Phanar-OCU relations on the ropes: attempts to find a way out of the crisis
Recently, a delegation of Ukrainian politicians and OCU representatives has visited Patriarch Bartholomew. What is behind this visit?
In recent weeks, discussions about a possible ban on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) have intensified in the media. This has been fueled not only by statements from the President of Ukraine and the head of the President's Office but also by actions from OCU representatives who are doing everything possible to ensure that law 8371 is passed in the form proposed by "European Solidarity". The recent visit of OCU head Epifaniy Dumenko to the Phanar as part of a Ukrainian delegation, which took place in a hurried manner, is another signal that significant changes are occurring in the church-political sphere. This visit was not announced, indicating the secrecy and urgency of the matters discussed. Let's try to understand what exactly was discussed in this meeting and what political and ecclesiastical consequences it might have.
Composition of the delegation: important details
First of all, attention should be paid to the composition of the delegation that visited Patriarch Bartholomew. In addition to OCU head Epifaniy and his closest associate, Yevstratiy Zoria, the delegation included Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Olena Kovalska, the chief lobbyist for the OCU in the country Viktor Yelensky, as well as the current Ambassador of Ukraine to Turkey Vasyl Bondar and Consul General in Istanbul Roman Nedilsky (the latter is known to have good relations with Patriarch Bartholomew).
On the Phanar's side, the negotiations involved Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon – the chief initiator and curator of the OCU's creation – Archimandrite Aetios, and Patriarchal Deacon Epifaniy Kamianovych (serving as a translator).
The composition of this delegation and the involvement of such prominent figures indicate that if not all resources, then at least the "heavy artillery" were employed to resolve the discussed issues.
Possible reasons for the visit
The first and most obvious reason for the urgent visit of the Ukrainian delegation to the Phanar is the events related to the adoption of Bill 8371, which proposes to ban the UOC.
This bill has already raised serious concerns among many Western politicians, who see it as a threat not only to the UOC but also to religious freedom in Ukraine as a whole.
It is quite likely that the Ukrainian delegation was trying to convince Patriarch Bartholomew that the adoption of this law would not create problems for the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The main argument might have been that the ban on the UOC would not be directly connected to the Phanar and therefore would not harm the international reputation of the Patriarchate.
Furthermore, the Ukrainian delegation might have assured Patriarch Bartholomew that no serious resistance from the UOC was expected. This would have been intended to reassure the Ecumenical Patriarchate and convince it that the process of banning the UOC would proceed without major scandals.
Another possible reason for Dumenko's visit to the Phanar could be Patriarch Bartholomew's dissatisfaction with the lawlessness being committed by the supporters of the OCU against the UOC. This conclusion can be drawn from information published on the President’s website, where it was revealed that the Ukrainian delegation was convincing the head of the Phanar that "all temples in the country are open". This appeared particularly cynical against the backdrop of the fact that on the very day when Dumenko and Yelensky were telling Patriarch Bartholomew about "religious freedom" in Ukraine, the Ministry of Culture sealed another church on the territory of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra.
We can speculate that the Ukrainian authorities, represented by Yelensky and Kovalska, essentially guaranteed Bartholomew the "quiet" destruction of the UOC.
How this destruction will take place is difficult to say at this point. There are at least two aspects to consider – canonical and physical. In other words, the UOC could be destroyed by changing its canonical status (for example, by convincing bishops, priests and laity of the need to join the Phanar’s Exarchate in Ukraine or the OCU). Alternatively, it could be suppressed physically, as recently hinted at by the head of the President’s Office, Andriy Yermak.
The recent actions of the authorities provide some insight into the methods that might be used to achieve this goal – repression and persecution of anyone who dares to defend the UOC.
The question remains whether the resources, and more importantly, the will, to do this are available. It seems that there is the will, but the resources are lacking. Therefore, we believe that the first two options – the Exarchate or the OCU – are more likely.
The Phanar delegation: why didn’t it come?
It can be asserted with full confidence that negotiations regarding the strengthening of the Ukrainian Exarchate of the Phanar (which, as a reminder, already exists) are ongoing, despite opposition from Poroshenko’s colleagues and some OCU representatives. Therefore, beyond the obvious reason – discussions about the bill on UOC ban – there is a more complex and hidden reason for the visit, related to internal conflicts within the OCU and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This is evidenced by publications in media outlets close to the OCU.
A week before Epifaniy’s visit to the Phanar, the "Spiritual Front" publication, overseen by the Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine, reported that a year ago Patriarch Bartholomew planned to send a delegation to our country. However, this decision was opposed by Epifaniy Dumenko and his closest associates, particularly Yevstratiy Zoria (who can be rightly called the regent to Dumenko).
