UOC of Constantinople Patriarchate: What will the new project lead to?
The Ukrainian authorities believe they have resolved a complex issue: how to ban the UOC without falling under sanctions. But what could this option actually lead to?
Based on the latest news, Ukrainian authorities, together with the Phanariots have finally devised a plan to resolve the highly contentious religious situation in Ukraine. This plan was briefly described by Ukrainian politician and public figure Ihor Mosiychuk.
Bill 8371, which aims to ban the UOC, is expected to be passed. At the same time, a new structure under the name of the UOC of the Constantinople Patriarchate will be registered. To avoid confusion with the UOC-KP (Kyiv Patriarchate), which still exists and is headed by the Hero of Ukraine, the anathematized Filaret Denysenko, let's denote it by the abbreviation UOC-CP. Ukrainian law enforcers and radicals will push the eparchies, parishes, and monasteries of the banned UOC into this UOC-CP. It seems simple and ingenious – at first glance. But let's take a closer look and consider where all of this could lead to.
Do you remember Volodymyr Zelensky's parody during his time as an entertainer with the "Kvartal 95" about the "tomos" and the "thermos"? Back then, the "tomos/thermos" was keeping Petro Poroshenko warm. But today, history is repeating itself. The UOC-CP is the second attempt to keep the president warm. It's already evident to everyone that the OCU project has failed. Patriarch Bartholomew and the other Phanariots, the American establishment, the Local Churches, and the Ukrainian authorities all see that the OCU is not the group they would like to see in the family of Local Churches.
Mistake 1: Lack of valid ordinations in the OCU
According to the Phanar and Bankova Street (the Ukrainian Presidential Office), two major mistakes were made in the OCU project. First, the issue of the canonicity of ordinations was not resolved. Bartholomew had been warned about this back in 2018! But he didn't listen. He didn't just think he was smarter than everyone else; he believed that only what the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized could be considered canonical. Conversely, nothing can be considered canonical unless the Phanar acknowledges it.
Patriarch Bartholomew believed that all the other Local Churches, either voluntarily or under diplomatic pressure from the U.S., would accept that he, as the Ecumenical Patriarch, is the ultimate arbiter of canonicity. But that didn’t happen.
Neither the demands from the Phanar nor entreaties from American diplomats were enough to legitimise the obvious absurdity: how could the graceless “ordinations” performed by the anathematized Filaret Denysenko retroactively become valid simply because a piece of paper was signed in the Phanar?
As a result, in six and a half years, the OCU has been conditionally recognised by only three Greek Churches – the Churches of Greece, Cyprus, and Alexandria – each of which is itself dependent on the Constantinople Patriarchate. As of today, there are hardly any prospects for further recognition.
Mistake 2: Personnel Matter
The second mistake was related to personnel. The creators of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) convinced themselves that the supporters of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), from which the OCU was formed, were devout and pious believers, similar to those found in other Local Churches.
While such people might exist within the OCU, they are clearly not the dominant force. Instead, the tone is set by a different type of individual: those who break down church doors with sledgehammers, cut locks with grinders, beat UOC believers and priests and seize entire monasteries, as happened in Cherkasy, among other places.
Even in the most obvious cases, where the cruelty and malice of the attackers on the UOC were shocking, neither the head of the OCU, Serhiy Dumenko, nor his Synod, nor any other official representatives voiced their disagreement with these outrages.
Crimes were committed in the name of the OCU, yet the OCU itself did not have the courage to distance itself from these acts, which means it aligned itself with them. The image of the OCU as a "Church of a sledgehammer and a grinder" has become firmly established both within Ukraine and abroad.
If in 2018, the argument "Join the OCU, they are good people" might have made an impression on someone, today everyone understands: people who believe in Christ cannot commit such lawlessness, and a true Church cannot be behind these pogroms and seizures. As a result, no one wants to join it anymore.
In launching the UOC-CP project, the Phanar and Bankova believe they have addressed these two mistakes. The UOC-CP will include only canonically ordained bishops, and its supporters will no longer engage in hooliganism or seize other people's temples. Essentially, the UOC-CP is expected to be today's UOC, but with canonical submission to Constantinople.
Mistake 3: Deciding the fate of the UOC without the UOC Itself
However, the issue is that three mistakes, not just two, were made during the OCU creation. And it seems that no one has learnt from the third mistake. This mistake is as follows:
The current leaders of Ukraine, both on the international stage and within the country, repeatedly emphasise a categorical imperative: "Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine itself." In other words, no external forces – whether the U.S., the European Union or anyone else – can decide Ukraine's fate without involving Ukraine in the negotiations. But this is exactly what the Ukrainian authorities (and not only them) are attempting to do with regard to the UOC.
