Im Dienst an der Gemeinschaft 1

Ökumenisches forum

JOURNAL FOR ECUMENICAL AND PATRISTIC STUDIES

Jahrgang / Issue #40/41

GRAZ 2018/19
 The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine 211

THE ROUTE FOR THE BESTOWAL OF

THE AUTOCEPHALY OF THE ORTHODOX
CHURCH OF UKRAINE
06.01.2019

Ioannis Ant. Panagiotopoulos

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

The former Soviet Union was officially dissolved on December 26, 1991. This
was the result of the ever-accelerating process of independence of the former
Soviet Republics. This led to the creation of the first independent Ukrainian
State.1 The first multi-party elections had taken place in 1990 and the coun-
try’s independence was decided on 24 August 1991. This decision was ratified
by a referendum in December of the same year. The new State of Ukraine is
the second largest country in Europe, after Russia. This geographical area
historically called “Little Russia” before the 20th century.2 Kiev is the capit-
al city of Ukraine and the undisputed “womb” of the contemporary Russian
nation, which got flesh and bones when it was embroiled with the plagues
of Orthodox Christianity. Also, this historical starting point is the authentic

1 See Roman Szporluk, Russia, Ukraine and the Breakup of the Soviet Union,
Stanford, 2000, pp. 315-320.
2 The term made its way into the title of the last Galician prince, Yurii (Boleslaw)
II (1325–40), who occasionally styled himself “Dux totius Russiae Minoris”
(see Serhii Plokhy, The Origins of the Slavic Nations; Premodern Identities in
Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, Cambridge, 2006, p. 122). “Little Russia” has ac-
quired administrative autonomy at the second part of 18th century. This term (in
Russian Malorossy) has taken gradually a common apply in people, langauge
and culture. This modified an identity that competed with the local Ukrainian
identity, before the Revolution of 1917. The collapse of the “Russian Empire” led
to the emergence of a new administrative unit in the Soviet Union. So, the term
started to recede from common use. Its subsequent usage has been regarded as
derogatory, referring to those Ukrainians with little or no Ukrainian national
consciousness. Cf. Faith Hillis, «Children of Rus’»: Right-Bank Ukraine and
the Invention of a Russian Nation, New York, 2013 (Cornell University Press),
pp. 21 etc.
212 Ioannis Ant. Panagiotopoulos

contemporary question for the national identity3 of the citizens of Ukraine in

political, ecclesiastical and historical point of view!
We shall take the skein of the history from the beginning. The Eastern
Slavs or “Rus” settled in the steppes north of the Black Sea, between the
rivers of Vistula and Dnieper. They knew the Christian faith before the first
half of the 9th century, without having received any mission. Their neighbors
Khazars and Turks were already under the influence of Islam. At the same
time, the Scandinavians (the well-known Varangians),4 adventurers and mer-
chants, settled inside these Slavic communities and took over their leadership.
Indeed, the Slavic societies were less developed and the Varangians reorgan-
ized their structures.
The Scandinavian merchants Askold and Dir settled in Kiev at the middle
of the 9th century and they moderated the fortified place of farmhouses into a
major riverside shopping center. They led a failed “expedition of canoes” and
besieged Constantinople at June of 860. But the failure allowed them to take a
trade deal with Byzantium, after the intervention of the holy ecumenical pat-
riarch Photios (858-867, 877-886)5. He had taken in return the establishment
of the first Byzantine bishop in Kiev shortly before the year 867. The penetra-
tion of Christian faith into the Eastern Slavs began in this way. The baptism
of the first people of Kiev did not lead to the Christianization of the Russians,
since the new rulers of Kiev (880-883) overturned the missionary work.
However, the presence of Russian merchants in the suburb of Saint-Mammas
(in Vlahernes) was the starting point for the definitive Christianization of the
Russians. This commercial community organized its own parish in Kiev be-
fore 945, so a church dedicated there to the prophet Elijah.6

3 Cf. Szporluk, Russia, Ukraine, pp. 71-107.

4 See about the Scandinavian Anthropology to Ole Martin Høystad, History of
the Heart from antiquity to our days, Athens, 2010, pp. 151-159 [in Greek =
GR]. Cf. Florin Curta, «The Earliest Slavs in East Central Europe? Remarks
on the Early Medieval Settlement in Nova Tabla (Slovenia)», Studia Romana et
mediaevalia Europaensia. Miscellanea in honorem annos LXXXV peragentis
professoris emeriti Dan Gh. Teodor oblata, edited by Dan Aparaschivei and
George Bilavschi, Bucharest/Brăila, 2018 (Editura Academiei Române/Istros),
37-54.
5 Manuel Gedeon, Patriarchal Tables, Athens, (2)1996, [GR], pp. 190-195,
197-199.
6 See A. N. Mouravieff, A History of the Church of Russia, transl: R. W.
Blackmore, Oxford, 1842, pp. 7-8; Vlassios Phidas, Ecclesiastical History of
Russia (from the beginning until today), Athens, (5)2005, [GR], pp. 12-20. Daniel
 The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine 213

