The status of the UOC today: what are Hovorun-like talkers talking about?
Archimandrite Cyril (Hovorun) gave an interview in which he voiced the Phanar's position on the situation in Ukraine. What does this position entail and what are its inaccuracies?
We will analyze Cyril Hovorun's views on the example of an interview conducted by monk Andronik, which is posted on the YouTube channel “Monk Andronik. Athos".
However, the ideas expressed in this interview are not new; Hovorun constantly recycles them in one form or another.
Moreover, many of his theses align with the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, of which he is currently a cleric. This means that these theses represent the views promoted by the Phanar in Ukraine and are the position it is trying to impose not only on Ukrainian religious leaders but also on the other Local Churches. In our view, Hovorun’s and the Phanar’s stance on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church at the moment seems to resonate with the position of the Office of the President of Ukraine.
So, let’s analyse it.
Where is the Gospel?
Before we consider the specifics of the theses presented, let's discuss the overall impression of the interview. Here we have two monks: one is a secular-looking intellectual, the other a prayerful man with a long, dignified beard. They engage in a conversation for an hour about church matters – very important church matters – yet they not only fail to mention key words like Christ, the Gospel, salvation, or spiritual struggle, but they also do not address these themes in any meaningful way. They do not speak of justice, mercy or love for God and neighbour.
There is none of that! Instead, we have a sophisticated examination of canons and historical events, awkward attempts to fit these into our contemporary context, to apply them to the fundamentally different conditions of the Church and justify the questionable actions of the Constantinople hierarchs through manipulations of canonical rules and historical precedents. Some might argue that the discussion was specifically about canonical issues, so what does Christ and love for neighbour have to do with it? But therein lies the issue: if we open the New Testament and read the apostolic letters, we see a completely different picture from what we observed in the interview.
The apostles in their epistles, and especially Paul in his letters to specific communities, addressed conflicts no less severe than those facing the Church in Ukraine today, and dealt with issues no less important and painful. Yet their discussions were permeated with love for God and neighbour, focusing on the salvation of souls, mercy, repentance and the pursuit of God. In the сonversation with Monk Andronik, we witnessed entirely different motivations: determining who should belong to whom, who should command and who should obey, who holds which status, and from whom that status depends, and so on.
What is worse, this approach is shared not only by Monk Andronik and Archimandrite Cyril but by many hierarchs, clergy, and church figures, who behave similarly. They debate over canonical territories, seek glory for their patriarchate (at best), or sometimes even for themselves personally, while forgetting the "more important matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23).
Who is responsible for what is happening in Ukraine?
If maintaining the prestige of the "Constantinopolitan Throne" requires lying, offending, depriving people of property or putting millions of believers in Ukraine at risk of ruthless radicals, such individuals will not hesitate to do so. Let’s recall what the Phanariots said when they intervened in the issue of church divisions in Ukraine in 2018. They claimed that they were deeply concerned that the schismatics from the UOC-KP and UAOC were outside the Church and decided to reunite them, while simultaneously bringing all Orthodox denominations in Ukraine under their jurisdiction, under the guise of restoring the Kyiv Metropolis of 1686.
But let’s address the question: were the supporters of the UOC-KP and UAOC being oppressed in Ukraine? Were they expelled from the churches they had rebuilt with their own efforts and resources? Was their church property confiscated? Were their priests and their families driven out of church homes? Were their parishioners beaten, threatened or intimidated? Were laws passed to ban their activities? Were they subjected to a media and social media smear campaign? And were they denied access to the true Church of Christ? Were they not awaited with open arms like the prodigal son in the Gospel parable? What then motivated the Phanariots? Was it not a desire to assert Constantinople's supremacy worldwide? Was it not a desire to show “who is the boss”? And did the traditional servility of the Constantinople hierarchs before the powerful of this world not play a role in their intervention in Ukraine?
The fact that the intervention of the Phanar has led to the suffering of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, as described above, seems to concern the Phanariots little. They are more interested in delving into canons to extract their prestige and exclusivity, justifying their actions based on historical precedents from entirely different conditions.
But as the apostle Paul wrote, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). Christianity is not a lifeless monument to itself, nor a static historical backdrop. Christianity is “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20), it is something that is alive and active today, not in a distant past.
Today, largely due to the Phanar, UOC believers are suffering real persecution, facing injustice, humiliation, expulsion, imprisonment, legal prohibitions and threats of violence. Instead of fulfilling the Lord’s commandments here and now, we are told: “Well, in such-and-such a century, it was like this…”
The Lord said: “...‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:30-31). But instead of fulfilling this towards the present-day people, we are told: “Just a moment, here is such-and-such a canon, such-and-such a rule, and such-and-such a precedent.”
