Pentarchy: Why the Phanar meeting could become a talk about Ukraine

Will the Ukrainian question be considered at the pentarchy meeting? Photo: UOJ

On September 4 in Budapest, speaking before participants of the Congress of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches, Patriarch Bartholomew announced that he had sent the Primates of the Alexandrian, Antiochian, and Jerusalem Churches an invitation to meet at the Phanar on the feast day of the Apostle Andrew the First-Called. The stated goal is broad and lofty: the four "remaining ancient apostolic sees" are to "conciliarly reflect on the challenges facing the people of God today in a rapidly changing world." In the same speech, the Patriarch spoke at length about the pentarchy – the ancient system of five principal sees of the Christian world, a "five-stringed lyre" that performed conciliar functions in the first millennium.

However, today this "five-stringed lyre" may serve entirely different purposes. We have already written about the dangers of this idea: the pentarchy, in its current interpretation, easily becomes a mechanism allowing "ancient" Churches to decide the fate of "newer" ones.

That is, there is a danger that some Churches, by joining forces, will govern others. These concerns have not gone away. But despite all disagreement with how Constantinople resolved the "Ukrainian question," one must acknowledge: the initiative itself to gather the four sees together is the right one. Because for the first time in many years, Primates who have accumulated an enormous number of unresolved questions and problems will sit down at the negotiating table. And if one looks at exactly who will be sitting at that table, it turns out that the attempt to revive the pentarchy may become not a trial of anyone, not a tribunal, and not merely a governing body, but what the Orthodox world has lacked since at least 2018 – a place for normal, open, and sincere dialogue.

Who will go to the Phanar

Of the three invited Primates, two have not recognized the OCU. Antiochian Patriarch John does not commemorate Epifaniy and from the very beginning insisted that the Ukrainian question should have been resolved conciliarly. This is not a one-time reaction – the Antiochian Church, third in the diptychs, has been demanding since Crete that all contentious topics be brought to pan-Orthodox discussion.

Jerusalem Patriarch Theophilos not only did not recognize the OCU but also attempted in 2020 to gather in Amman those who disagreed with the Phanar's decisions on Ukraine.

Alexandrian Patriarch Theodore recognized Epifaniy in the autumn of 2019 – just one year after calling on believers in Odesa to remain with Metropolitan Onuphry. And he paid more dearly for that recognition than anyone else, losing part of his flock in Africa. Therefore, no one will be surprised to learn that within the Alexandrian Church, the Ukrainian question is still regarded far more cautiously than official statements would suggest.

So, at the negotiating table will be Constantinople, the author of the Tomos for the OCU, and three Churches for which Ukraine is a serious concern. One may cautiously suggest that in such a case, the pentarchy could transform from an instrument of judgment or governance into what it originally was: a council where no single voice is decisive. And incidentally, this is precisely what Patriarch Bartholomew spoke about in Budapest – conciliarity. One cannot but agree with him on this point. The only question is whether someone will be the first to say the word "Ukraine." And there is every reason to think that someone will.

The Year of Jerusalem

On June 4, Donald Trump received him in the Oval Office. They spoke for nearly an hour about Christians in the Middle East, the status quo of the Holy Sites, and Israeli authorities having closed the Old City even to clergy in the spring. But according to the official statement of the Patriarchate, the conversation concluded with a discussion of the Russian-Ukrainian war and the Patriarch's offer to help in its resolution. All of this was said in the context of the Patriarch's planned visit to Moscow.

Two days later, the Primate of the Jerusalem Church was already in Athens, where he held several meetings – with the president, the prime minister, and ministers. Greek officials spoke openly of a "new spiritual channel" for resolving the war. Earlier, in November 2025, the Jerusalem Patriarch received the Order of Friendship in Moscow, and at the Russian embassy in Israel he spoke about attacks on UOC clergy and the seizure of churches in Ukraine – that is, about what the UOC has been declaring for years.

All of this was accompanied by work to strengthen relations with the governments of Orthodox countries. Thus, the Greek Foreign Ministry in September signed a ten-year memorandum with the Patriarchate, providing for funding of one million euros per year. Cyprus funds Jerusalem's projects through its special representative for religious freedoms in the Middle East. On September 15, Patriarch Theophilos received the mayor of Nicosia and established a commission on Cypriot affairs headed by Metropolitan Timotheos of Bostra – formally it deals with the real estate of the Exarchate of the Holy Sepulchre, but the Patriarchate's very desire to put all its affairs in order, from land to diplomacy, is telling. And this week in Jerusalem, a visit by Bulgarian Patriarch Daniel was announced – yet another Primate who has not recognized the OCU.

In the Ukrainian segment of the internet, Patriarch Theophilos is called "Schröder in a cassock" and is habitually accused of "working for Moscow." Shortsighted Ukrainian "patriots," reproaching the Patriarch for being "pro-Russian," somehow fail to consider that he is received in Washington and that the Greek government allocates millions to the Jerusalem Patriarchate.