The rise of a massive Christian community brought out by the decision

of prince Vladimir to espouse the Christian faith, after the baptism of his
grandmother Great Hegemony of Kiev Olga (957).7 He established Christian
faith as the official faith in Kievan Russia (988) by the invitation of a Greek
Metropolitan bishop. Since then, the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
has been electing the Metropolitan bishop of Kiev and he belongs to the mem-
bers of the Synod (rather than the opposing theories of various partizans of
Pan-Slavic theories). The Metropolis of Kiev belonged to the jurisdiction of
the Ecumenical Throne. The Metropolitan bishops of Kiev and all Russia
were ordained and established from Constantinople throughout the period be-
fore the mongolian invasion (998-1240), except two occasions.8
Kiev has captured by the Golden Horde (Mongols) in December 1240 and
the period of Mongolian domination (1240-1462) began.9 It was characterized
by the burdensome conditions in the public and private life of the Russian
people. Only the Hegemony of Novgorod was not subdued, but the victories of
ruler Alexander Nevsky (1221-1263) against the Swedes at the battle of Neva
(1240) and the German knights and the Estonian infantry at the battle of Lake
Peipus (1242), the famous battle of the ice, did not restore the prestige of the
Russian Hegemonies.
Alexander Nefsky founded the Hegemony of Moscow at 1260, where he
established as first ruler his son Daniel (1263-1303). The expansion of the new
Hegemony during the regime of the rulers Yuri (1303-1325) and Ivan I Kalita
(1328-1340) has as result their ruler to take the title of the “great ruler” (1328)
and the final settlement of the Metropolitan bishop of Kiev and all Russia in
Moscow.10 Before the Metropolitan of Kiev remained in Vladimir11 without
the approval of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,12 because of the decline

H. Shubin, A History of Russian Christianity, New York, v. I (2004), pp. 14-

16; cf. Panos Sophoulis – Aggeliki Papageorgiou, Medieval Slavic World,
Athens, 2015, [GR], pp. 215 etc.
7 See Phidas, Eccl. History of Russia, pp. 20-48. Cf. Mikhail Raev, «The Russian-
Byzantine Treaty of 971: Texts and Contexts», Annuaire de L’Université de
Sofia  “St. Kliment Ohridski” Centre de Recherches Slavo-Byzantines “Ivan
Dujčev” 99 (18), 2017, 113-128.
8 Cf. Mouravieff, Church of Russia, pp. 9-44; Phidas, Eccl. History of Russia,
pp. 49-164; Shubin, Russian Christianity, v. I, pp. 16 etc.
9 Cf. Shubin, Russian Christianity, v. I, pp. 87 etc.
10 See Mouravieff, Church of Russia, pp. 57-125;
11 Mouravieff, Church of Russia, pp. 46-46;
12 See Phidas, Eccl. History of Russia, pp. 169-189.
214 Ioannis Ant. Panagiotopoulos

of Kiev. The same time, in the middle of the 13th century, the Hegemony of
Lithuania, which was an orthodox Hegemony, was strengthened.
The Russian Church has been lead by the non-election of the Metropolitan
bishop of Moscow from the Ecumenical Patriarchate in a narrow independ-
ence (since 1459). The exclusion of the Greek hierarchs reformed the Russian
hierarchy into a national one. This was not strengthening the ethnic identity
of the Russian people, which so successfully formed by the Greek Hierarchy.
This evolution made Tsar as the supreme regulator of the ecclesiastical ad-
ministrational issues. Thus, the Church of Russia has moved from the dyn-
astic policy of the Mongol conquerors to the despotic authority of the Tsars.13
The territories of the old Hegemony of Kiev were shared between the Tsar
and the kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania.14 The regions under the Kingdom
of Poland committed to the organized action of the “Latin Union”. The Jesuits
were the mains “instrument” of this policy and they used any unfair or violent
methods for the realization of their plans. Lithuania allied with the plans of
Poland, because Russia was their common enemy. So, the reconstruction of
the Metropolis of Kiev was aimed at the strengthening of the Latins.15 The
great battle for the identity of local populations had just begun.
The “Orthodox Brotherhoods” took over the defense of Orthodoxy, in Lvov,
Vilnius etc.16 Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II (1572-1579, 1580-1584, 1586-
1595)17 ordained Mikhail Rogoz as Metropolitan bishop of Kiev and Cyril
13 Cf. Phidas, Eccl. History of Russia, pp. 212-229; Shubin, Russian Christianity,
v. I, pp. 155 etc.
14 The attitude of Metropolitan Isidor of Kiev is known at the Council of Ferrara-
Florence (1438-1439) and what followed the decisions of this failed Council.
Gregory Bolgarin (1458-1473) was the first Uniat bishop of Kiev. He was or-
dained in Rome by the dethroned enthusiast of the Union ecumenical patriarch
Gregory Mamma (1443-1450). His successors did not settle in Kiev, but they
lived in Lithuania. See Phidas, Eccl. History of Russia, pp. 281 etc; Vlassios
Phidas, Ecclesiastical History, v. III, Athens, 2014, [GR], pp. 608; Aidan
Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches (a Study in Schism), San Francisco,
(2)
2010 (Ignatius Press), p. 338; Borys A. Gudziak, Crisis and Reform: The
Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis
of the Union of Brest, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 43 etc.
15 Phidas, Eccl. History of Russia, pp. 280-283.
16 Cf. Phidas, Eccl. History III, p. 609; Ion I. Croitoru, Orthodoxy and West in
the spiritual tradition of the rumanians: the unity of Orthodoxy kai the defense
of the orthodox faith against the protestant propaganda during the 17th cen-
tury, v. 1-2, Athens, 2011, [GR], p. 915.
17 Gedeon, Patriarchal Tables, 396-401, 402-404, 407-413.
 The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine 215

