EDITOR’S NOTE (Nick Stamatakis). During a joint Divine Liturgy at the Phanar on December 26, Patriarch Bartholomew commemorated the head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in the diptychs of the Constantinople Patriarchate, in the presence of Patriarch Daniel of Bulgaria. This commemoration did not involve OCU representatives or concelebration and does not signal any change in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s position, which continues to withhold recognition of the OCU and does not include it in its own diptychs.
=====================
Patriarch Bartholomew commemorates OCU head in the presence of BOC Patriarch
The name of the head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine was included in the diptychs during the joint service of the two Patriarchs at the Phanar.
On December 26, 2025, during a joint Divine Liturgy of the Constantinopolitan and Bulgarian Patriarchs, Patriarch Bartholomew commemorated the head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, Serhii Dumenko, in the presence of the Primate of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.
At the same time, representatives of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine did not take part in the joint service. The commemoration was carried out within the diptychs of the Constantinople Patriarchate and was not accompanied by concelebration with OCU “hierarchs”.
The very fact of commemoration does not signify any change in the official position of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church regarding the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Earlier, Patriarch Daniel repeatedly emphasized that the Bulgarian Church has not recognized the OCU and does not mention it in its own diptychs.
In December 2025, Patriarch Daniel stated that representatives of the OCU would not participate in joint services at the Phanar during his visit to the Ecumenical Patriarch. “The Bulgarian Orthodox Church has not recognized the OCU and does not mention it in the diptychs,” Patriarch Daniel stressed. According to him, this understanding had been reached in advance and taken into account during preparations for the visit.
Earlier, the UOJ reported that the Bulgarian Patriarch would make an official visit to the Phanar.
Communion with Constantinople is not the same thing as communion/recognition of the OCU. That’s the important message here. In the past two months, the patriarchs of Romania and Bulgaria have both concelebrated with Patriarch Bartholomew, yet neither of them recognize, nor are in communion with, the OCU.
This begs the question: why then is it necessary for Moscow to cease communion with Constantinople? Why then is it necessary for ROCOR to cease communion with Constantinople?
The only autocephalous Orthodox church that is currently not in communion with Constantinople is the Moscow Patriarchate.
BY MARKOS:
Technically, according to the strictest application of Canons, it is forbidden for anyone to be in Communion with someone who is already in Communion with Heretics (and Schismatics)…that’s the core reason why Moscow formally severed ties with the entire Synod of Constantinople, and that’s exactly why Moscow maintains a “bad” list of bishops from other Synods (Greece / Cyprus / Alexandria) who either concelebrate (aka “in Communion”) with Epiphanios and his following…
Indeed the Patriarchs of Romania and Bulgaria have visited Constantinople, knowing 100% that Bartholomew was going to commemorate Epiphanios in the diptychs. At the same time it is also true that they have not recognized Epiphanios, either. Perhaps they are “hiding” behind the other long-standing “tomos fine print” that a “Pan-Orthodox Synod” needs to decide the ultimate fate of the “tomos” granted to Epiphanios. Perhaps they have both been compromised in a way that someone with embarrassing information about them is applying “leverage” in order to get them to fly to Constantinople and “make it appear that there is no big deal about things”…however, such a scenario would be difficult to prove.
Also, it could be something as simple as the Patriarch of Bulgaria (who won the vote against another candidate that Constantinople was “pushing for”) wanted to exercise some “spiritual economy”, and show that he has no hard feelings for the Patriarchate that lobbied against him behind the scenes…
I remind everyone the statements by the Russian leadership (esp. Sergey Lavrov) that no peace deal will be signed unless it contains strict protections of religious freedom. This will be the good scenario for the OCU – which will be forced back to its “less than 10%” of the population. The bas scenario is based on the total defeat by Russia – which actually is very close as the Ukrainian front is close to collapsing. In this case get ready to accept Epiphanius in America and pay for his salary…
Fake Metropolitan Epiphanios of Disappearing Ukraine is as disgusting as fake Patriarch Bartholomew of Phanar. Neither have legitimacy or grace. The Devil take both of them
On this visit, Patriarch Daniel awarded Patriarch Bartholomew the highest honor of the Bulgarian Church, the St. John of Rila award, first class. He specifically gave this award because Patriarch Bartholomew had intervened to heal the schism of the Bulgarian Church in 1998 by calling a pan-Orthodox council. Regardless of that council, the Bulgarian schism that arose after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1990 still continued until 2015. Schisms can take time to heal, even with intervention.
