In an interview with orthodoxtimes.com, Fr. Stefan Igumnov, Secretary for Inter-Christian Relations of the Department for External Church Relations (DECR) of the Moscow Patriarchate and member of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, shared his views on key ecclesiastical issues shaping the Orthodox world today.
This interview stands out as one of the few granted by a representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to non-Russian media since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Fr. Stefan agreed to speak to orthodoxtimes.com under the condition that the questions focus solely on Church matters, avoiding topics related to politics or war.
From the outset, Fr. Stefan emphasized that “the door of the Moscow Patriarchate is open for dialogue”—whether with the Ecumenical Patriarchate or in the context of a pan-Orthodox meeting—in order to overcome the division within the Orthodox Church.
When discussing the situation in Ukraine, Fr. Stefan referred to the members of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) as “schismatics”. However, when asked on whether the main objection was the identity of the individuals or the very act of granting autocephaly to the Church in Ukraine, he declined to give a clear response.
He referred to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) as the “canonical” Church in Ukraine. Yet, he did not acknowledge the decision of the UOC’s Council in 2022 to declare independence from Moscow.
On the issue of the Moscow Patriarchate’s intrusion in Africa, on territories historically under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, Fr. Stefan defended the move by saying that Moscow “waited two years” before acting, in hopes that Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria would reconsider his recognition of the OCU.
When asked whether a similar strategy (like the intrusion and the creation of an Exarchate in Africa) might be followed in the cases of the Church of Greece and the Church of Cyprus—both of which have also recognized the OCU—Fr. Stefan responded by saying: “In the Orthodox Church, we do not operate with ifs or with examples.”
Throughout the conversation, Fr. Stefan reiterated the Moscow Patriarchate’s claim of strict adherence to the canons of the Church, stating that the Russian Church respects the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Diptychs, despite the current tensions.
He concluded by reaffirming the Church of Russia’s readiness for dialogue, saying: “The Russian Church was and remains open to dialogue to end this painful situation in Orthodoxy.”
Read the full interview of Fr. Stefan Igumnov with Efi Efthimiou, published on orthodoxtimes.com:
Q: If the Ecumenical Patriarch asks the Patriarch of Moscow to sit down at a table and discuss, will Patriarch Kirill respond?
A: First of all, I would like to speak about the current situation in the Orthodox world. It is a tragedy for all Christians, and especially for all our Orthodox brothers and sisters because what has happened is a division between us, and such a situation is never good. Russian Orthodox people are very concerned about it, and we—of course, the Moscow Patriarchate—are convinced that reconciliation is the only way forward.
Why did this situation arise? First of all, we must discuss the steps that the Russian Orthodox Church was forced to take after the illegal decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch to create a schism in Ukraine. The Russian Orthodox Church, like every Christian Church, strives to follow canonical law strictly. The Orthodox Church is governed by very strict canons.
This year we are celebrating the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. We have seven Ecumenical Councils, and our Orthodox Church is governed by their decisions. We also have very clear canons and synodal rulings regarding schismatics.
Q: If they are so clear, why do you think there is so much division? Is it a matter of interpreting the canons differently? Why isn’t there a common understanding?
A: It’s a combination of many issues. Let me finish the answer. We cannot be in communion with schismatics, nor with those who are in communion with them. The canons are very clear. That’s what happened, and that’s why the Russian Orthodox Church responded according to the rules, as the situation was both clear and very sensitive.
Q: So, in the Orthodox Church, is there no universally accepted definition of who is a schismatic? Because I assume that the Ecumenical Patriarch does not consider the Bishops of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine schismatics.
A: The canons and tradition of the Orthodox Church, and our ecclesiology as a whole, are very clear regarding who is a schismatic. First of all, one cannot call people who are not ordained “bishops.” And secondly, one cannot create a Church among a people who already have a Church, because this leads to division.
I will not go into the reasons why the Ecumenical Patriarchate holds a different view on this situation. However, the canons are clear on this matter, and we have followed them. That is why we responded to the situation the way we did.
At the same time, the Moscow Patriarchate has never claimed that the door is closed. We have never closed the door to “heal this situation.” From the very beginning, when we made our decision on how to respond, we solemnly stated—and have mentioned many times—that we are ready for a fraternal discussion with Constantinople on how to remedy this issue. Because this is a tragedy.
We have also made efforts to support any initiative aimed at healing this division. Remember the meeting, initiated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Some Churches participated, while others didn’t sent representatives.
The goal was to discuss where we currently stand in the Orthodox world.