Terletsky as exarchate to South Russia during his returning from Moscow to

Constantinople (1589).18 He officially opened a new period of struggle against
“Union” and the Latin Hierarchy. It was clear for Constantinople that the
Metropolitan Bishopric of Kiev, an old ecclesiastical center, ought to remain
in Orthodoxy and canonical conditions.
Orthodoxy has crossed over the greatest risk during the reign of Sigismund
III of Poland (1587-1632), famous as the “Jesuit king”.19 He had goal the sub-
mission of Russia. Indeed, a group of bishops of the Metropolitan region of
Kiev under the pressure of Sigismund III, asked the subordination to the Pope
of Rome (1591).20 When the delegation arrived in Rome (1594), Pope Clement
VIII (1592-1605)21 prevented them and delivered the Ruthenis receptis (1595),
declaring their union with the older Rome.22
The Orthodox reaction to the supposed “union” was strong. A synod was
convoked in Brest (October 6, 1596).23 The exarch of Ecumenical Patriarchate
Archimandrite Nikiforos and the exarch of the Patriarchate of Alexandria
Archimandrite Kyrillus Loukaris (1572-1638), next ecumenical patriarch24,
represented Constantinople. The synod was divided in Latins and Orthodox
immediately. Bishop of Vladimir (Hypatius Potsei) refused to give a church
to Orthodox for the Synod. However, the exarch of the Ecumenical Throne
called three times the metropolitan and the pro-Latin bishops to attend at his
canonical synod. He declared their bishoprics to widowhood, when they re-
fused to take place in the Synod, and the “decision of the union” was rejected
as non canonical. At the end the two Archimandrites canceled the effort the
Orthodox flock to be subordinated at the jurisdiction of Rome, as canonic-
al representatives of the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Throne in
Ukraine.
Archimandrite Nikephoros was arrested and imprisoned in Marienburg
(Poland), where he died of hunger. The later ecumenical patriarch Kyrillus
Loukaris escaped in an adventurous way, which would be envied by modern
cinematographic productions. He continued his struggle to defend Orthodoxy

18 Cf. Mouravieff, Church of Russia, pp. 289-324;

19 Phidas, Eccl. History of Russia, pp. 284-286.
20 Gudziak, Crisis and Reform, pp. 210-214.
21 J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford, 1986, pp. 275-276.
22 Phidas, Eccl. History of Russia, pp. 284-289.
23 Cf. Ioannis N. Karmires, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, Athens, 1937, [GR], p.
194; Gudziak, Crisis and Reform, pp. 239 etc.
24 Gedeon, Patriarchal Tables, pp. 433-445.
216 Ioannis Ant. Panagiotopoulos