For many years, ROCOR was considered schismatic by most of the autocephalous Orthodox churches. Yet some will point out that ROCOR always maintained communion with the Serbian Patriarchate, and this is correct. Those in ROCOR might even argue that being in communion with the Serbian Patriarchate was “proof” of their canonical status, and that it was actually everyone else that was in schism with ROCOR.
By this very same argument that ROCOR has made, the OCU’s communion with Constantinople, Alexandria, Greece, and Cyprus is held as “proof” of their canonical status, and it could be said that it is everyone else that is actually in schism with the OCU. Whereas ROCOR at times justified their canonical status by the one-legged stool of the Serbian Patriarchate, the OCU currently has the support of four autocephalous churches that commemorate the OCU as the canonical church of Ukraine.
So he gave him an award for one thing he did right 27 years ago…why now? Clearly, it’s an “olive branch”, but for what? What we know for sure is that Constantinople lobbied AGAINST Daniel during the elections for the Patrarchate a little over a year ago…we can’t ignore that history…Something is going on behind the scenes and behind closed doors…
As for the historical progression of ROCOR, why are you neglecting the fact that Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria were part of the Soviet block, and they had no option but to recognize Moscow? And by extension, do you think that anyone else wanted to anger the USSR by picking that particular fight, or even that the primates were not influenced by the politics of the time? You are totally ignoring these “details”, so your comparison is grossly misstated. As for the definition of a Schism, St. Basil was clear about it in his 188th letter, it is “mendable” situation, that is not of dogmatic nature. What is happening in the Ukraine is a bit worse than a “simple schism”…it’s actually a blend of “illegal congregation of deposed clerics” and “heretic uniates” when you really examine the details well…the term “schism” is actually a very “liberal” description of what Constantinople “accomplished” with this “tomos”…
You’re both delusional and entertaining, Joseph.
The award is for something that Barto did over 25 yrs ago–hardly a positive outlook over what he is doing now, since no one is recognizing his schismatic fake church. Please don’t confuse OCU with ROCOR. ROCOR came about out of need to save the Russian Church in US while OCU came about out of greed–it is completely useless and schismatic and is not saving the canonical church but is attempting to destroy it. OCU will never be part of the Orthodox canonical church and will never be accepted. It will always be schismatic until it will eventually disappear. You are the only one that does not want to accept the truth.
Constantinople trespassed on Russia’s canonical territory. That is why they broke communion. Ukraine is the canonical territory of the Russian Church.
The Ukrainian Church is being fiercely persecuted by a government in Kiev and a group of psychopaths dressed up like bishops and priests. There is no way the Russian Church coud have tolerated this.
The way out is for Constantinople to reverse everything it has done in Ukraine since 2018.
The Russian Church is doing all Orthodoxy a favor. If they tolerated any of Constantinople’s actions, the Phanar would move to take over over Churches. The Churches of Greece and Cyprus for example succumbed to the Phanar.
If the Russians are the only Church to break communion it may be because it is the only local Church not afraid of Constantinople.
Patriarch Daniel is just wasting his time.
Patriarch Daniel of Bulgaria went because his Synod required him to, not because he agrees with what Barto is doing. I have watched the Bulgarian Patriarch since his enthronement, and he is nothing but supportive of UOC and critical of the actions of Barto. He does not support the OCU but it is my believe that Barto has strong support by a few hierarchs within the Bulgarian Church Synod as he has tentacles spread in other far parts of the world. Patr. Daniil requested for OCU not to be present at the time of his visit and this request has been granted.
Perhaps Barto wants to appear that he has support with his schismatics by commemorating them and take pictures but Patr. Daniil has always been very clear. I am sure that there is a lot of pressure on both Patr. of Romania and Bulgaria but so far they are not bending. God bless them!
Needless to say, Barto was not happy when Patr. Daniil was elected. Barto was hoping for another patriarch to be elected, and he left Bulgaria in a hurry, not pleased at all! One of the very few problems that the new Bulgarian patriarch addressed was the schism in Ukraine and he announced that he was an UOC and Metr. Onuphry supported. This last meeting was for the show. He was invited by Barto and his Synod decided he should go. I believe the Bulgarian Patriarch is a strong pillar and an asset to the canonical OC and people should understand his position and the decision of his synod before judge things.
Thank you for your insightful post, very interesting. Sounds like Patriarch Daniel exercised economia in making the trip but did not let Black Bart use him to try to show fake support for the fake OCU. God bless his wisdom and faithfulness to the canonical UOC! AXIOS!
