EDITOR’S NOTE (Markos). When someone reads articles like the one below, the automatic question that arises is How does one choose between the words ‘incompetence, corruption, treason, irreverence, and even perhaps ‘deceit’ when trying to navigate the tangled mess of Schism that the Ukrainian ‘tomos’ produces. One would think that the “hierarchy of the Phanar” who flaunt their PhDs in “theology” actually cared to align their words, actions, and deeds with the basic and most simple liturgical prayer that even a child can understand:
===================
What sources from Phanar and Kyiv reveal to Orthodox Times about the situation in Ukraine
by Efi Efthimiou
Particularly revealing about the current state of the Orthodox community in Ukraine is information that has come to the attention of orthodoxtimes.com.
Based on conversations with well-informed sources familiar with developments in both the Phanar and Ukraine, orthodoxtimes.com finds that the situation within the Orthodox Church of Ukraine is far removed from what Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew envisioned when he granted the Tomos of Autocephaly more than six years ago.
“When the Patriarch granted Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), there were already three Orthodox ecclesiastical structures in the country.
Bartholomew did not grant Autocephaly to any of them individually. He invited all of them to unite in one new Church. Everyone was invited. Some came, some didn’t. Even those who did not come at that time are still invited to join the Autocephalous Church. This is what the Patriarch desires and what he expected,” the same sources told orthodoxtimes.com.
As these sources explain, the Ecumenical Patriarch offered Autocephaly as a gift to all Orthodox Ukrainians — not to individuals. “They need to work things out among themselves. Autocephaly was a gift to the country, not to certain persons.”
What is the situation in the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU)?
According to information obtained by orthodoxtimes.com, the current state of affairs in both the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) under Metropolitan Epifaniy and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) under Metropolitan Onufriy is considered “tragic.”
“Metropolitan Eustratius of Bila Tserkva is the one controlling the finances of the OCU. And what does he do? He pursues a policy that serves his own interests. There is neither mission nor theology. It is telling that although Russia has been at war with Ukraine for three years, one might expect all Orthodox Ukrainians to have rushed to the newly formed Church, especially given the UOC’s ties to Moscow. But that didn’t happen. In fact, some Romanian-speaking parishes in Ukraine would rather pay antimension to Patriarch Daniel of Romania and leave the UOC than join the Autocephalous Church under Metropolitan Epifaniy. This is very alarming,” added the same sources.
According to them, the lack of strong ecclesiastical figures in Ukraine has hindered any possibility for meaningful dialogue. “Metropolitan Eustratius is politically exploiting Autocephaly for his own benefit. The Ecumenical Patriarch is deeply displeased with the state of Orthodoxy, not only in Ukraine but more broadly,” they emphasized.
It is evident — according to these well-informed sources of orthodoxtimes.com — that the Ecumenical Patriarch did not conceal his dissatisfaction with Metropolitan Eustratius, even during their meeting in Rome for the enthronement of the new Pope. “He barely spoke to him — only a formal greeting — and the warmth of previous encounters was missing,” one source noted.
The problems surrounding the Ukrainian Church issue are multifaceted — and also highly personal. “Metropolitan Epifaniy is not a figure who inspires. If someone like Anastasios were to go to Ukraine, he would attract all Orthodox believers like a magnet. They would unite around him. Now, there’s a man who is not accepted — who cannot unify,” they told orthodoxtimes.com.
The Decisive Role of Metropolitan Anthony of Boryspol
However, the situation is no better on the other side — perhaps even worse. “They’re being accused of remaining under Russian influence. And in order to prove their loyalty to Ukraine, they’ve veered into ethnophyletism,” sources told orthodoxtimes.com.
Regarding Metropolitan Onufriy, the Phanar-based sources told orthodoxtimes.com that he is a spiritual man and a simple monk — but unfortunately lacks the charisma of a leader. “People see him as a spiritual father, a respected elder, but he has no vision. When your Church is under persecution and you are its shepherd, you must save it. You need a vision for the future. Onufriy lacks that,” they said.
“Still, he tries to keep the Church united and to make it independent from Russia, but he is struggling,” they added.
Within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, there is internal division. Well-informed sources report to orthodoxtimes.com that “there are extreme pro-Russian elements and ethno-nationalists. Metropolitan Onufriy is trying to balance between them.”
Metropolitan Anthony of Boryspol, meanwhile, “is doing everything in his power to prevent independence from the Moscow Patriarchate. He is deeply pro-Russian — to the extent that he hopes Putin will enter Kyiv — and has tremendous influence over Metropolitan Onufriy, doing everything he can to maintain ties with Moscow,” the sources told orthodoxtimes.com.
