A diplomatic ultimatum? What was actually said to Epifaniy at the Phanar

Patriarch Bartholomew urged Metropolitan Onufriy toward “dialogue.” Photo: UOJ

On January 6, 2026, the feast of Theophany, an event took place at the Phanar that many might have regarded as routine – the concelebration of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, with the head of the OCU, Epifaniy Dumenko. Yet on that very day, within the walls of the Patriarchal Cathedral, Bartholomew delivered a speech which, beneath its carefully measured diplomatic language, concealed something far more serious than a festive greeting. It was a warning to Dumenko. Possibly the final one.

To understand the full depth of what was said, one must learn to read between the lines of Greek ecclesiastical diplomacy. When the Patriarch speaks of “radical measures” that should be avoided, he is not referring to abstractions – he means specific churches, specific beatings, specific seizures. When he urges state authorities “to refrain from interference in internal church affairs,” this is not a generic appeal to secular restraint – it is a direct reaction to what is happening in Ukraine here and now.

But we should begin with the most painful point in this address for the OCU.

The problem of ordinations: recognition through omission

According to Patriarch Bartholomew, “the so-called problem of the validity of the ordinations of those emerging from schisms is a pretext and a disguised excuse for refusing the hierocratic prerogative of the Archbishop of Constantinople, exhausted through sacrifices and labors.”

“The issue of restoring and supplying what is lacking, without any liturgical rite, for clerics emerging from schisms has historically been resolved sufficiently by the single grace that acts mysteriously within sacred concelebration, akin to a ‘mystically effective prayer’ (μυστικωτέρας εὐχῆς – Ed.),” Bartholomew stated, attempting to explain why Constantinople nevertheless does not resolve the question of the validity of priestly ordinations within the OCU.

By saying this, Patriarch Bartholomew appeals to the works of two Greek theologians – Bishop Vasilios of Smyrna (19th century) and Grigorios Frangakis (a contemporary) – who studied the question of schismatic ordinations. Their arguments, however, have not convinced the majority of Local Churches.

At the same time, this statement constitutes an implicit admission by the Phanar that the problem of ordinations does exist. Yet it also makes clear that Constantinople has no intention of resolving it.

It should be recalled that canon law provides a clear mechanism for receiving clerics who come out of schism. Church history likewise offers many examples where the grace of priesthood was supplied through special rites. Moreover, the Phanar itself re-ordained Ukrainian schismatics from the UAOC in the United States.

For example, in 1995, Konstantin (Bagan) and the schismatic structure he headed submitted a petition to the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate requesting reception under the omophorion of Patriarch Bartholomew. On March 12, 1995, the Synod of the Church of Constantinople granted the request. This was followed by the re-ordination of the hierarchs and clergy of the former UAOC “metropolia” in the United States – an act carried out without public attention. After that, Konstantin (Bagan) received the title of titular Metropolitan of Irinoupolis and was appointed head of an autonomous metropolia of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the United States.

Yet in addressing Dumenko, Patriarch Bartholomew proposes an entirely new approach – simply to “concelebrate together.” In other words, he effectively proposes to disregard canonical problems altogether. This is not a solution to the problem; it is an attempt to suppress it through silence.

It is also significant that Bartholomew has spoken about this almost openly for the first time. Previously, he carefully avoided the subject. Now, suddenly, he acknowledges: yes, the problem exists – but we will not resolve it. Why? Because any concrete solution – whether the canonical recognition of those ordinations as unquestionably valid, or the re-ordination of schismatics (which would in fact amount to a first ordination) – would generate new and even more serious problems.

If Constantinople were to declare those ordinations fully valid, it would create a precedent that other schismatics could invoke. If the ordinations of Denysenko, performed while he was under anathema, are valid, why should ours be invalid? This would create additional difficulties for the Phanar itself. In Greece alone, there are large numbers of clergy whom the Phanar and Greek hierarchs consider “Old Calendarist schismatics” and whose ordinations they do not recognize.

On the other hand, the re-ordination of OCU clergy would amount to an admission that for seven years this structure existed without canonically ordained priests.