Yes, Patriarch Theophilos meets with officials both in Moscow and in Sofia. But this speaks to one thing: in an Orthodox world where Primates have gone years without seeing one another, he has remained the only one to whom everyone continues to come – both heads of Churches and politicians from the most varied camps. A mediator is not someone whom everyone likes. A mediator is someone whom everyone receives and with whom everyone is willing to speak. And on November 30, the Jerusalem Patriarch will be in a place where he will be heard.

Position on the UOC

TTo understand the position with which Jerusalem will come to the table, there is no need to speculate – it is enough to listen to the Exarch of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Metropolitan Timotheos of Bostra. The Greek from Patras has headed the Exarchate of the Holy Sepulchre in Nicosia since 2005 and has been saying the same thing about Ukraine throughout all these years.

For example, in September 2018, when the Tomos was still only being prepared, he stated that Metropolitan Onuphry is the only canonical Primate of Orthodox Ukraine recognized by all the Churches, and that Jerusalem's stance on this matter would remain unchanged.

In the summer of 2019, when the Tomos had already been signed, he addressed the faithful of Ukraine with a call to remain in the Church under the omophorion of Metropolitan Onuphry and added words that today sound like a program for the meeting at the Phanar: "We pray for pan-Orthodox unity, but for the right kind of unity—unity around the canonical Church. We want the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to continue its salvific work without political interference."

And at the end of August 2026, when monk Varsonofiy was killed at the Holy Dormition Sviatohirsk Lavra, the Exarch of the Holy Sepulchre was among the first outside Ukraine to call things by their proper names. "A society that kills monks is defenseless," Greek publications headlined his statement. The bishop wrote that he had followed what was happening to the UOC for years and had hoped it would never come to this but it did. He called for the investigation to be completed and urged that political expediency not be allowed to determine its course. He spoke directly about the cause of the tragedy: years of harsh rhetoric against the UOC had accustomed society to hostility, and where hostility becomes habitual, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the boundaries of what is acceptable.

It should be noted that all of this is being said not by an outside observer but by a hierarch of a Church that holds fourth place in the diptychs, has its own position on the "Ukrainian question," and can afford to call things by their proper names. It is also telling that Bishop Timotheos speaks these words from Cyprus – an island whose Church has recognized the OCU. He concelebrates with Cypriot bishops, preaches in Cypriot monasteries, and at the same time does not conceal his position on Ukraine. And that means the Patriarchate of Jerusalem really can engage in dialogue with the others – without controversy, but with weight and authority.

How the pentarchy can be useful

It must be acknowledged that, coming from the Phanar, the idea of the pentarchy sounds like a claim to special rights for the ancient sees. And this claim is difficult to accept, because in Orthodoxy there are no Churches of "first and second rank."

But the idea has another, far more important dimension.

Rome could not act without Constantinople, Constantinople without Alexandria and Antioch, and Jerusalem, the smallest, had the same voice as the most powerful Churches. It was a system of mutual restraint, not a system of hierarchy.

It was precisely this mechanism that was lacking in 2018. The "Ukrainian question" was resolved by a single see, without consultation. The result is known to all: the schism only deepened and now, beyond Ukraine, has divided all of world Orthodoxy as well.

And therefore, if Patriarch Bartholomew genuinely wishes to return the ancient sees to a conciliar reflection on challenges – and his words in Budapest give grounds to hope that he does – then the main challenge need not be sought. It is not ecology or a "rapidly changing world." It is a Church whose nearly one hundred priests have been taken by military conscription offices in just nine months of this year; a Church whose monasteries and churches are being seized with the participation of state authorities; whose monk was killed at the walls of his monastery.

Four sees, two of which have never considered the "Ukrainian question" closed – this is precisely the council that was lacking eight years ago. A pentarchy conceived as an instrument against some may become an instrument in defense of others. But only to the extent that the participants of the meeting themselves desire it.

What we expect from the meeting

Let us recall that errors in the history of the Church have been corrected not by anathemas but by councils. And the meeting of four Primates at the Phanar – for all the caution with which it should be approached – is the first opportunity in many years to speak about the error of the OCU Tomos.

It is clear that none of us expects the Tomos to be revoked on November 30. But we have every right to expect that the "Ukrainian question" will at least be considered. Jerusalem has everything needed for this: the authority of the Mother of Churches, the experience of Amman, a Patriarch who is received at the White House, in Athens, in Constantinople, and in Moscow.

And if the Orthodox world ever returns to a conciliar conversation about Ukraine, that conversation may begin where four Churches sit together and remember that they are one Body, in which "if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it." We believe that on November 30 such an opportunity will arise. And we believe that someone will be found to make use of it – the Jerusalem Patriarch.

Read also