Yet the key figure behind the scenes of the UOC is Ukrainian businessman and oligarch (and former MP) Vadym Novynskyi. “He is Metropolitan Anthony’s spiritual child. The latter conducts all his business with Novynskyi’s help,” sources revealed to orthodoxtimes.com.
Who informs the Ecumenical Patriarch about Ukraine — And what he actually knows
Naturally, one must ask: how much — and what — does the Ecumenical Patriarch really know about what is happening in Ukraine?
According to a Phanar-based source who spoke to orthodoxtimes.com, Patriarch Bartholomew receives only partial information. “Whatever information reaches the Phanar is only what Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon wants and allows to be shared. He maintains a close relationship with Metropolitan Eustratius in Ukraine, and the two support each other’s positions for reasons of their own. Both are responsible for the current state of the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine. In the Phanar, everything related to Ukraine goes through Emmanuel. And anyone who dares speak out on this issue is sidelined. Emmanuel accuses them — and that’s the end of it.”
It’s also worth noting that Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon has the same reputation in Ukraine as well. According to sources in the country, when Elder Chalcedon visited, he was always accompanied by luxury vehicles and patrol police. Even the Ukrainian presidency was reportedly irritated, remarking that he was received “as if he were the Ecumenical Patriarch himself.”
Ukraine… Like Russia?
Sadly, as reported by orthodoxtimes.com sources in both the Phanar and Ukraine, the situation in Ukrainian Orthodoxy is chaotic. All Churches — regardless of jurisdiction or doctrine — have become ethno-nationalist, forsaking the Church’s true mission.
It is telling that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine under Metropolitan Epifaniy is now described as a “branch of the state.” “Unfortunately, it has assumed the role of a state church. They have not realized how dangerous this is — under current conditions, it could easily backfire,” sources said.
Speaking to orthodoxtimes.com, the same sources added: “The Church and the state must cooperate for the good of the people — that’s one thing. But simply doing what the state demands is something entirely different. And it’s exactly the same problem we see in Russia. The Moscow Patriarchate plays the game of state power, and everyone in the Russian Church has ended up doing whatever Putin says. There is no theological discourse or critique of state actions. Just constant praise. Is this truly the Church’s role?”
The same sources also noted the serious problem of a lack of qualified Church leaders in Ukraine. “In both Churches — Epifaniy’s and Onufriy’s — most clergy (with a few exceptions in the latter) lack proper theological education. They have not studied at theological faculties or universities abroad, only in local ecclesiastical schools. As a result, the overall academic level is very low,” they pointed out.
Even giving Patriarch Bartholomew the benefit of the doubt in his well intentioned deeds in Ukraine does not excuse is extreme blindness in the realities of what are actually occurring there.
There have been quite a few articles, with quotes from the patriarch himself if I recall, that show he is very well aware of what has been happening and how much of a disaster autocephaly has been.
So my question is: Why not fix it?
The majority of Orthodox Churches who refuse to recognize the validity of the OCU, including the UOC, have major, major problems with the validity of the originations of the OCU. The UOC has pointed this out numerous times. Other Churches have pointed this out numerous times.
There is 0% chance that Bartholomew is not aware of this and aware of these concerns. So, why not do anything about it.
You REALLY want to fix the Church situation in Ukraine; demand the validly ordaining of the OCU, and work out the situation with the UOC.
But, the war might actually work out the situation for them if Bartholomew refuses to do so.
The OCU bishops and priests refuse to be ordained. Even if they had agreed to be ordained they should not be ordained. These are genuinely bad people who do not live moral or holy lives.
I have seen enough videos on YouTube of Churches being seized and faithful and Clerics of the real Church being beaten and harassed that it has convinced me the OCU is a blasphemous caricature of the Church. Their “bishops” are evil and reject the authentic Church of Christ.
Such people have no business serving as priests. This thing called the OCU cannot be granted entry into the authentic Church. Patriarch Bartholomew and others who entered into communion with them have betrayed the Church.
The Russian Church also has “unbaptized” converts and “non-ordained” clergy according to the same principle of economia, and this dates back almost four hundred years ago. The core issue is really that the Russian Church will find any excuse to not give up jurisdiction in Ukraine.
Even if the OCU clergy had submitted to liturgical ordination by the EP, it still would not have been accepted by the Moscow Patriarchate, because you know, the MP broke communion with the EP. They would still be labeled as schismatic by the MP.
Joseph…did you say “jurisdiction”? Why are you applying a selective [Uniate] memory on this matter…?