Q: This meeting was organized by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. If Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew were to organize a similar meeting among the Primates, would you (ed. the Moscow Patriarchate) be willing to attend?
A: Unfortunately, we have never heard any statement from Patriarch Bartholomew indicating that he is ready or willing to resolve this situation—starting, of course, with any kind of Pan-Orthodox meeting involving all Hierarchs.
Q: If I remember correctly, in 2016 you did not attend the Holy and Great Council of Crete.
A: That was before the current situation emerged—it was a different matter. And it made sense at the time. Other Churches also did not participate. This is a separate issue; let us not confuse them. We had very clear reasons. We did not reject the Council in Crete. We emphasized that more thorough preparation was needed. We never stated that we oppose participating in a Pan-Orthodox Council. In fact, we were among the most active participants in the preparatory process for that Council.
Q: So your objection was that there wasn’t sufficient time to prepare?
A: Yes (…). The Moscow Patriarchate has never closed the door to dialogue—whether at the Pan-Orthodox level, in direct dialogue with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or regarding the ecclesiastical situation in Ukraine. The door was and remains open.
Unfortunately, the decision made by the Ecumenical Patriarchate led to persecution against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) in recent years. Some of our priests have been imprisoned, and our churches and our monasteries have been seized…
Q: When you say “our monasteries,” do you mean Russian monasteries?
A: I mean canonical. We have the canonical monasteries of the Orthodox Church, and then there are those belonging to the schismatics.
Q: You’ve mentioned the word “schismatics” again. May I ask—does your objection to what the Ecumenical Patriarch did with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) relate to the individuals who make up the new Church, or to the granting of autocephaly itself?
A: I would like to point out something very important: even now, canonical bishops are being imprisoned in Ukraine. Metropolitan Arseniy has been in prison for more than a year without justification. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is being persecuted in Ukraine.
Q: The Ukrainian Orthodox Church declared its independence from the Moscow Patriarchate three years ago.
A: How exactly did it do that? In what way?
Q: Through the decision of the UOC Council in May 2022.
A: But that’s not the issue we are discussing right now. I’m referring to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The UOC may have called for independency but, any way, from the beginning of 1990’s, UOC has full rights of autonomy and its connection with Moscow Patriarchate refers only to spiritual level. By all rules, the UOC has this autonomy. The only connection they have with the Moscow Patriarchate is spiritual, no other connection. But that’s a separate matter.
Q: One issue still remains.
A: So what? What do you expect me to say? The UOC remains the canonical Church in Ukraine.
Q: If the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine were made up of members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and not of those you call “schismatics,” would you accept it?
A: That’s not for me to answer. We have very strict canons, and we must look at what the canons prescribe. This is not a matter decided by individual Churches or according to someone’s will. Everything depends on the canons. In Ukraine, we have a canonical Orthodox Church—recognized by all…
Q: Which is associated with the Moscow Patriarchate. What I’m asking is whether your Patriarchate could accept the existence of an autocephalous Church in Ukraine, regardless of the individuals composing it.
A: Since there is already an Orthodox Church in Ukraine, the creation of another Orthodox Church causes division among the people—and that means schism. Secondly, the individuals (ed. of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine) were not canonically ordained. Moreover, the developments following this decision clearly show that it opened the door for the persecution of the canonical Church in Ukraine. Therefore, first and foremost, we must heal this condition. We must restore our brotherly relations.
Q: What actions has the Moscow Patriarchate taken to heal the situation in Ukraine? Because, if you recall, last summer the Ecumenical Patriarchate sent a delegation to Ukraine and met with all parties. What steps have you taken in this direction?
A: Look, this non-canonical ecclesiastical situation in Ukraine was created by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Therefore, he is the one who can take steps to correct the situation. The Russian Orthodox Church is ready for dialogue. The door has always been open—to discuss Ukraine and broader issues.
First of all, I’m referring to our relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which have been severed because of this decision. This is where healing must begin.
In my opinion, like in any conflict, reconciliation can only come through dialogue, only when people sit at the same table and speak. I see no other way, especially for the Churches. And, of course, such dialogue must take place on a canonical basis—because within our Church, we have no other way to resolve division.
Q: I notice that you frequently refer to the canons, which you say you respect and follow. So I must ask: was the Moscow Patriarchate’s action—creating an “Exarchate” in Africa—in accordance with the canons, given it was done in the territory of the Patriarchate of Alexandria?
