On the Ukrainian issue, we appear to be approaching a solution, at least on the political and military level, with Ukraine emerging as the major loser. In war, however, there are losses on both sides. Diplomatic and ecclesiastical sources argue that any settlement will inevitably have consequences for the ecclesiastical question as well.
Seven years have passed since the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, yet little has changed since then.
Recognition has been granted only by the Orthodox Churches of Greece and Cyprus, as well as by the Patriarchate of Alexandria. It is well known that the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch have long been closely aligned with Moscow. The Slavic Churches of Serbia and Bulgaria do not appear willing to “betray” their relationship with Patriarch Kirill.
The stance of Archbishop Ioannis of Albania remains an enigma. Although he has shown no willingness to deviate from the position of his predecessor, Anastasios, who had publicly disagreed on multiple occasions with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on this issue.
As political efforts move toward ending the war under terms that seem unfavorable to Ukraine, it remains to be seen whether and how these developments will also affect the ecclesiastical landscape.
What doesn’t change
Autocephaly has been granted, and this decision will not be reversed. The Church under Epifaniy, with all its shortcomings and weaknesses, is here to stay. The central issue concerns the future of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onufriy, which, despite everything, remains a dominant force.
The Ukrainian government has passed legislation designating this Church as an instrument of Moscow. Given that the country is at war with Russia, allowing such an institution to continue operating appears illogical. So far, this position is understandable.
Metropolitan Onufriy, aside from presiding over Sunday services, rarely appears in public and even more rarely issues statements. Nevertheless, he has not renounced Patriarch Kirill, nor has he signaled any intention of severing ties with Moscow.
The situation becomes even more complex when it comes to the faithful. Despite the war, many see no issue in continuing to attend churches under Metropolitan Onufriy. These are the parishes they have always known, and they continue to attend them as before. For many, little seems to have changed, and they struggle to understand why it suddenly should.
Either the faithful under Epifaniy has failed to communicate its position effectively, or the faithful under Onufriy simply understands the dynamics far better. What appears increasingly certain, however, is that the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will be raised during the second phase of negotiations.
The Russian side has already brought the matter forward, speaking of “persecution” of the so called “canonical” Orthodox Church and invoking issues of religious freedom. As has been noted, they are well versed in this strategy.
The fundamental challenge now is how to preserve unity among the Orthodox faithful and prevent further division. The question remains whether the wounds within the global Orthodox family can heal, or whether this fracture will become permanent.
Melchizedek
*Republished from the newspaper “Orthodox Truth”