Remember the two letters to Moscow from 1992 and 1998 written by, signed by, and sent by Bartholomew, acknowledging that Kiev and the entire Philaret fiasco was ENTIRELY Moscow’s jurisdiction? It was only a few weeks ago, in March that the scripts were published on this website…
https://www.helleniscope.com/2025/03/12/in-a-1992-letter-pat-bartholomew-recognized-ukraine-under-the-moscow-patriarchate/
Here’s what Bartholomew wrote and signed in 1992:
“….In response to the corresponding telegram and letter of Your greatly beloved and honorable Beatitude on the problem that has arisen in Your Holy Russian sister Church that led her Holy Synod, for reasons known to her, to the deposition of the until-recently leading member of her Synod, Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev, we desire to fraternally inform Your love, that our Holy Great Church of Christ, recognizing the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church’s exclusive competence on this issue, synodally accepts the decisions regarding the one in question, not desiring to bring any trouble to Your Church….”
Do you see the words “Metropolitan of Kiev” in the same sentence with the words “Russian Orthodox Church’s EXCLUSIVE competence on this issue”? Can you please re-examine these very clear words against your conflicting statement above?
Why is it that you keep “selling” this 2017-18 innovation propaganda when the EP himself for the first 27 years of his reign was clearly aligned on this matter in an opposite way (he flip-flopped suddenly) than what you are describing? Is it the old “say it enough times and eventually you’ll convince yourself it’s true” tactic? What ever happened to “let your Yes mean YES, and your No mean NO”? Doesn’t that part of the Gospel apply to Patriarchs in any way? What does it say about a Patriarch’s (and his Synod’s) character to say “YES” for 27 years, and one day to start saying “NO”, as if he never said “YES”, causing SCHISM? What’s the value of any man’s word when he goes back on it?
Give it up, dude…you are reminding us of those robotic “telemarketers” who we instruct to “take us off the list”, but they keep calling back anyway, trying to “sell” the same “marketing script”…
What an ECUMENIST insult! What need does clergy in the Ukraine and in Russia need with “foreign” education??? That’s Bart the Turk’s problem. He and his clergy have had too much foreign education! Bartholomew is just a Papist-wannabe Jesuit, and thus his Pope of the East ideas. Russia and the Ukraine have some of the best ORTHODOX theological academies in the world.
However, I think ALL Orthodox seminaries and theological academies should be attacked to a good monastery, as is ROCOR’s Holy Trinity Seminary attached to its Holy Trinity Monastery. There monastic AND married candidates for the priesthood get a good Orthodox education and participate in the daily services and spiritual life of the monastery! This produces a much higher quality of priests, than those produced by worldly seminaries and academies!
A Pan-Orthodox Council is badly needed to sort out not only the Ukrainian mess, but many other issues that need to be addressed such as the uncanonical issue of multiple jurisdictions in an area like the United States .It would be very helpful if someone who understands Church law and procedures could explain how such a council might be convened. Is it only the Ecumenical Patriarch who can call a Pan-Orthodox Council together? Thanks in advance.
A pan-Orthodox council is an impossibility. It was attempted in 2017 I believe and Moscow did not participate, along with other jurisdictions. Moscow will not concede the primacy to Konstantinople.
Did you ask “why” Moscow, Georgia, and Antioch didn’t participate in 2016?
For 60 years, committees were working hard across all Orthodox jurisdictions to agree on the topics that the “Great Synod” in the future would discuss. The agenda was sidelined by Bartholomew, who wanted to push a “new” agenda.
Furthermore, Constantinople wanted to “rig” the scene by restricting the number of bishops each Autocephalous Church could send, because otherwise Bartholomew knew that he wouldn’t have enough votes to pass what he wanted…(Note: the whole point of “Synods” is to allow all bishops to convene and figure out what is best for Orthodoxy…when there is no consensus, it is historically better for the Church NOT to push for unilateral resolutions that result in Schism…Bartholomew should have stuck with the original agreed-upon agenda that was the work of 60 years of Pan-Orthodox committees prior to 2016, instead of “playing Kindergarten games” to pass his agenda…stick to the agreed upon agenda, and it is NOT an “impossibility” as you claim)
And just those two reasons were enough for Moscow and Antioch (and others) to say they would not attend. Two years later Bart found opportunity to “take revenge” on Moscow for “messing up his costly dream” with the tomos of the Ukraine, and now we have a major Schism in Orthodoxy. Congratulations on preserving the “unity of the Faith”…
We’ll see what Bartholomew and those who supported him with all this nonsense will have to say when the moment for “καλην απολογιαν, την επι του φοβερου βηματος του Χριστου” comes for them…
Actually, it is not only the Ecumenical Patriarch. And to be technical and historically accurate about it, the first Ecumenical Council was ordered to convene by the Emperor Constantine, not the Patriarch, as were other Ecumenical Councils, too. However, absent of a Byzantine Emperor, in the event of Schism, any 2 of the “ancient” Patriarchates can also convene such a council. The way things are with Constantinople and Moscow, technically Antioch and Jerusalem can do that…I wouldn’t bank on Alexandria…nevertheless, it is likely things will become much worse before we see such a council…