A: Let me explain the position of our Church. As you know, we have always had a very good relationship with the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and a warm personal relationship with Patriarch Theodore. However, after the Patriarch accepted the decision to create a schism in Ukraine, and concelebrated with the heads of this schismatic organization, we began to receive letters from many African clergymen…
Q: You mean priests of the Patriarchate of Alexandria began addressing Moscow, sending letters and communicating with you because…
A: …because they were saddened and concerned.
Q: Because Patriarch Theodore recognized the Autocephalous Church in Ukraine?
A: Because they had studied the canons carefully and understood that, according to the canons, one cannot be in communion with schismatics. They were deeply troubled, unsure of what to do after their Patriarch entered into communion with schismatics.
I can tell you that for almost two years, the Moscow Patriarchate refrained from taking any action. But after it became clear that Patriarch Theodore was not going to change his position, and that he continued in communion with this “group” (…), around 100 clergy in Africa found themselves without jurisdiction. That is why the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church made the decision to receive them.
Q: Without even consulting Patriarch Theodore?
A: Patriarch Theodore made the decision to be in communion with schismatics. Consequently…
Q: I recall Metropolitan Anthony of Volokolamsk saying that the Moscow Patriarchate intervened in Africa because of the Ukrainian issue, and he used the word “betrayal”: “Patriarch Theodore betrayed us—this is why we did this.” So wasn’t this an act of retaliation, not about canon law?
A: The decision regarding Africa was a reaction to the anti-canonical actions of the Patriarch of Alexandria. More than 100 priests in Africa were no longer in communion with their Patriarch.
Q: I assume you’ve read or heard how Metropolitans in Africa—such as Metropolitan Gregory of Cameroon—describe the methods by which the Russian Church allegedly “buys” African priests.
A: The decision was made based on the canons.
Q: Did the African priests come directly to you, or did they first express their concerns to the Patriarch of Alexandria?
A: They discussed the matter with their Patriarch, and we also had discussions with the Alexandrian side. As I mentioned earlier, for two years we did not make any decision. Only after two years did the Moscow Patriarchate take care of these priests.
Q: In this case, we now have two more Churches—the Church of Greece and the Church of Cyprus—that have recognized the new Church in Ukraine. If you were to receive similar letters from Greek priests, would you intervene in Greece or Cyprus? Is this a strategic approach you plan to follow?
A: In the ecclesiastical context, we do not operate with “ifs” and “examples.” What are you trying to suggest? We cannot keep speaking in terms of “if this” or “if that.”
Q: I mean that there is now a precedent with Alexandria. If you were to receive many letters from Greek clergy, would you consider establishing an “Exarchate” within the Church of Greece?
A: We are people of the Church. We can speculate endlessly about “what could happen” or how to deepen the conflict—but that is not our way.
Q: But this is not a hypothetical scenario. It has already happened with the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
A: No, its different issue about Africa because of its missionary character, we all have responsibility about that. As people of the Church, we must first and foremost pray. It is neither useful nor right to dwell on worst-case scenarios. We must start from prayer, from peace, from reconciliation, from healing. We must think and pray in this direction. We can talk endlessly about negative outcomes, but the most important thing is how to heal this tragedy, how to overcome this division between brothers.
I prefer to speak about paths to reconciliation, about the canons of Orthodoxy, because the history of the Church has encountered many difficult situations in the past.
Q: Are you willing to take a step back and sit at the table to speak with Patriarch Bartholomew?
A: I am not the one who makes such decisions. But I can tell you that the Patriarch of Moscow has told this many times. If you recall, just before the crisis—before Patriarch Bartholomew made his decision—Patriarch Kirill visited Constantinople and discussed the matter very clearly.
Q: Many things have changed since that meeting. We are now in the midst of a war.
A: The intention of the Moscow Patriarchate and our official position is that the door remains open. This has never changed. The door was open then, it is still open now—open to a fraternal dialogue about how to heal this tragedy.
We’ve stated this many times and have made efforts in this direction. Of course, for such a discussion, we have a “mechanism,” a “special mechanism”. I am not the person responsible for it, but there are 2,000 years of experience in the Orthodox world in how to conduct such a dialogue—a fraternal dialogue, and that is the only way forward.
It must be done in an equal level among the Churches, with mutual recognition of their equal rights.
Q: So, do you not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch’s right to be the one who convenes such a meeting?
A: The Moscow Patriarchate, before this situation, never rejected the right or the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarch to convene such gatherings. We never reject it. We have never rejected the rights of other Primates to convene similar meetings either.
We have always respected the primacy of honor held by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Diptychs, more than anyone else—we have emphasized this many times in the past. Therefore, there is no issue: anyone in the Orthodox world can initiate a meeting—be it in Amman, Moscow, or elsewhere.
