Category Archives: Inter-Orthodox Relations

Open Appeal of the Priests of the UOC-MP to the Primates of Local Orthodox Churches

Image: iStock.com/vladstudioraw

After Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, the question of the further existence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate became critical. Patriarch Kirill did not condemn the aggression and did not call the aggressor by name. He did not express any condolences to the families of the dead Ukrainians. Most of the Ukrainian episcopate condemned the invasion, but it was at a complete loss and failed to take an active anti-war stance. The initiative fell to the hands of parish clergy, a situation unprecedented for the post-Soviet space. First, at the initiative of priests in 22 dioceses, it was decided to stop commemorating Patriarch Kirill during the liturgy. The next step was an appeal to the Primate of the UOC-MP, Metropolitan Onufry, calling for a Council of Bishops to withdraw from the jurisdiction of Patriarch Kirill.

However, the most striking and bold initiative was an appeal by Archpriest Andrii Pinchuk to the primates of the Local Orthodox Churches, demanding a church trial against Patriarch Kirill. He admitted that he had intended to collect about 100 signatures, but in five days he collected 437, with priests from the vast majority of the dioceses in Ukraine responding. The letter was also supported by a significant number of priests who did not dare to put their signatures for fear of being subjected to repression by their bishops, but in private conversations with Fr. Andrii admitted to fully supporting him.

By today, an appeal was already sent to the heads of the churches, including Patriarch Kirill himself. But so far, there has been no response to the letter.

It is hard to guess what will be the reaction of the addressees, but there is certain dissatisfaction with the overcautious position of most of the primates of the Orthodox Churches.

Sergey Chapnin


Full text of Fr. Andrii’s appeal:

Continue reading

The UOC-MP at the Crossroads

by Rev. Dr. Nicholas Denysenko | български | ქართული | ελληνικά | Română | Русский | Српски

Crossroads

Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has caught the attention of the public for multiple reasons. The humanitarian catastrophe, the sheer horror of ceaseless shelling, the shooting of protesters in the streets, the attacks on nuclear plants, the threats to assassinate President Zelensky and other leaders, and the war on democracy.

One of the underreported consequences of Russia’s attack is the betrayal, isolation, and devastation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP). UOC-MP clergy, faithful, and property are also under attack. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine surprised many, including Metropolitan Onufry, the primate of the UOC-MP. The tone of Metropolitan Onufry’s appeals to President Putin has been urgent, and his pleas continue to go unheeded. Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) repeated his appeal for the unity of the Russian Church, anchored in the indivisibility of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus as one people – a historical narrative he shares with Putin. In a rambling sermon on Cheesefare Sunday, Patriarch Kirill justified the invasion of Ukraine by complaining about gay parades and repeating Putin’s assertion that Ukraine has slaughtered the people of Donbas for eight years.

The ROC’s abandonment of the UOC-MP has led it to a crossroads. Bishops and clergy in Ukraine, witnessing to devastation and brutality, called for an immediate stoppage of commemorating Patriarch Kirill in the Liturgy. This act is essentially a form of protest, and not a break in communion, as long as Metropolitan Onufry continues to commemorate Kirill. The angry letter sent by Metropolitan Evlogy of Sumy did not escape the ROC’s notice, however. The ROC warned Metropolitan Evlogy that failing to commemorate the patriarch at Liturgy was a violation of the canons.

Continue reading

Schism as a Stance of Nonexistence
The Moscow Patriarchate and New Lines in Orthodoxy

by Heta Hurskainen | български | ქართული | ελληνικά | Română | Русский | Српски

Jerusalem / Church of the Holy Sepulchre

With its autonomous church in Ukraine, the Moscow Patriarchate could not accept the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s actions to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine (OCU) in 2018–2019. The Moscow Patriarchate severed its relationships with Constantinople and other primates who recognized the OCU and searched for ways to emphasize conciliarity within Orthodoxy while at the same time ignoring the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s position. The decision to establish the Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa at the turn of 2022 was a nonaccidental result of this development.

The Moscow Patriarchate had already cut ties with Constantinople in 2018 before the tomos was handed to the OCU in January 2019. By October 2018, the entire Constantinople Patriarchate was considered tainted. The Moscow Patriarchate referred to Constantinople as schismatic, stopped mentioning Patriarch Bartholomew’s name in the liturgy, and dissolved the eucharistic connection with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For the Moscow Patriarchate, finding a new way to cooperate within global Orthodoxy was essential.

Continue reading

Russia’s “Scramble for Africa” and Its Church
The Geopolitical Perspective

by Cyril Hovorun | български | ქართული | ελληνικά | Română | Русский | Српски

Map of Africa

On December 29, 2021, the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate decided to establish a Russian exarchate for the entire African continent. The exarchate is to consist of two dioceses: one for northern and one for southern Africa. The title of the bishop of the northern diocese would be “of Cairo and North Africa.”

Many saw this decision as a violation of the ancient rights of the Alexandrian patriarchate. As early as in 325, at the first ecumenical council in Nicaea, which adopted the universal Christian creed, a canon of the council stated: “The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome.” In other words, the Nicene council confirmed the territorial sovereignty of the Alexandrian church in the way similar to the territorial sovereignty of the church of Rome. Indeed, from the early centuries, the two churches followed the same pattern of the evolution of their administrative structures and prerogatives. Sometimes, the church of Alexandria set an example for its Roman peer. For example, the archbishops of Alexandria were called “popes” a century before the bishops of Rome adopted this title.

Continue reading