until its martyrdom ended by the Turks. The most important success of his
patriarchy was the decisive contribution to failure of Poland to bring posit-
ive results in its involvement in Russia’ s dynastic controversy. Ecumenical
patriarch Kyrillus I expressed his acted support in the dynastic exertion of
Tsar Michael I Fyodorovich Romanov (1613-1645) and he succeeded the Tsar
to receive the recognition of the royal office by the ottoman government
[Sublime Porte (Babıali)].25 Since, Russia has been in debt to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. The modern political and ethnic identity of Russia has been pre-
served because of the sacrifices and acting of Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The evolution was extremely interesting in 17th century. The Patriarchal
Synod of Constantinople promoted the Metropolis of Moscow to the
Patriarchate of Russia in 1593.26 The Metropolis of Moscow held this title
until 1723, when the Ecumenical Patriarchate officially accepted the re-
quest from the Tsar Peter the Great (1682-1725) to change the status of the
Russian Church by renaming the bishop of Moscow again as Metropolitan
of Moscow.27 This main part of the territories of present-day Ukraine came
under the Russian State (1656-1709) in this period.
The Orthodox Order was fully restored in the Metropolis of Kiev by the ini-
tiative of the Ecumenical Throne since 1620.28 Also, the Orthodox hierarchy
was solid and the Metropolis was canonical subordinated to the Patriarchate
of Constantinople. The canonical jurisdiction of the Metropolis of Kiev was
expanding to Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. The Patriarch of Moscow has
taken the permission to ordain or enthrone the new Metropolitan bishop of
Kiev, which was elected by the clergy-laity assembly of his Metropolis after
the extension of the Russian borders (1654). The Metropolitan bishop of
Kiev retained the title of the Exarch of the Ecumenical Throne by the same
Patriarchal Act of 1686,29 and he ought to refer to the Ecumenical Patriarch
in every service. The permission to the Patriarch of Moscow was granted
“economically” and until its possible revocation. The Ukrainian Hierarchy
rejected the right of this permission, by refusing to the Metropolitans of Kiev
25 Cf. Gunnar Hering, Ecumenical Patriarchate and European Policy (1620-
1638), Athens, 1992, [GR], pp. 64 etc.
26 Mouravieff, Church of Russia, pp. 126-283;
27 Cf. Mouravieff, Church of Russia, pp. 284 etc; Phidas, Eccl. History of
Russia, pp. 360-399.
28 See Hering, Ecumenical Patriarchate, pp. 50-52; The Ecumenical Throne and
the Church of Ukraine: the Documents Speak, 2018 (Ecumenical Patriarcate),
p. 5.
29 The Documents Speak, pp. 24-39.
 The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine 217

to go in Moscow either for enthronement or for their ordination, much more

to participate in the Russian Patriarchical Synod. But the situation evolved
as expected, the Patriarchate of Russia has exercised pressure on the local
Hierarchy and violated the Patriarchal Act of 1686.30
We noted that the Orthodox Church of Russia ceased to be Patriarchate
since 1723.31 The next years32 have been no serious ecclesiastical changes, but
the historical evolution was painful for the Orthodox Russian people in the
20th century. The Church in Russia came to a state of despondency and perse-
cution from 1917 until the end of 1943.33 The election of Patriarch of Moscow
has been allowed just in the end of 1943. Although, the ecclesiastical adminis-
tration system of Church in Russia has been decided to return to a patriarchal
system since 1917, few months before the October Revolution.34
Ecumenical Patriarchate exercised its canonical rights by granted auto-
cephaly to the Church of Poland (1924). The territory of Church of Poland
belonged to the canonical boundaries of the Metropolis of Kiev, but no more
to the boundaries of the Old Russian Empire. The Patriarchal Action was re-
cognized by all the Orthodox Churches except the distracted Patriarchate of
Russia, which “misapplied” autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Poland
in 1949 (sic), when ecclesiastical question have been terminated! A series of
non-canonical proceedings of Patriarchate of Russia in 1940s completed with
this non-canonical act of 1949.35 The starting body was the non-canonical sub-
30 See The Documents Speak, pp. 7 etc. Cf. Vlassios Phidas, The Synodic Act
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (1686) and the Autocephaly of the Church of
Ukraine, 2018, [GR].
31 See Shubin, Russian Christianity, v. II, pp. 5-232.
32 Cf. Shubin, Russian Christianity, v. III, pp. 5-210.
33 Cf. Shubin, Russian Christianity, v. IV, pp. 29-149.
34 Cf. Phidas, Eccl. History of Russia, pp. 400 etc; Daniela Kalkandjieva, The
Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948: from decline to resurrection, London,
2015, pp. 12 etc.
35 Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras (1948-1972) noted prominently to
Metropolitan Pimen, future Patriarch of Moscow (1971-1990), in his letter at
24 June 1970 that having ignored the previous formation of an Autocephalous
Orthodox Church in the State of Poland through the Patriarchal and Synodical
Tome of November 13, 1924, issued under the late Ecumenical Patriarch
Gregory VII of blessed memory — a decision based on an appropriately sup-
porting Tomos — and having ignored also the spirit of love and brotherly
communal unity expressed to the entire Church by all other Autocephalous
Churches which willingly and unhesitatingly recognized what had been done
by the Ecumenical Patriarchate — the Russian Orthodox Church, by an act
218 Ioannis Ant. Panagiotopoulos