Moreover, church canons and decisions are interpreted by people like Cyril Hovorun in ways that suit them, and anything that is inconvenient is simply ignored. Now, let’s move on to analysing Hovorun’s specific theses and demonstrate how they actually distort the meaning of church rules, turning the canons into a form of Phariseeism.
The UOC’s status: the first interpretation
One of the first questions in the interview was about the status of the UOC. Cyril Hovorun said that this status essentially doesn’t exist at all and explained that there are three interpretations of the UOC’s status. The first interpretation is that the UOC is an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Hovorun said that this is the interpretation held by the Russian Orthodox Church itself, some other local Churches, and personally by Patriarch Kirill and Putin. He also mentioned that "this interpretation is paradoxically shared by many in Ukraine as well" but Hovorun did not clarify who he meant by these "many". He could have said that this viewpoint is shared by the Ukrainian authorities, who persecute the UOC and ban its activities. Why not name Zelensky, Yelensky, Yermak? After all, this is the truth. It seems it’s acceptable to emphasize that Putin holds this view, but not that Zelensky does as well?
The UOC’s status: the second interpretation
Hovorun then said, "The second interpretation is that the UOC is an independent church, but independent in such a way that it is neither autonomous nor autocephalous."
In essence, he mocked this viewpoint, noting that it is shared by no one except the UOC itself, and that such cases simply haven’t occurred in history. However, firstly, there is no clear definition in church canons of what constitutes an autocephalous church, how it differs from an autonomous one, what rights they have, and so on.
In the history of the Church, there have been many instances where various church structures had an uncertain status. The concept of a local church wasn’t what it is now, and different patriarchates contested the status of various church structures.
For example, in the first millennium, there was a viewpoint that every church structure had to belong to one of the five patriarchates. Something similar to how now it's necessary to be part of a recognized local Church. But there were independent churches like the Cypriot and Georgian Churches, among others. Conversely, there were times when ancient Churches, such as the Jerusalem and Antiochian Churches, were just a few hierarchs living in Constantinople, completely dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine emperor, and later the Turkish sultan. But no one was troubled by this or claimed they had lost their autocephaly, although that was actually the case.
The UOC’s status: the third interpretation
Hovorun voiced what he considers to be the most accurate interpretation: "…there is a third interpretation, less known but, in my opinion, the most canonical." This is the interpretation where the Patriarchate of Constantinople transferred the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686 but then took it back in 2018. "…that letter (from 1696 – Editor) was revoked in October of 2018, thus the Kyiv Metropolis was restored," Hovorun stated as if it were a routine matter.
He was not at all bothered by the fact that more than 300 years had passed, that the size and state of the Kyiv Metropolis had drastically changed, that borders had shifted, etc. There is also a canon that forbids changing the canonical territory of dioceses if only 30 years (not 300, but 30) have passed. And the most troubling part is that Constantinople treated millions of UOC believers like serfs, without a right to their own opinion, as if they were lifeless objects that could simply be taken back.
Hovorun is also well aware that Moscow’s envoys convinced the patriarch and bishops in Istanbul to transfer the Kyiv Metropolis to Moscow not for free, but for a very specific material reward: 200 gold coins and 120 sable pelts. And if we are going to measure everything by historical documents and other formalities, then let the Phanar first return the 120 sables to Moscow and then proceed with revoking the 1686 document. More details about this can be found in the article "Will Constantinople Return 120 Sables?" For those interested in the details of the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis, we recommend the article " The very same Letter: Did Constantinople transfer the Church of Ukraine?"
How to receive schismatics into the Church?
Another point that leaves an unpleasant aftertaste is how easily Hovorun spoke about receiving the anathematized schismatics into communion. It seems like such an insignificant matter that it's not even worth making a big deal about it. And it turns out that once again, everything is in the hands of the Phanar: for more than twenty years, they did not recognize the grace of the sacraments, including the ordinations of the schismatics, which means they were without grace.
Then, in 2018, everything was retroactively recognized. One is expected to turn back time and let the grace of God return and bless everything. Is that it? Yet, most Orthodox hierarchs and theologians do not agree. To them, such manipulations seem to go beyond not only the Church canons but also common sense.