A year ago, the delegation from Patriarch Bartholomew was supposed to include two bishops of Ukrainian descent: Metropolitan Hilarion of Canada and Archbishop Job (Getcha), as well as a deacon of the Constantinople Patriarchate, Epifaniy Kamianovych. However, they were dissuaded from coming in a manner so crude (claiming that the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant might explode) that it raises a logical question for any thinking person: why was the presence of this delegation so disadvantageous to Zoria and Dumenko?
Conflict within the Constantinople Patriarchate
The issue is that Metropolitan Hilarion (Rudnyk) and Archbishop Job (Getcha), according to the edition "Ukraina Pravoslavna" (“Orthodox Ukraine”), overseen by Yevstratiy Zoria, represent a group within the Ecumenical Patriarchate that views the OCU project as unsuccessful and even a failure. "Ukraina Pravoslavna" subtly alludes to these individuals when it mentions that there is a "hand of Moscow" within the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The resource suggests that there is such a "hand" within the OCU itself. This likely refers to the "bishops" who cannot accept the fact that it is Yevstratiy Zoria who actually controls the OCU, while they believe they could have been in charge (such as Simeon Shostatsky or Mykhailo Zinkevych). This group is convinced that the continued existence of the OCU in its current form is not viable, as neither Dumenko nor Zoria are capable of fulfilling the objectives set during the OCU's creation.
It is worth recalling that Patriarch Bartholomew and his representatives have repeatedly stated that the goal of legitimising the Ukrainian schismatics was to establish religious peace in Ukraine and to consolidate a society that had been divided along religious lines for several decades. However, in the more than six years of the OCU's existence, peace has not been achieved, instead it has become an even more distant prospect. The policy pursued by Dumenko and his associates has been based on a single simple principle: the best tool for negotiating with the UOC is forceful methods, such as the use of angle grinders and crowbars. This approach, combined with the lack of canonical ordinations among OCU representatives, has made negotiations between the UOC and this structure impossible (to clarify, ordinations are primary, while crowbars and grinders are secondary but daily issues). As a result, the OCU has not only failed to overcome the schism but has exacerbated it.
The Phanar and the search for a way out of the crisis
The current situation places the Phanar in a very uncomfortable position. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which initially supported the creation of the OCU with the goal of establishing religious peace in Ukraine, is now facing the reality that this project has not only failed to bring peace but has also deepened the schism. Under increasing criticism both within and outside the Patriarchate, Phanar is compelled to seek a way out of the ongoing crisis.
One possible solution could be a reconsideration of the decision to establish the OCU. Recently, American lawyer Robert Amsterdam stated that Patriarch Bartholomew did not have all the necessary information when creating the OCU. Essentially, Amsterdam accused the overseers of this structure of misleading the Phanar head.
Quote: "I fail to believe His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew supports this torrid state of affairs. I can only conclude that His All-Holiness has fallen prey to the intrigues of the Ukrainian authorities and has been prevented from learning the truth about religious freedom in Ukraine. Given his signal role in the attack on the UOC, Viktor Yelensky is likely to blame. He has proved to be a biased and injudicious figure, who desires nothing less than the total destruction of the UOC. Indeed, there are even some within the presidential administration who have raised concerns about his behaviour. According to internal documents in my possession, “the style of work of the current Head of the DESS can be characterized as outright indulgence in the interests of the OCU […]. He deliberately manipulates facts, […] and in various places offers mutually contradictory statements that his interlocutor wants to hear, just to get concrete steps from the interlocutor in support of the OCU.” This is not a man that His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew can trust."
In this regard, it is worth noting that a Ukrainian Telegram channel published a very interesting article, revealing the following. On July 17, 2023, the Embassy of Ukraine in Turkey "delivered to the Patriarch a final refusal to accept a delegation because the President was supposedly on a working trip, and Yelensky had to take sick leave. It is said that the Patriarch was so offended during his meeting with representatives of the Embassy that he directly asked the translator: 'Why are they lying to me so brazenly?'"
Moreover, the Telegram channel also claimed that not only was Patriarch Bartholomew deceived, but allegedly, President Zelensky was as well. In particular, regarding Archbishop Hilarion's visit to Kyiv, the authors of the channel wrote that Archbishop Hilarion and the accompanying Bishop Michael of Koman "met with the new Deputy Head of the President's Office, O. Kovalska. She found the right words to explain to them for the first time that the President had been... let's say, not entirely correctly informed about the processes occurring in Ukrainian Orthodoxy, and that Patriarch Bartholomew was uninterested in participating in its further unification."