Let's recall how Patriarch Bartholomew imperiously commanded the UOC to self-liquidate and recognise the authority of the Phanar. Let's remember how Petro Poroshenko tried to dictate the fate of the UOC as if it were one of his own assets like "Roshen". But the UOC is made up of the servants of God, not the serfs of the Phanar, the Presidential Office or the U.S. State Department.
You cannot simply order millions of believers to stop attending one Church and start attending another. And yet, this mistake is not being acknowledged or addressed.
On the contrary, with the UOC-CP project, they are repeating it, stepping on the same rake. No one is consulting with the UOC about anything.
So, what could be the outcome if the authorities decide to launch this project?
Who will join the Phanar Exarchate?
For many bishops, monasteries and parishes, the option of joining the UOC-CP might seem like an acceptable compromise. Yes, the UOC has officially ceased Eucharistic communion with the Constantinople Patriarchate. Yes, the Phanariots conduct services with people excommunicated from the Church. Yes, for this reason, the UOC clergy do not co-serve with the Phanariots.
However, despite this, there is no doubt that the bishops of the Constantinople Patriarchate have apostolic succession. No one claims that the sacraments performed by the Phanariots are invalid, nor does anyone say that their Eucharist is false or deficient.
Therefore, it is quite possible that some portion of the UOC might agree that joining the UOC-CP is permissible, especially if the alternative is criminal prosecution by the SBU and/or physical violence from radicals.
But the issue is that this will only be a part of the UOC. After the UOC is banned and the UOC-CP project is launched, the previously unified UOC will begin to split into parts. The UOC will never fully enter this project simply because different eparchies in various parts of Ukraine have historically leaned toward other Local Churches.
Many are so outraged by Patriarch Bartholomew's policies, not just on the Ukrainian question, that they will not join the UOC-CP under any circumstances.
Bukovyna will almost certainly want to join the Romanian Church, which has already made relevant decisions. Transcarpathia will partially come under the omophorion of the Serbian Church and partially Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. Volyn and Galicia might end up under the jurisdiction of the Polish Church. Some might wish to join the Bulgarian or another Church. And this is not to mention the parishes in the temporarily occupied territories, which are already unlikely to ever reunite with the UOC, even theoretically.
The Exarchate as a factor of division rather than unity
Thus, instead of a unified UOC, we will end up with multiple church jurisdictions, each roughly corresponding to territorial divisions. This religious fragmentation could become a trigger for disintegration at the state level as well.
It’s no secret that contradictions are accumulating between different regions of Ukraine in various non-religious spheres. These include language, mentality, decommunization, the renaming of everything, the division between those who served at the front and those who dodged service, between those who profited and those who lost everything, between the wounded and the healthy, the deceased and the survivors, the risk of default, economic crises, and so on. When religious division is added to these contradictions, the potential for state collapse could become inevitable.
Although it contradicts the teachings of the Gospel, church history shows that the disintegration or unification of states often correlates with similar processes within the Church.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has recently been increasingly vocal about the need to end the war as soon as possible. It’s evident that it won’t be possible to liberate all the occupied territories. Even if Zelensky uses all his rhetorical skills to present such a peace as a victory, and even if there is some truth to that, a significant part of Ukrainian society will still perceive it as a defeat. Consequently, dissatisfaction, resentment and other negative sentiments will be redirected from the front to within the country, exacerbating the contradictions mentioned above.
Adding the church division to all this would dramatically increase the risk of Ukraine’s disintegration as a state. Do those behind the UOC-CP project realise this? Is this a case of political foolishness and irresponsibility, or is it a deliberate strategy? These questions remain open.
Moral consequences of merging with the Phanar
The negative consequences of merging with the Phanar may extend beyond the political sphere into the religious domain as well. If the UOC-CP project is even partially implemented, it would mean that Phanar would gain direct influence over the eparchies of the UOC-CP and its personnel policies. The Phanar would be able to appoint bishops who align with its agenda to key positions and remove those who disagree with its policies.
As is well known, the Phanar is currently pursuing a liberal agenda, including moves toward unity with the Vatican, gestures toward the LGBT community and other similar initiatives. The UOC-CP would therefore be expected to participate in these endeavors.
Are those who consider the UOC-CP project acceptable prepared for this? Are they ready to endure "co-servicing" with Catholics or public baptisms of individuals from the LGBT community?
Conclusions
A unified UOC is a key factor in both preserving the integrity of Ukraine and maintaining the purity of Orthodoxy. No matter how much we are persuaded to support the UOC-CP project or threatened with persecution, we must do everything possible to remain a unified UOC.
Yes, we may be banned. Yes, attempts may be made to destroy us. But the Church cannot be destroyed! Where are all the persecutors of the past? And where is the Church of Christ?
"Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the Lord our God. They have bowed down and fallen, but we have risen and stand upright" (Psalm 19:8-9).