ordination of the Metropolis of Kiev to the Orthodox Church of Russia after

the Red Army’ s recapture of Ukraine (1945).36 The Patriarchate of Moscow
had lost its old ecclesiastical robustness after the painful events of 1917, be-
cause its leading theologians had escaped to the West.37 The spiritual and
theological identity of the leaders of the Patriarchate of Moscow was incon-
sistent with the history and the tradition of the Russian people.
The establishment of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Amsterdam
(1948) with the active participation of Ecumenical Patriarchate, treated with
non-canonical (and improper) manners from the Orthodox Churches, which
were occupied by the “Red Army.” The Soviet government imposed arbitrar-
ily not only the prohibition of participation of these Churches in the WCC,
but also the renunciation of any orthodox participation in the Ecumenical
Movement as action of betraying of Orthodoxy, during the Inter-Orthodox
Meeting in Moscow (8-10 July 1948)38 for obvious political reasons of the
Soviet regime. Of course, the Ecumenical Patriarchate rejected these de-
cisions as non-canonical. These Orthodox Churches requested to participate
in the proceedings of the General Assembly of the WCC at New Delhi (1961)
as full members, treating the non-canonical act of 1948. This was not the
first time for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which encountered on ecclesiast-
ical economy terms, efforts and acts of local Churches, which were directed
against the canonical order and the unity of the local Orthodox Churches all
around the world.

of her own Holy Synod of June 22, 1948, granted to the Church of Poland a
new autocephaly. And this act of the Russian Orthodox Church was done by
exceeding her territorial rights, since after the end of World War II, the ter-
ritories of Ukraine and Byelorussia, which previously belonged to the Church
of Poland, were detached from this Church; and the areas included in these
detached Churches reaching westward as far as the Baltic Sea, and being from
times past outside the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Moscow, are under the
jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchal Throne.
36 See Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, pp. 207 etc. Polycarp of
Lutz (Sikorski) emerged as the head of the hierarchy of a new independent
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in October 1941. The Orthodox Hierarchy of
Ukraine during the German occupation has followed the same way as the years
after the October Revolution. See Shubin, Russian Christianity, v. IV, pp. 149.
37 Cf. Aidan Nichols, Theology in the Russian Diaspora, Cambridge, 1989, pp.
17 etc; Vlassios Phidas, Ecclesiology between Christology and Pneumatology
under the light of Patristic Tradition, Athens, 2018, [GR], pp. 390 etc.
38 Phidas, Eccl. History III, p. 882.
 The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine 219

Also, the participation of the local Orthodox Churches’ representatives of

the “Iron Curtain” to the Ecumenical Movement and the Orthodox meetings,
were their opportunity for the expulsion from the “socialist ventilator.” The
rest local Orthodox Churches treated them with understanding and brotherly
love for the distracted and persecuted brothers (whose presence was dec-
orative and rather tourist-like). At the same time, there were also cases of
suspicion when representatives from these churches were not only evaluated
as being liked by the regimes, but rather as “servants”. The example of the
Professor of liturgical studies at the Sofia School of Theology, which betrayed
the students who attended the services, to the regime as enemies of commun-
ism, will haunt forever this period of the eastern churches.
The new condition that was born from the collapse of the “actually ex-
isting socialism,” was even more confused for the ecclesiastical situation.
The case of Ukraine is from the beginning such an example. The conflict
between pro-Western and pro-Russian political forces did not leave the ec-
clesiastical condition unaffected. The ecclesiastical identity of the citizens
defined a pro-Russian or a pro-Ukrainian position.39 And the ecclesiastical
situation had been worst since February 22, 2014, when the pro-Russian pres-
ident of Ukraine Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (2010-2014) was removed.
Days after, Russian troops entered in Crimea and in other disputed predom-
inantly Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine. Indeed, Crimea was
never a Ukrainian territory, during the period of “Kievan Rus” belonged to

39 Ukranian parishes were founded in USA before the middle of the 20th century.
A new wave of political refugees from Ukraine arrived in the United States
especially during the period between 1949 and 1955. Among these were clergy
and laity who had established Ukrainian Orthodox Church organizations
either in Ukraine or in Western Europe during World War II or in the wake
of the war. At the time of their arrival, there were already in existence in the
United States two separate Ukrainian Orthodox dioceses. One of these, led by
Metropolitan Bohdan (Shpilka), was under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. It contained about twenty parishes. The other jurisdiction,
known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States, was led by
Archbishop Mstyslaw (Skrypnyk) and contained about one hundred parishes.
The clergy of this jurisdiction generally did not receive recognition from oth-
er Orthodox in America because of canonical questions associated with its
origin in the Ukraine in 1921 and the manner by which its first bishops were
ordained (Thomas E. Fitzgerald, The Orthodox Church, 1998 (Greenwood
Press), p. 73). Cf. Vasileios D. Koukoussas, The Orthodox Church in America,
Thessaloniki, 2014, [GR], p. 447.
220 Ioannis Ant. Panagiotopoulos