Michael,
It is not an easy time to be a patriarch with the schism boiling in Ukraine. THe people spoke on both occasions: In Romania someone yelled anathema to Barto and in Bulgaria, the patriarch was asked in writing by hundreds of his flock not to go visit Barto:
https://orthochristian.com/174817.html
I think those two patriarchs are trying their best not to widen the schism and perhaps heal it. But there was another article about the Bulgarian Synod’s decision for Patr. Daniil to go. Perhaps they think they may do some good if the dialog is kept open with Barto. THe absence of OCU was a precondition and request of the Bulgarian Patriarch visit. A lot more info here:
https://spzh.eu/en/zashhita-very/89936-what-really-happened-during-the-bulgarian-patriarchs-visit-to-phanar
Joseph Lipper, do you have proof for your statement that most autocephalous churches considered ROCOR schismatic? On the contrary, it was many in ROCOR who withdrew from concelebrating with many jurisdictions because of ecumenical issues, especially the lifting of the anathemas. Although, I don’t believe that ROCOR officially forbade concelebration. Except for the Moscow Patriarchate, I don’t believe any of the autocephalous churches considered ROCOR schismatic.
The Jerusalem Patriarchate always maintained communion with ROCOR during the Cold War.
Yes, I stand corrected, the Jerusalem Patriarchate also maintained communion with ROCOR during the Cold War. For example, you can read Elder Ephraim’s defense of ROCOR from 1991:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ephraim_roca.aspx
As Elder Ephraim points out, most of the autocephalous churches were strong-armed to not involve themselves with ROCOR, with the threat of Moscow breaking communion with them, an “either they or we” proposition. Primarily it was the Moscow Patriarchate that considered ROCOR to be schismatic, because ROCOR didn’t pledge loyalty to the Soviet State. Yet as ridiculous as that requirement of loyalty was, most of the autocephalous churches were content to align themselves with the Soviet viewpoint, choosing Moscow over ROCOR.
Today, this same strong-armed “either they or we” tactic is being used by Moscow with regards to the OCU. This is not to say that the OCU and ROCOR are in any way similar. The OCU has a much more complicated and irregular past. Yet we can see that any Orthodox bishop who concelebrates with the OCU is immediately removed from communion by the Russian Church, and it is ONLY the Russian Church that is doing this.
Yes, Joseph, as you said: “The OCU has a much more complicated and irregular past.” You sure did hit the nail on the head! The OCU is full of complications and irregularities…full of graceless schismatics, deposed clergymen, self-ordained laymen, Ukrainian agents, convicts, thugs, bandits, neo-Nazis, adventurers, etc., so you’re correct!
The sacrament and grace of reconciliation is powerful and can cover a multitude of complications and irregularities. ROCOR’s reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate was certainly beneficial, but now ROCOR finds itself in an irregular situation that may soon become highly complicated. ROCOR now has presence in at least 32 different countries outside of Russia, and as a cold war with Russia mounts, this increasingly irregular presence will undoubtedly come under increased scrutiny.
The beginnings of ROCOR actually takes place in Constantinople in December of 1920. Russian bishops fled to Constantinople and petitioned the Locum Tenens of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prusa, to organize as the “Temporary Higher Church Administration Abroad.” This was approved by Metropolitan Dorotheos as an administrative structure to exist under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, not outside of it.
What happened next is that this THCAA then fled to Serbia in 1921 and re-organized as the “Supreme Ecclessiastical Authority Abroad”, later known as ROCOR. This re-organization, from its very beginning, represents a break from the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. We may soon see this come full circle, as the increasingly complicated situation that ROCOR may find itself in can only be healed by reconciliation with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Joseph, as Barto is a problem creator and not a problem solver, the only solution will come from a pan-orthodox council which has been called for by many bishops but Barto pretends he is deaf. Barto is only serving himself. A creator of a violent schism that lasted for years during the war in Ukraine is heartless, and Barto will hardly ever have the respect and trust of anyone. Do not be fooled, both patriarchs are meeting with Barto in good faith AND TO PREVENT yet another schism. Since Barto was not only ineffective but the cause of what is happening in Ukraine, only a blind man will trust him to solve any other issues. He has done nothing to heal, but only to split the Church which in itself is a grave sin. Look it up! Schism is not the solution and is wanted by the devil, not God. He pretends he is the pope, infallible, when if fact he makes only mistake after mistake and nothing good.
“…the increasingly complicated situation that ROCOR may find itself in can only be healed by reconciliation with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”
And, there we have it, Joseph. I just knew that you would loop around to the EP…you always do. Just like a broken record. The center of the Joseph Lipper universe seems to be the EP for everything. Why? Are you some kind of paid spokesman for them? You are certainly entertaining.