In conclusion, we can assume that Amsterdam's statement, along with (if true) the information about lies being told to both Patriarch Bartholomew and President Zelensky by certain Ukrainian officials, opens up the possibility for Patriarch Bartholomew to take steps that could significantly impact the future of both the OCU and the UOC.
Internal сonflicts and struggle for power
In addition to external factors related to the situation around the UOC and the OCU, a serious conflict is brewing within the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople itself. This conflict revolves around a power struggle and influence between different factions within the Patriarchate. At the center of this struggle are two key figures: Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon and Metropolitan Elpidophoros of America.
Metropolitan Emmanuel, who was the chief overseer of the OCU creation, has long been considered one of the most influential figures within the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The success or failure of the OCU project will largely determine his future.
On the other hand, Metropolitan Elpidophoros, the head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, who was once seen as the leading contender for the Patriarchal Throne, now finds himself in a difficult position. His attempts to leverage the American political scene to strengthen his influence within the Patriarchate have not been successful. Additionally, several scandals – such as the baptism of a same-sex couple’s children or his participation in the opening of the Turkish House in the U.S. – made him lose momentum in the race for the Patriarchal Throne.
The question of who will be the next Ecumenical Patriarch is becoming increasingly pressing, given the age and health of Patriarch Bartholomew, who is now over 80 years old. The selection of a new patriarch is likely to lead to significant changes both within the Patriarchate of Constantinople and in its relations with other Orthodox Churches.
That is why the ongoing developments in Ukraine, particularly the situation with the OCU and UOC, are essentially part of a larger power struggle for the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
If the OCU project ultimately fails, it would deal a significant blow to Emmanuel's position, severely diminishing his chances of becoming the next patriarch. Conversely, if the OCU succeeds, it could strengthen his standing, making him the leading candidate for the patriarchal throne.
This could be the reason why Emmanuel and his supporters are so actively pushing for continued support of the OCU, despite the evident failures of its leadership and the questionable behaviour of some of its representatives.
The role of the U.S. and its influence on the Constantinople Patriarchate
An essential factor in analysing the situation around the OCU is the role of the USA. Metropolitan Elpidophoros, who has close ties with American political circles, recently participated in Republican Party events where he asked for God's blessing on the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. This move signals his desire to secure the support of U.S. authorities in his quest for the Patriarchal Throne.
However, this support may only be achievable if there is a shift in policy concerning the UOC. It is well-known that the Republicans have expressed dissatisfaction with the persecution of the UOC in Ukraine and have repeatedly signalled to the Ukrainian government that such pressure on the Church is unacceptable. It is plausible that similar messages were conveyed to Patriarch Bartholomew through Elpidophoros. This may be one of the reasons behind the planned visit of a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Ukraine – a visit that was blocked by Epifaniy and his entourage a year ago, but which, according to Ukrainian Telegram channels, is still expected to take place soon.
Given the current situation, it is evident that a serious crisis is brewing within both the OCU and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Outwardly, everything may seem relatively calm, but hidden contradictions and power struggle are creating a highly volatile environment. The main question now is whether the Phanar can maintain its reputation and find a way out of this crisis without significant losses.
The OCU project, initially viewed as a means of establishing religious peace in Ukraine, is now at a "do or die" moment, as they say. If the attempt to suppress the UOC fails (in the sense that the law is harder to enforce than to pass), the authorities may finally turn away from Dumenko, which could spell the end for the OCU.
On the other hand, internal conflicts in Phanar, power struggle and pressure from external forces like the U.S. are creating a situation where the Ecumenical Patriarchate is compelled to seek new solutions and strategies.
One possible course of action for Patriarch Bartholomew could be to reconsider his stance toward the UOC, which, some Phanariots believe, could preserve the Ecumenical Patriarchate's reputation and allow it to emerge from the crisis with minimal damage. However, this approach carries significant risks, as the reaction from the UOC clergy and faithful is uncertain. Furthermore, the potential acceptance of the UOC into the Phanar’s Exarchate in Ukraine could lead to an even greater schism within the Orthodox world.
In the near future, we can expect new initiatives from the Patriarchate of Constantinople aimed at finding a way out of the situation. These could involve renewed diplomatic efforts to establish dialogue with the UOC or attempts to enhance the OCU’s position through political and financial support. However, regardless of what steps will be taken, one thing is clear: the Patriarchate of Constantinople has found itself in a very difficult situation, with its future and the future of Orthodoxy in Ukraine and beyond depending on the way out of it.