the Byzantine Empire and in the modern times belonged to Russia. The Soviet
government carried out transfer of the territory of Crimea from Russia to
Ukraine in 1954. Thus separated even more supporters of both sides.
The new political condition found the Orthodox Church in Ukraine separ-
ated with three different Hierarchies. The most confused of all was that many
of the bishops of the pro-Russian Hierarchy could not entered in Ukraine as
persona non grata. Parallel, the Russian hierarchy had been increased by the
ordination of new bishops without parishes. The situation had been in a stale-
mate since the 1990s, because of the continued obstruction of the Russian
Church in the process and attempts of a permanent solution.
Ecumenical Patriarchate intensified the preparation of the Holy and Great
Synod of the Orthodox Church,40 but the First Throne was particularly con-
cerned with the situation in Ukraine, at the same time. The scale of the prob-
lem became apparent by the appeals of the Ukrainian government and the
reports of patriarchical missions in the country.
Indeed, the question for the Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in
Ukraine connected with the question of the identities, which was interesting
for all the parts (or “players”). Also, the identification with one or the other
Hierarchy implied the national identity, because the participation in a differ-
ent parish identifies the identity of the believer. The ecclesiastical question
for Russia is primarily political question. Russians support that the alleged
national identity of Ukraine is part of the Russian family and ethnicity. The
recognition of an Autocephalous Orthodox Ukrainian Church is believed that
will be the end of an even underlying Russian identity in Kiev. This is seen
to be a blow for the Russian patriotism as expressed in the period of Russian
political renaissance of Vladimir Putin. Although, Kiev is the “womb” of the

40 Dumitru Stăniloae, The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: its
spiritual horizon, Athens, 2014, [GR]; Damaskinos of Helvetia (Papandreou),
To the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: problems and prospects,
Athens, 1990, [GR]; Chryssostomos of Messinia (Savatos), The Holy and Great
Synod of the Orthodox Church: expression of the conciliar consciousness of
the Orthodox Church, Athens, 2017, [GR]; Vlassios Phidas, The Holy and
Great Synod (Orthodox Academy of Crete, June 16-27, 2016), from the uncrit-
ical questioning to the unanimous acceptance, Athens, 2017, [GR]; Ierotheos
of Naupactos & St Vlassius (Vlachos), The Holy and Great Synod in Crete,
theological and ecclesiological positions, Monastery of the Birth of the Virgin
Mary (Pelagia), 2018, [GR].
 The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine 221

Russian Nation and this approach is not seem to be erroneous, the identities
are being built and maintained differently in the modern world.41
That’s why the Russian Orthodox Church constantly obstructed the proced-
ures of the preparation of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church.
They believed rightly, that the convening and successful completion of the
Synod would also mean the final phase for the completion of the Ukrainian
Autocephaly.42 Finally, the last moment decision of non-participation of the
Orthodox Church of Russia at the proceedings of the Holy and Great Synod of
the Orthodox Church in the summer of 2016 hurt its initiators. The completion
of the synodical proceeding rescued Orthodoxy from dangerous for the unity
turning point to be a “federation of local churches”.43 This deflection was
ecclesiological unfounded and was undermined the unity of the body with its
head! Normally the day after the Holy and Great Synod, the Hierarchy of the
Russian Orthodox Church should asked for the apologies of all responsibles
for this complete failure, to impute accusations, and to remove them from
their positions, which should not hold by them as it turned out!
On the other side, Russian Republic has been actively working with dip-
lomacy to serve these views and positions. They should have sought answers
not from those who led to the fiasco, but from those who saved the situation.
However the last two years, the “responsible political persons” of Russia have
shown themselves to be asleep. This is reasonable, because there is not yet
a mature theological discourse in Russia that awakens consciences towards

41 See Francis Fukuyama, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics
of Resentment, New York, 2018 (Ferrar, Straus and Giroux); Serhii Plokhy,
Ukraine and Russia: Representations of the Past, Toronto, 2008 (University
of Toronto Press); Szporluk, Russia, Ukraine…, pp. 1-318; Taras Kuzio,
Ukraine: State and nation building, London, 1998; Cf. Alexei Miller, The
Ukrainian Question: the Russian Empire and Nationalism in the Nineteenth
Century, Budapest, 2003 (CEU Press); Hillis, «Children of Rus’», pp. 87 etc;
Plokhy, The Origins of the Slavic Nations, pp. 299 etc.
42 Cf. Demetrios Nikolakakis, «The autocephaly and the autonomy in the pro-
cedure to the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church», Theologia 86.4
(2015), [GR], 199 etc; Cyrill of Abydos (Katerelos), «The autocephaly and
the autonomy in the procedure to the Holy and Great Synod», Theologia 87.1
(2016), [GR], 107-122· Gregory Papathomas, «The autocephalismus and the
diaspora. A relation between the cause and the causality (Contribution to the
Agenda of the Holy and Great Synod of 2016)», Theologia 87.1 (2016), [GR],
123-161.
43 Cf. Phidas, Ecclesiology, pp. 497-540.
222 Ioannis Ant. Panagiotopoulos

