other words, Phanar believes that by creating an Exarchate, it gives Ukrainians an alternative, providing an opportunity not to join the OCU and not to remain in the ROC. Meanwhile, the opinion of the Ukrainian believers themselves on this matter is not asked. Negotiations are conducted by individual representatives of the UOC hierarchy, who are not particularly concerned with what the majority of believers think about this. What will come of this will become clear very soon. But it is entirely evident that our Church is going though difficult times, while Ukraine is facing new problems, when three religious organizations might simultaneously exist on its territory.
