By Hieromonk Nikitas from Pantokratoros Monastery
We recently came across a post concerning an appeal by Metropolitan Theodosius of Cherkasy to the Ecumenical Patriarch regarding the events taking place in his metropolis.
It is well known that Metropolitan Theodosius remains firmly attached to the chariot of the Russian Church.
It is also well known that he has not interrupted the commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscow, despite the “decision” of the Synod of his Church in May 2022 to sever all relations with the Russian Church. He is likewise one of the leading figures who vigorously resist every attempt that has been made toward dialogue and unity with the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine, instead promoting Moscow’s familiar “theology” of schismatics, non-ordination, and similar arguments.
At the beginning of his interview, he addressed Patriarch Bartholomew on behalf of his flock and stressed that his direct appeal was not insolent, since the Patriarch himself had given him the right to speak to him directly about the problems of Orthodoxy in Ukraine. But can he address Patriarch Kirill of Moscow in the same way? Perhaps it would be presumptuous to tell him about the suffering of his flock under the bombings and the death spread by Russian missiles in his diocese. These are the true and tragic conditions, not what the Metropolitan presents below about the seizure of one of his temples.
The Metropolitan expresses his disappointment at what he calls “the silence” of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew regarding the crimes he describes. Yet he seems to deliberately overlook the 5th article of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, held on October 9–11, 2018, when the granting of Autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine was decided. In that synodal decision, the Fathers explicitly: “make an appeal to all parties involved to refrain from occupying churches, monasteries, and other properties, as well as from all acts of violence and revenge, so that the peace and love of Christ may prevail.”
As the Metropolitan well knows, in Crimea, as well as in all territories of Ukraine occupied by the Russians, all those who were members of the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine were purged. Reports have even documented executions of priests belonging to the Autocephalous Church. Of course, he makes no reference to them. The Ecumenical Patriarch, however, with his proactive vision, urged and appealed from the very beginning to avoid such atrocities. Thus, there has been no “silence” from the Ecumenical Patriarch, despite what the Metropolitan claims. Anyone who chooses to obey the Mother Church is safeguarded from all evil, as history itself has repeatedly proved.
The Metropolitan then asserted that the United Nations had condemned the events in Cherkasy and called for an immediate investigation. Yet he makes no mention of the UN’s condemnation of Russian war crimes, deliberate killings, attacks on civilians, unlawful detention, torture, rape, forcible transfer, and the deportation of children to Russia. A clearly one-sided presentation of the facts, therefore, entirely aligned with Moscow’s narrative.
Then, in a comparison that is nothing short of absurd, he draws a parallel with the 20th century, claiming that a predecessor of the Ecumenical Patriarch collaborated with the Bolsheviks in the persecution of the Church. What is truly terrible is that he does not dare to draw the real parallel: between the demolition of churches by the Bolsheviks 100 years ago and the destruction of more than 380 Orthodox monuments and churches today, carried out under daily bombardments. In fact, the majority of these temples belonged to their own Church. Yet there has been no reference whatsoever from Patriarch Kirill of Moscow to the suffering of the Ukrainian people or to the destruction of the temples of his own flock.
Some bishops attempted to speak out against Patriarch Kirill after the destruction of their metropolitan churches, such as Agathangelos of Odessa, among others. They came to realize that for the Russians it is not Orthodoxy that comes first, but Russia itself. This reflects one of the central aspects of the ideology of the so-called “Russian World,” an ideology already condemned by the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
Finally, Metropolitan Theodosius calls on Patriarch Bartholomew to revoke the Tomos granted to the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine and to restore “canonical order,” thereby simply repeating the rhetoric and positions of the Russian Church on this issue.
These arguments have long been debunked, yet with stubborn persistence they are repeated from time to time in order to maintain discord within the Ukrainian Church. Briefly, we will note that the entire process of granting autocephaly was carried out precisely in accordance with the canons and the Holy Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, no matter how much Metropolitan Theodosius may disagree. The division did not arise through the fault of the Ecumenical Patriarch, but through the fault of the Church of Russia, which continues to support and perpetuate the schism. Patriarch Bartholomew, on the contrary, united the three factions that existed in Ukraine and repeatedly called on all dissidents to join in unity. If the one who invites to unity is not interested, then who is? Surely not the one who refuses the invitation.
However, the fact that matters are addressed in accordance with the canons and the ecclesiastical tradition is frightening for some individuals. For the Holy Tradition of the Church and its rules cannot be altered to serve the interests of a local Church. The Metropolitan states in his interview that the Churches in Ukraine will never be united. Yet, as is well known, the Metropolitan himself has played a role in ensuring this outcome.
Finally, he urges the Ecumenical Patriarch not to allow personal honor or the honor of the throne he holds to stand in the way of healing the suffering of millions of Orthodox Christians. Instead, the Metropolitan, who in his interview described Russia’s aggressive invasion of his homeland merely as a “political difference”, could at this point urge Patriarch Kirill of Moscow not to hesitate, and even to sacrifice his throne, to stop the war and to remove the obstacle to the healing of the suffering of millions of Ukrainian Orthodox Christians. This is precisely the same exhortation that the Ecumenical Patriarch himself addressed to Moscow a year and a half ago.
The Patriarch of Moscow, however, as one “having no ears to hear,” blesses the war and prays only for victory, not for peace. Yet the Moscow Patriarchate should be acting as a factor of peace, stability, and balance. In this way, the Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue could have been resolved smoothly, without the present inter-Orthodox conflicts.
Unless we all recognize that the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine exists under the blessing of the Mother Church, which has historically granted autocephaly to all the local Churches, and that this is now an accomplished fact, we will be unable to contribute to the unity of the Orthodox Church, a unity that we should all expect, work for, and earnestly desire.