Thus, Patriarch Bartholomew chooses a third path – a mystical fog of “grace in concelebration.” This approach is not only canonically unsound, but also deeply strange. By such logic, one could consider a person baptized simply because he happened to receive Communion. Or one could regard Communion as sufficient for the forgiveness of sins, rendering confession unnecessary. It is obvious that such a position is capable of producing genuine chaos within Orthodoxy.

“We were silent, but that did not mean agreement”

Another key phrase in Patriarch Bartholomew’s address sounds almost like a repudiation of his own policy of recent years: “If from our humble silence anyone formed the impression that we were guided by motives other than ecclesiastical in this matter, we ask forgiveness.”

This is an astonishing statement. For seven years Constantinople remained silent, observing what was happening in Ukraine. For seven years, representatives of the OCU seized churches, beat priests of the UOC, and, with the support of the state, forced believers of the canonical Church out of their temples. Throughout all this time, the Phanar said nothing. More than that – through the Tomos it legitimized precisely the OCU, providing it with a canonical foundation and a form of protection, which Dumenko’s clergy constantly invoke to justify their actions.

And suddenly the Patriarch declares: do not assume that our silence meant consent.

But if it did not mean consent, why was the voice of the Phanar not heard? Why did Constantinople not restrain Dumenko when he turned church life in Ukraine into a war aimed at eradication? Why was there not a single official statement from the Phanar condemning violence, state pressure, or the seizure of churches?

The answer is simple and deeply uncomfortable: the Phanar remained silent because that silence was convenient. While the OCU was gaining strength, while “transfers” of churches were being carried out with crowbars and angle grinders, while it appeared that the project of “Ukrainian autocephaly” was proceeding according to plan, Constantinople had no reason to intervene. Silence was a tactical choice.

Now, however, something has changed. Patriarch Bartholomew is forced to distance himself from methods that he had tacitly tolerated for seven years.

Dialogue – or the collapse of the coercive scenario?

“Seek ways of rapprochement with the bishops of the UOC through dialogue,” Bartholomew urges Epifaniy Dumenko. He also addresses the hierarchs of the UOC: “We call upon the venerable hierarchy of Metropolitan Onufriy remaining in Ukraine to reconsider its position. We call ourselves and one another to intensified prayer, above all for ecclesial peace.”

The words sound beautiful, even Christian. But what do they mean in practice?

First, they mean that the Phanar has recognized that the coercive scenario has failed. After seven years of extreme pressure, the UOC has not been broken. On the contrary, it has preserved its identity and its canonical status, while the plan to “transfer all Ukrainian Orthodoxy under Constantinople” has collapsed.

Second, this is an attempt to shift responsibility for reconciliation onto the victim of aggression. In effect, Bartholomew is saying to the UOC: enter into dialogue with those who are destroying you. But what kind of dialogue is possible when one side, with the help of state authorities, seizes hundreds of churches and beats believers, while the other side struggles simply for the right to exist?

In this context, Patriarch Bartholomew’s call for dialogue amounts to the legitimization of seizures. In essence, it becomes negotiations between a victor and a defeated party, where the latter is expected to capitulate under the guise of “reconciliation.”

Third – and most cynically – the call for dialogue creates an alibi for Constantinople itself. When the UOC (quite predictably) refuses dialogue under such conditions, the Phanar will be able to say: we offered peace, and they refused. Any refusal will then be used as proof of “intolerance,” “obedience to Moscow,” and similar accusations, providing further justification for intensified pressure.

“To the state – do not interfere”

Another significant thesis in Bartholomew’s address is the appeal: “We recommend that state authorities refrain from interference in internal church affairs.” The words sound correct. But where were they before?

Where were these words when Law No. 8371 was adopted, effectively banning the activity of the UOC? Where were they when the state carried out mass seizures of UOC churches and transferred them to the OCU? Where were they when law enforcement used tear gas against believers defending their shrines?

Today, state interference in church life in Ukraine has reached an unprecedented scale. This is no longer merely pressure; it is the use of a church schism as an instrument of state policy. And all of this has occurred with the silent approval of Constantinople.

Now, when persecution of the UOC has taken on the character of an outright religious purge, Patriarch Bartholomew suddenly asks the state “not to interfere.” But the obvious question remains: what if the state refuses? Too much has already been invested in the image of a “Moscow Church” for the launched mechanism of hostility to be stopped so easily.

