In search of legitimacy for Dumenko: Is the OCU facing big changes?
It is almost six years since Dumenko became the head of the OCU. Still, the question of Epifaniy's legitimacy as 'primate' of the OCU is more relevant today than ever.
We have already written that the Phanar is very dissatisfied with his method of managing the new 'church', which is focused on using a crowbar or a grinder for dialogue with the UOC. Additionally, according to our information, Serhiy Dumenko’s organisation has also lost trust in the eyes of the President’s Office.
Firstly, we remember that, according to Greek media, the Ukrainian leadership wrote complaints about Dumenko to Istanbul.
Secondly, according to our information, during a meeting before the adoption of Law 8371, most participants (MPs from various factions) expressed the view that relying on the OCU in church-state relations is not advisable. Everyone in the Ukrainian parliament understands that the OCU is exclusively a project of Poroshenko, who, in turn, is almost the only political competitor to Zelensky. It’s not hard to guess what follows from this.
Why, then, does Dumenko continue close cooperation with Poroshenko despite everything? The answer is money. There has already been information in the network that in 2020 Epifaniy's structure received $5 million from the former president of Ukraine to organize support during the local elections. These funds were supposed to be distributed among OCU eparchies, but, as we assume, it all happened like in that famous anecdote about Yanukovych – “they found who to hand it over”.
But the authorities have cooled towards Epifaniy not only for this reason. His overly aggressive rhetoric, as well as the overly aggressive actions of those who support him, give the authorities a clear understanding that he is incapable of uniting anyone.
Thus, in the President’s Office, Dumenko is perceived as a “downed pilot”, and the arrival of the Phanar delegation is proof of that. The Phanariots came not at the request of Epifaniy but against his will – and at the direct invitation from Bankova. We also know for certain that the main opponent of any Phanar-UOC negotiations has been the leadership of the OCU in the person of Zoria (he is the main one) and Dumenko. This 'obstacle' has already tired both Bankova and Patriarch Bartholomew.
It is also known that the UOC hierarchy will not agree to any “reconciliatory” decisions with the Phanar until the issue of the canonicity of OCU ordinations is resolved, not to mention church seizures.
It is precisely for this reason that we decided to write this article – not only to remind those who already knew that Epiphanius is illegitimate, but also to provide additional information to those who are now very interested in this issue.
So...
Filaret vs. Epifaniy
One of the central figures in "Ukrainian Orthodoxy", a person who has played a largely catastrophic role in it, is Filaret Denysenko. However, for all our patriots, he is precisely the man thanks to whom Ukraine gained "its own independent" church. Therefore, his opinion on the legitimacy of the man he himself made the Primate of the OCU is especially important to us.
To fully understand what Filaret dislikes, it is necessary to delve into the historical context of the entire situation, as well as the procedural violations during the "election" of Dumenko, which, for some reason, no one has yet properly addressed.
The roots of the problem lie in the so-called "Unification Council", which took place at St. Sophia's Cathedral of Kyiv on 15 December 2018. The "Council" was convened to unite the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC), and two bishops of the UOC into a "single autocephalous church" – the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU). The Council was convened by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, which became the main argument against Dumenko in Filaret's hands.
It should be noted that Denysenko, as a very experienced administrator, "sees the root of the matter" and speaks of the things that question the decisions of the "Unification Council". Filaret asserts that the "Council" was not truly Ukrainian but rather imposed by the Phanar. Thus, Filaret asserts that the 'council' was not genuinely Ukrainian but rather imposed by the Phanar. According to Orthodox tradition, as well as the statutes of the UOC-KP and UAOC, every Local Church, especially one that claims independence, must have autonomy in managing its affairs, including the convening of councils. The fact that the council was convened by Patriarch Bartholomew and not by one of the heads of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, in Denysenko's opinion, destroys both the legitimacy of the “council” itself and the independence of the OCU.
Moreover, Filaret notes that not only the convening but also the chairing of the “council” was in the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (specifically in the hands of Metropolitan Emmanuel of France), which, in his view, completely discredits the concept of Ukrainian autocephaly.
Denysenko reminded of several key points that do not align with either the Statute or the tradition of any autocephalous church:
- The invitation to the “council” was sent by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, not by Kyiv 'Patriarch' Filaret.
- The 'council' was chaired by the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, not by “Patriarch” Filaret of Kyiv (at that time, it should be noted, he was considered by the Phanar as a legitimate Metropolitan of Kyiv, and he was even offered to become the “Honorary Patriarch” of the OCU).
- Other hierarchs and clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate participated in the “council” as delegates, which is unacceptable at a Local Council of an autocephalous Church.
- The originals of the protocol and resolutions of the “council” held on 15 December 2018 are in the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, not in Kyiv.
- At the “council”, the Greek participants, represented by Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, proposed adopting the Statute of the OCU, but not in the Ukrainian version (i.e., the Statute of the UOC-Kyiv Patriarchate), but in the Greek version, which was written at the Phanar.