For example, here is what the Primate of the Albanian Church, Metropolitan Anastasios, wrote to Patriarch Bartholomew: “It is universally recognized in Orthodoxy as a fundamental ecclesiological principle that the ordinations of heretics and schismatics, especially those who have been deposed and excommunicated, as 'sacraments' performed by any Church, are invalid. This fundamental principle is inseparably connected with the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Spirit and forms the unshakable foundation of the apostolic succession of Orthodox bishops. We are convinced that it is unacceptable to disregard this principle.” But Hovorun, like other Phanariots, believes it is quite acceptable. As they say, if it’s forbidden but you really want to…
And so, having easily voiced the thesis that the Kiev Metropolis in 2018 returned under the omophorion of the Turkish subject Bartholomew (Archondonis) and that the graceless schismatics were turned into those with grace by the stroke of a pen, Hovorun said the following.
UOC ban and "self-determination"
He asserts that the Phanar gave all Ukrainian religious denominations the opportunity to self-determine and decide in what status they wish to continue their existance.
"And so, parts of this metropolis were given the right and opportunity to self-determine who they want to be. Do they want to remain within the Kyiv Metropolis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or do they want their own independent church? And in December 2018, part of this metropolis gathered at the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv and decided that we want to be an autocephalous church," said Hovorun.
In his opinion, the UOC-KP and the UAOC wanted to be independent, and this independence (autocephaly) was soon granted to them by the Phanar. However, the UOC did not seek independence and remained merely dioceses of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, according to the document cancelling the 1686 Letter. Moreover, the opinion of the UOC itself is irrelevant. Whether they want it or not, whether they are aware or not, they belong to the Phanar by Bartholomew’s will alone. And this obvious absurdity does not trouble theologian Cyril Hovorun in the slightest.
Hovorun’s stance on the recently adopted law by the Verkhovna Rada to ban the UOC appears even more cynical. He believes that, firstly, the law will not be enforced.
“In fact, I would say that its implementation is either impossible or it will be delayed for many years, because a community can appeal a court decision. The court must establish the community’s affiliation, and then the community can appeal this court decision, and the appeal can go all the way to the Supreme Court of Ukraine, and even beyond to the European Court of Human Rights."
The fact that Ukrainian radicals perceived this law as a "go-ahead" signal and began attacking UOC communities with double force even before the law came into effect does not concern Hovorun. Nor does the fact that, under this law, thousands of churches could be taken away from UOC communities without any court ruling – churches that were once handed over to them for use or rent, most of which were ruins and restored by believers. Hovorun speaks of this outright robbery calmly, as if it were some minor inconvenience.
Secondly, Hovorun dares to claim that the UOC is actually in a comfort zone, and the law banning it merely pushes them to leave this zone.
"The beneficial aspect (of the law banning the UOC – Ed.) is that it pushes the UOC, gets it out of its slumber, out of such a comfort zone, so that it begins to actually move toward real rapprochement with global Orthodoxy, primarily by restoring relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate," said Hovorun.
Is it the UOC that is in a comfort zone?! Let Hovorun say these words to the faces of beaten priests, children expelled from their homes or journalists sitting in detention for defending the UOC.
Does history repeat itself?
But this is not yet the bottom! Hovorun's next statement is truly shocking: "…The UOC has, in fact, ended up in a semi-sectarian state; it has no communion with a significant number of Orthodox Churches and has effectively cut itself off from global Orthodoxy. It finds itself in a kind of, so to say, canonical twilight zone."
The UOC has cut itself off from Orthodoxy and become a semi-sect?! What could be more cynical and false?! For standing firm in the faith, for refusing to bow to the powerful of this world, for preserving the purity of Orthodoxy, the UOC is being labelled a semi-sect? Will the honorable archimandrite of the Constantinople Patriarchate ever feel ashamed for this slander against the Church?
When Christ was crucified, the illiterate crowd shouted: "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" while the theologians and Pharisees very logically and convincingly built a theological foundation for that demand. The same thing is happening now: radicals are attacking Christian communities in Ukraine, those in power are passing laws to ban the Church, and intellectually sophisticated theologians like Hovorun are logically justifying the righteousness and inevitability of these events, constructing false but convenient excuses for this lawlessness.
Just as the Pharisees of Christ's time manipulated the crowd, providing "theological" justifications for the crucifixion of the Galilean, so now Hovorun, cloaked in religious arguments, explains to the people the "necessity" and inevitability of the destruction of the UOC.
And just as in Christ’s time, the persecution of the modern Church is justified by "correct" logic... But behind this logic lies the same desire – to break those who do not submit to the powerful of this world, for whom Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