Will Constantinople revoke the Tomos of the OCU? No. Will it reconsider its relationship with the politicians who initiated the persecutions and cease receiving them at the Phanar? Highly unlikely. Will it initiate church trials against OCU clerics who organized violence? Also no.

We have mentioned only ecclesiastical measures that Constantinople could apply to those who “interfere” in church affairs. Yet even these are not being employed. Therefore, the Patriarch’s words about non-interference remain an empty declaration.

Moreover, this appeal serves as an alibi for the future. When the persecutions end – as they inevitably will – and those responsible are held legally accountable, Patriarch Bartholomew will be able to say: I am not guilty; I asked them not to interfere; I opposed violence. At the same time, he took not a single concrete step to protect the persecuted, limiting himself to hollow diplomacy – which amounts to complicity through inaction.

Why Bartholomew spoke precisely now

To understand why the Patriarch of Constantinople has suddenly decided to distance himself publicly from the methods of the OCU, one must consider the broader context beyond the speech itself.

According to sources close to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Phanar has been dissatisfied with the behavior of Epifaniy Dumenko for quite a while. The violence displayed by OCU parishioners and clergy toward the UOC creates an extremely damaging image for Constantinople. Within the Phanar, there are ongoing discussions about the possible replacement of the head of the OCU, since he is considered unable to cope with the task assigned to him.

What task is meant? Clearly not the task of destroying the UOC at any cost. The task was different – to create a united autocephalous Church in Ukraine under the omophorion of Constantinople, an influential and respected institution. A Church that would attract the majority of believers not by force, but by authority. A Church that would become an example of “proper” autocephaly under the patronage of the Phanar.

Instead, the OCU has turned into an instrument for the forceful redistribution of church property. Instead of the Gospel, it relies on administrative leverage. Instead of drawing believers through preaching and genuine pastoral work, it takes churches away from them, often through violence. And all of this is happening in full view of the entire Orthodox world.

For Constantinople, this represents an unmistakable failure. Not merely the collapse of a single project, but a blow to the very idea of “Phanariot primacy.” Other Local Churches observe Ukraine and see where Constantinople’s intervention has led, what the Tomos has produced, and what methods are used by those whom it has blessed.

Naturally, all of this together creates a serious problem for the future.

If the Phanar does not distance itself from the methods of the OCU, it risks losing what remains of trust and respect among Local Churches that clearly see what is happening in Ukraine.

That is why, in our view, Patriarch Bartholomew chose Theophany of 2026 to state publicly – albeit in a characteristically Greek and diplomatically veiled manner – to Dumenko: you have gone too far.

For Epifaniy, the words of the head of the Ecumenical Patriarchate constitute an extremely harsh signal. For the first time in seven years, Patriarch Bartholomew publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the OCU. For the first time, he openly stated that “our silence did not mean agreement.”

Equally revealing is the Patriarch’s phrase: “We are confident that the experience you have gained will contribute to finding a way out and will demonstrate who truly seeks peace and who inclines toward undesirable intolerance and unrest.” These words clearly indicate that Dumenko’s actions will now be assessed – and if they continue in the same manner, the consequences may be entirely predictable.

For example, the “former OCU priest” Yaroslav Yasenets stated that after the brutal seizure of the UOC’s St Michael’s Cathedral in Cherkasy, Patriarch Bartholomew convened a Synod at which the possibility of revoking the Tomos was discussed. There is no doubt that Constantinople exercises full control over the structure it created. A Tomos can be granted – and it can also be withdrawn. Dumenko can be blessed – and he can also be removed. And even if today Patriarch Bartholomew promises not to revoke the Tomos, no one knows what tomorrow may bring.

For this reason, we believe that Epifaniy Dumenko now finds himself in a difficult position. On the one hand, he relies on the support of the Ukrainian state, which views the OCU as an instrument in the struggle against “Moscow influence.” On the other hand, his legitimacy depends entirely on Constantinople. If the Phanar decides that Dumenko has become a problem, it will find a way to resolve that problem. There is no shortage of precedents.

Thus, Patriarch Bartholomew’s address of January 6, 2026 is the first public warning to Serhiy Petrovych. And, perhaps, the last.

Read also