By Archimandrite Athinagoras Soupourtzis*
The Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue remains one of the most contentious challenges in the contemporary Orthodox world, generating theological, canonical, and geopolitical tensions among the fourteen autocephalous Orthodox Churches. The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s decision to grant autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine in 2019 reignited the conflict between Constantinople and Moscow. The Moscow Patriarchate strongly contested the legitimacy and canonical validity of this decision—despite the fact that its own autocephaly and patriarchal status were historically granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As a result, the Moscow Patriarchate severed ecclesiastical communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
A comparison with the Estonian case—where a similar division emerged due to the coexistence of two parallel ecclesiastical jurisdictions—provides valuable analytical insights. The key question that arises is whether the Ukrainian ecclesiastical crisis follows the trajectory of the Estonian precedent or represents a unique, sui generis phenomenon.
The Background to the Two Ecclesiastical Issues
In 1996, the Ecumenical Patriarchate proceeded to the reconstitution of the Autonomous (Orthodox) Church of Estonia, provoking the strong reaction of the Moscow Patriarchate, which has had jurisdiction over the country since the period of Soviet rule. Moscow temporarily severed ecclesiastical communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, before a compromise was reached, with the temporary (until now) existence of two parallel ecclesiastical jurisdictions in Estonia.
The case of Ukraine is much more complex, as Professor Vlassis Feidas points out. The Church of Ukraine was historically part of the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate until 1686, when, under special circumstances, the Moscow Patriarchate received the right to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv. However, this concession did not constitute a complete transfer of canonical jurisdiction.
Canoncial Analysis – Parallel Lives (?)
The distinguished Professor Evangelos Venizelos emphasizes that the Ecumenical Patriarchate holds the canonical authority to rectify ecclesiastical anomalies and confer Autocephalous status, as it has done in previous instances, including the Churches of Greece, Albania, Czechia-Slovakia, and Russia. However, in the case of Ukraine, the Russian Church did not accept the decision, resulting in the creation of two parallel ecclesiastical structures: the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine, recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and several other Churches (including the Church of Greece), and the non-recognized by the Phanar “Ukrainian Orthodox Church” that remains under Moscow.
Similarly, Metropolitan Grigorios (Papathomas), Professor of Canon Law at the Theological School of the University of Athens, who has extensive expertise in matters concerning the Autonomous Church of Estonia, highlights that while a fragile compromise was eventually reached in the Estonian case, the Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue remains highly volatile and unresolved. Moscow regards Ukraine as an integral part of both its ecclesiastical heritage and its national identity, showing no willingness to accept any attempt at a canonical resolution of the issue.
Geopolitical Implications and Perspective
The main difference between the two cases lies in the fact that the Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue is inextricably linked to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The Church, as an institution, does not operate in a vacuum but is inevitably shaped by political and geopolitical dynamics. Russia, through its Church, seeks to preserve its influence in the Slavic world, effectively reducing the Local Church to an instrument of state policy. In contrast, the Ecumenical Patriarchate upholds its centuries-old canonical responsibility to regulate ecclesiastical matters, emphasizing canonical tradition while maintaining a delicate balance against shifting state interests.
Potential solutions could emerge either through broader recognition of the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine by the Local Orthodox Churches or through a transitional arrangement, such as the establishment of an Exarchate. This Exarchate could serve as an intermediary structure, allowing the hierarchs, clergy, and faithful of the so-called “Ukrainian Orthodox Church” to gradually integrate into the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine in a structured and orderly manner. However, a sudden and large-scale transition of clergy and hierarchs risks exacerbating tensions rather than resolving them. The Estonian precedent demonstrates that, while the coexistence of two ecclesiastical jurisdictions poses challenges, it can at least provide a temporary mechanism for mitigating the crisis.
Conclusion
The Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue remains the most pressing challenge for the Orthodox Church today on a pan-Orthodox level. While it shares certain similarities with the Estonian case, its fundamental nature and geopolitical implications set it apart. Leading experts affirm that the canonical order supports the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s actions, yet the political landscape complicates any immediate resolution. The future trajectory of the Church in its ecumenical role—and as a reflection of the eschatological vision—will largely depend on whether the Local Churches involved, with the Moscow Patriarchate as a central point of contention, can rise above nationalistic and geopolitical interests for the sake of unity and a shared witness in the modern world.
*Professor of Ecclesiastical and Canon Law, Relations between States and Orthodox Churches, Volyn Theological Academy, Ukraine- Lecturer of the Higher Ecclesiastical Academy of Athens
Translated into English by: Konstantinos Menyktas