- According to the Statute, the Patriarch, together with the Holy Synod or the Council of Bishops, can convene a Local Council. No such decision was made.
- A Local Council includes not only bishops but also representatives of the clergy, monasteries, theological institutions and laity elected at eparchial meetings. No eparchial meetings were held.
- At a Local Council, governing bodies are elected, and the proceedings of the Council are documented. This so-called 'Local Council' in Warm Sophia did not approve the agenda, the programme or regulations of its sessions, no Secretariat or working bodies of the 'Council' (such as a counting commission) were formed, nor was the Presidium of the Council established.
- There are no registration protocols, records of proceedings, decisions or voting of the “Local Council”, which indicates the complete illegitimacy of this meeting.
The "election" (or rather its absence) of Epifaniy
The central point in attempting to understand how legitimate Dumenko (Epifaniy) is lies in the manner in which he was "elected" as the OCU head. Briefly, it should be recalled that Orthodox canonical law, which regulates the internal activities of any Orthodox Church, holds that the independent and autonomous election of the primate is one of the foundations of autocephaly. Traditionally, the head of a Local Orthodox Church is elected at the Local Council of that same Church, which includes not only bishops but also the clergy, monastics and representatives of the laity. This Council should represent the entire Church and ensure the transparency and legitimacy of the election of its primate.
However, the process that led to the "election" of Epifaniy did not follow this clear and well-defined rule. Moreover, it did not even conform to the OCU’s Statute, which explicitly outlines the procedure for electing the primate.
Thus, Paragraph X (points 8-10) says:
"8. Candidates for the Throne of the Kyiv Metropolis are selected from the ruling bishops of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
9. Three candidates are determined from those who receive the majority of votes during the secret ballot.
10. After this, the Local Council, presided by the locum tenens, elects the new Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine by secret ballot. The one who receives the majority of votes among the three is elected."
None of this was done in the case of Epifaniy. Essentially, he was simply appointed as the primate at the 'Unification Council' (which, as a reminder, was not a council of the OCU). Therefore, according to Filaret, since Epifaniy was not properly elected, his primacy is uncanonical and, consequently, unlawful.
Filaret’s arguments are reinforced by the fact that until July 2023, a “Local Council of the OCU” had not been held. This means that all the decisions of the “Unification Council’ were not ratified for five years, and the issue of legitimizing the primate was deliberately avoided. The only statement on this matter was made by the “Council of Bishops” of the OCU in May 2023, when “the council approved the work of the Primate, Metropolitan Epifaniy of Kyiv and All Ukraine, and the Kyiv Metropolis of the UOC (OCU), and expressed full support for him”. Essentially, this “approval” is the only basis for Dumenko's current “authority”. But, as you would agree, “approval” and election are two different things.
It is clear why Dumenko did not hold a 'Local Council' and carefully avoided the issue of elections throughout this time. Because, in any scenario and in competition with any rivals, he doesn’t stand a chance. At best, he could be the abbot of the Vydubychi Monastery. And even that is uncertain...
To consider the issues related to the lack of Dumenko’s “election” as trivial or not urgent is foolish. These issues could have profound consequences for the OCU. It should be remembered that in the Orthodox Church, legitimacy is deeply intertwined with adherence to canonical law and established procedures. When these are ignored or bypassed, it often leads to significant problems.
Furthermore, there is a legal aspect as well. The OCU operates within both canonical and regular legal (secular) frameworks, and any illegitimacy of its leadership could lead to... problems with church property, issues in relations with the state and officials, non-recognition of certain decisions, and so on. If Epifaniy is illegitimate (which could be proven in court), this fact can lead to very many things being challenged.
Conclusions
All these questions may seem complex or unnecessary to the average reader, but they are crucial for understanding the processes unfolding in the religious field of Ukraine. The lawlessness that we have been witnessing for a long time, state interference in the internal affairs of the Church, violence and aggression against believers – all this did not start today or yesterday. It began with the schism initiated by Filaret Denysenko and continued when Filaret's disciple Epifaniy Dumenko became the head of the artificial structure created by the Phanar.
In this sense, the question of his illegitimacy is of little interest to us because a bad tree does not bear good fruit. This means that Dumenko will remain illegitimate for us, even if all the “procedures” were followed. As Serbian Patriarch Porfirije said, he is a layman who put on a priest's robe. However, the question of his illegitimacy might be of great interest to secular people.
It turns out that monasteries, churches and church property are not being transferred into the hands of the legitimate head of the Church, but rather into the hands of a person who has no rightful claim.
Let’s suppose someone decides to challenge Dumenko’s legitimacy in court and appeals to state authorities, demanding an appropriate assessment of his leadership from the perspective of the OCU’s Statute, Ukrainian law and Church canons. The argument that the state does not interfere in church affairs or does not analyze internal Church documents does not apply here. The State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (DESS) and numerous experts study the Statute of the UOC, the state actively intervenes in the affairs of the UOC, and politicians like to speculate about the canons. So, in this context, it is quite possible that someone might actively take up the issue of the OCU. Unless they have already started doing so…
