The decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to appoint two bishops-exarchs to Kyiv, who will prepare the ground for granting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church the status of autocephaly (independence), puts an end to a long-standing dispute. There were hints before that Constantinople was leaning towards granting Kyiv independence – but in the heated discussions about the possibilities of autocephaly, it remained unclear how Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople would be able to justify his decision. It was impossible to predict the logic of his actions and decisions from Russia.

But the position of the Moscow Patriarchate has been known for a long time: autocephaly can only be granted to Ukraine by the Russian Orthodox Church (for example, with the common consent of other local Orthodox churches), since Ukraine is the canonical territory of the ROC. But there is an important “but”: since the canonical church within the ROC does not ask for autocephaly, the issue as such is not subject to discussion.

For a long time, it seemed that there could be no objections or alternative opinions. Therefore, the actions of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who personally flew to Patriarch Bartholomew in April 2018 and asked him for autocephaly, and the decision of the Verkhovna Rada to support this appeal in Moscow were perceived as gross interference by the state in purely church affairs.

How to divide one patriarchy between two patriarchs

Opinions / From the editors

However, Patriarch Bartholomew did not simply receive Poroshenko and listen to him – he made a public statement promising to “study” this issue. In the language of church politics, this can be interpreted as follows: I will study this issue and resolve it positively, Ukraine will receive the long-awaited autocephaly.

Constantinople's motives are clear: on the one hand, it is the desire to overcome the schism that arose 30 years ago and continues to this day, and on the other, to show everyone (and first of all the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kirill personally) who is the boss in the Orthodox world. It is difficult to say what is first and what is second here.

We still do not know the contents of the tomos, the official document on the proclamation of independence of the Ukrainian church. However, it is obvious that the arguments in it must be very convincing, since the Moscow Patriarchate has already made it clear that it categorically disagrees with it and is ready to challenge this decision.

First of all, the decisions of the Patriarch of Constantinople must strictly comply with the norms of church law: the decision must have firm canonical, not political, grounds. That is why Moscow thought that the Greeks were facing an impossible task. The ROC was absolutely sure that 300 years ago the Patriarch of Constantinople officially transferred to the Russian Church not only the powers of the highest church authority in relation to Kyiv, but also the entire territory of Ukraine, which made the appeal to the Greeks for autocephaly empty rhetoric of Ukrainian politicians in the eyes of Moscow.

In early September, a synaxis (council) of archbishops and metropolitans of the Patriarchate of Constantinople took place, where the arguments on which the decision on autocephaly would be based were directly voiced. Its two most important theses came as a complete surprise to the ROC: firstly, the territory of Ukraine has never belonged to the ROC – Moscow is interpreting historical documents incorrectly and, secondly, there is not a single canonical (legal) Orthodox church in Ukraine at the moment.

For the Moscow Patriarchate it was checkmate.

It must be acknowledged that these theses testify to the complete collapse of international church law. The world Orthodoxy has long been in an extremely unfavorable situation with canons and rules. Most of them were written more than a thousand years ago and are poorly understood today, and there is no clear code of church law that would correspond to the realities of the 21st century, and there will not be one in the near future, since its compilation and coordination is a job for many decades.

For decades, not a single church has seriously considered what consequences this might have. Naturally, the situation becomes explosive in times of crisis. But many thought that there would be no crisis. The life of the Orthodox churches is sleepy, slow... Where could serious conflicts come from?

But the history of the Orthodox Churches is long – two millennia. There are many smoldering conflicts, and they can smolder for centuries. It is difficult for a modern person to imagine such a time span. However, it was the “great time” factor that played a cruel joke on the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kirill.

What prevents the Russian Orthodox Church from recognizing the royal remains

Opinions / Analytics

The truth is that the Russian Orthodox Church is a young church, no matter what it says about its thousand-year history. The Russian Greek Catholic Orthodox Church was almost completely destroyed by Stalin, and its pitiful remnants were given a new life in 1942 under a new name – the Russian Orthodox Church.

The problem of Ukrainian autocephaly goes back to the beginning of the 20th century, and the problems related to the status of the Kyiv Metropolitanate go back even further – to the end of the 17th century. But if the Patriarch of Constantinople has maintained the continuity of its institutions for almost 1,500 years, then the Moscow Patriarchate, after the complete destruction of all church institutions in 1917 and the re-establishment of some of them in the mid-1940s, cannot even think in terms of centuries. As a result, when it was necessary to study and determine the status of the Kyiv Metropolitanate at the end of the 17th century, Moscow was unable to understand the contents of historical documents, but this did not prevent it from believing that Constantinople in 1686 gave it Ukraine in its entirety, with all its giblets.

The first unpleasant discovery for Moscow was that Constantinople thought differently: the Patriarchate of Constantinople never transferred the territory of Ukraine to the Russian Church. Due to the complex historical circumstances of the second half of the 17th century, it transferred to Moscow the right to ordain Kyiv metropolitans and to be an ecclesiastical judicial authority in relation to them. These rights were transferred to Moscow for an indefinite period, but not forever. In other words, the Patriarch of Constantinople could revoke his decision at any time.

And it looks like that time has come.

The second unpleasant moment for Moscow: the Kiev Metropolitan, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, violated the rule according to which he was obliged to commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople during the service. For the sake of truth, it must be said that this is not the fault of the current Metropolitan Onufriy. The Kyiv Metropolitans forgot about this rule long ago. However, from the point of view of church law, the refusal to commemorate the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople during the liturgy is a serious violation. So serious that the violator loses the canonical right to be the head of the metropolis and is subject to church court.

It was precisely as “non-canonical” that the Greeks defined the status of the current head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Onufriy.

But the other two non-canonical jurisdictions – the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church – generally recognize their non-canonical nature and have already expressed their readiness to join the autocephalous church that will be proclaimed by Patriarch Bartholomew.

The situation was expected to be resolved in October, but everything happened much faster. On Friday, September 7, a week after the meeting of Patriarch Bartholomew with Patriarch Kirill in Istanbul, the Patriarchate of Constantinople announced the appointment of two exarchs (plenipotentiary representatives) in the episcopal rank to Ukraine from among ethnic Ukrainians, citizens of the United States and Canada. Their tasks and powers have not yet been publicly formulated, but it is quite obvious that they will prepare the procedures necessary for the proclamation of autocephaly.

The Moscow Patriarchate responded immediately, describing this decision as an "invasion" of its canonical territory. On September 8, a harsh statement was published on behalf of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, in which Constantinople's actions were assessed as a gross violation of church canons and interference in the internal life and affairs of another local Church: "These actions lead to a dead end in relations between the Russian and Constantinople churches, creating a real threat to the unity of all world Orthodoxy." And on the air of "Russia 24," Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) directly stated that "the means of church diplomacy have been exhausted for now." Calls have already been made from Moscow to break off Eucharistic communion with Constantinople. This is an extreme measure in church conflicts, and since they are talking about it out loud, then, in all likelihood, the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church is preparing for the extreme aggravation of the conflict.

Such an outcome will have colossal consequences for Moscow, Constantinople, and Kyiv. But Moscow looks like the main loser here: autocephaly in Ukraine will be a personal defeat for Patriarch Kirill. His name and the history of his patriarchate will be associated with one single event – Moscow’s loss of Ukraine.

How the Russian Orthodox Church Lost Ukraine