“chic” and “reprehensible” bishops. This happens when the theological sci-
ence is not cultivated within Universities, but in places like the obsolete sys-
tem of the Academies. The worst of all is that the Russian monasticism has
not yet attributed spiritual fruits to excite the society. Thus, there were no
mature voices, a free speech, but only an inarticulate discourse for “theolo-
gical toddlers.”
This phenomenon is being reaffirmed in the process of resolving the
Ukrainian question, which prudently serves the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
while at the same time depressing the abusive actions of the Orthodox Church
of Russia in America.44 Instead, the Russian side came into actions of ec-
clesiastic irresponsibility, leading the condition from the fiasco of 2016 to
the tragedy of 2019! The great opportunity to correct the mistakes was the
Unification Council of Kiev in December 15, 2018. This Synod approved
the Constitutional Charter of the new Autocephalous Church and elected
the first primate. The pro-Russian Hierarchy should have been joining in the
Unification Council, and not to hinder those who had wished to take part. The
Russian Orthodox Church closed the eyes to the realism and blocked the par-
ticipation of the hierarchs who supported the Unification Council, in order to
confirm her obsessive denial of the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate to convoke the Synod and to the patriarchal representative to
chair. The violation of the terms of the Patriarchal Act of 1686 hurt the deniers!
Moscow should not forget that two Archimandrites, exarchs of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, rescued Orthodoxy at the Synod of Brest (1596) and
Russia as a Nation and State. Although, the only prudent act would be the

44 The “Tomos of Autocephaly of Orthodox Church in America” (previous Russian

Orthodox Church) was signed non canonical in Moscow at 10 April 1970. The
“OCA” is an “autocephalous” Church in America, which was not recognised by
any other Orthodox Church. See Fitzgerald, The Orthodox Church, pp. 101-
106; Koukoussas, The Orthodox Church in America, pp. 430-447.
Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras mentioned especially on this issue that the
Russian Orthodox Church will want to persist in her views and act in a way
that would oppose a Pan-Orthodox determination of this question by a future
Great and Holy Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church, we hereby declare that
this Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne will of necessity find itself
obligated, for the good and interest of the entire Church, to consider any action
taken in this matter as not having been done. We so declare since we consider
as valid only a Pan-Orthodox decision concerning the solution of the entire
subject of the Orthodox in the “diaspora” (Patriarchal Letter to Metropolitan
Pimen, 24 June 1970).
 The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine 223

participation in the Unification Council of Kiev, the acceptance of the synod-

ical proceedings remains the only solution for the Russian Church, because
it has not the old means to overthrow the decisions. Metropolitan Epiphanius
of Kiev, the first primate of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine,
has received by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I the Patriarchal and
Synodal Tomos for the Bestowal of the Ecclesiastical Status of Autocephaly to
the Orthodox Church in Ukraine at a historic moment on January 6, 2019. A
new Autocephalous Church has begun her historical course that will or may
not justify the expectations of the Orthodox Churches.
We should not forget the established principle of ecclesiastical administra-
tion, which was clearly formulated by the holy ecumenical patriarch Photius,
the founder of the Orthodox Church in East Europe, in his letter to the Pope
of Rome Nicolas I (858-867)45 after the Synod of Constantinople (861): “be-
cause the ecclesiastical issues, and more over the jurisdiction of the parishes
is usual to change according the jurisdiction of the administration system of
the State”.46 The Orthodox Church of Russia ought to remember always that
the love of the Mother Church of Constantinople is uninterrupted!

45 Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pp. 107-109.

46 … ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικά, καὶ μάλιστά γε τὰ περὶ τῶν ἐνοριῶν δίκαια ταῖς
πολιτικαῖς ἐπικρατείαις τε καὶ διοικήσεσι συμμεταβάλλεσθαι εἴωθεν ... (PG 102,
613C-D).
224 Ioannis Ant. Panagiotopoulos
 The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine 225

Patriarchal and Synodal Tomos for

the Bestowal of the Ecclesiastical
Status of Autocephaly to the
Orthodox Church in Ukraine

Bartholomew, by God’s mercy Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome

and Ecumenical Patriarch:

“You have come to Mount Zion . . . and to the Church of the first-born” (Heb.
12.22-23), as the blessed Paul, apostle to the nations, declares to all the faith-
ful, appropriately likening the Church to a mountain to affirm conviction and
recognition as well as steadfastness and stability. For although the Church of
God both is and is called one flock and one body of Christ—everywhere shar-
ing the confession of Orthodox faith, the communion through the sacraments
in the Holy Spirit, and the constancy of apostolic succession and canonical
order—already from the earliest apostolic times it also consists of local and
native Churches internally self-administered by their own shepherds, teachers
and servants of the Gospel of Christ, namely, their regional Bishops, not only
for the historical and secular significance of these cities and lands, but also for
the particular pastoral needs of these places.
Therefore, inasmuch as the most devout and divinely-protected country
of Ukraine has been fortified and magnified by heavenly providence, while
also acquiring comprehensive political independence, and inasmuch as its
civil and church leaders have avidly sought its ecclesiastical self-adminis-
tration over more than thirty years—thereby further echoing previous sim-
ilar requests periodically addressed by its people to the most holy Apostolic
Throne of Constantinople, which is obliged by a lengthy canonical tradition
to care for the holy Orthodox Churches facing difficulties, especially those
with which it has always been associated through canonical bonds, such as
the historical Metropolis of Kyiv—our Modesty, along with our most rever-
end Metropolitans and most honorable beloved brothers and concelebrants
in the Holy Spirit, in the imperative concern of the Great Church of Christ
within the Orthodox world for healing long standing schisms and divisions
in the local Churches, unanimously determine and declare that the entire
Orthodox Church contained within the boundaries of the politically consti-
tuted and wholly independent State of Ukraine, with its sacred Metropolitan,
226 Ioannis Ant. Panagiotopoulos

Archdiocesan and Episcopal sees, its monasteries and parishes, as well as all
the ecclesiastical institutions therein, operating under the Founder of the One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, our Godman Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, shall hereafter exist as canonically a u t o c e p h a l o u s,  independ-
ent and self-administered, having and recognizing as its First Hierarch in all
church matters its presiding canonical Primate, who shall bear the title “His
Beatitude Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Ukraine,” without any lawful addition
or deletion to this title without permission from the Church of Constantinople.
This Primate shall preside over the Holy Synod, annually comprised of
Hierarchs invited by rotation and seniority from those serving within the geo-
graphical boundaries of Ukraine. This is how the affairs of the Church shall
be governed in this land, as the sacred and holy Canons declare, freely and
in the Holy Spirit and unimpeded, far from any other external interference.
Moreover, we recognize and declare this Autocephalous Church, estab-
lished within the boundaries of the sovereign territory of Ukraine by means
of this signed Patriarchal and Synodal Tomos, as our spiritual daughter, and
recommend that all Orthodox Churches throughout the world acknowledge
and commemorate it by the name “Most Holy Church of Ukraine” with its
see in the historic city of Kyiv, without being henceforth entitled to establish
bishops or found extraterritorial altars in regions already lawfully depend-
ent on the Ecumenical Throne, which bears canonical competence over the
Diaspora, but instead restricting its proper jurisdiction within the territories
of the State of Ukraine. Indeed, we bestow upon this autocephalous ecclesi-
astical Authority all the attending privileges and sovereign rights, so that from
this day the Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Ukraine shall commemorate “Every
Orthodox Diocese” during the liturgy, while the surrounding choir of most
holy Hierarchs shall commemorate his name as First Hierarch and Primate of
the most holy Church in Ukraine. As for matters related to internal ecclesi-
astical administration, these shall be arbitrated, adjudicated and determined
absolutely by the Primate and the Holy Synod, adhering to the evangelical
and other teachings—in accordance with sacred Tradition and the venerable
canonical regulations of our Holy Orthodox Church, as well as the teaching
and injunction of Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, which
dictates that “whereas the common vote of all is reasonable and in accord-
ance with the ecclesiastical canon, in cases where two or three disagree by
reason of personal rivalry, let the vote of the majority prevail”—while further
preserving the right of all Hierarchs and other clergy to address petitions of
appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch, who bears the canonical responsibility
 The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine 227

of irrevocably passing judgment over matters related to bishops and other

clergy in local Churches, in accordance with the sacred Canons 9 and 17 of
the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon.
In addition to the above, we declare that the Autocephalous Church in
Ukraine knows as its head the most holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical
Throne, just as the rest of the Patriarchs and Primates also do, while having
along with its other canonical obligations and responsibilities, as its foremost
mission, the preservation of our Orthodox Faith inviolable as well as the ca-
nonical unity and communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the other
local Orthodox Churches unwavering. Furthermore, the Metropolitan of Kyiv
and all Ukraine, as well as the Hierarchs of the most holy Church of Ukraine,
are from now on elected in accordance with the provisions of the holy and
sacred Canons as well as the relevant regulations of its Constitutional Charter,
along with mandatory agreement in all matters on the regulations of the
present Patriarchal and Synodal Tomos. All the Hierarchs have the duty to
shepherd the people of God in a manner pleasing to God, advancing, in the
fear of God, peace and concord in their country and Church.
Nonetheless, in order that the bond of spiritual unity and association of
the holy Churches of God may remain in every way undiminished—for we
have been instructed “to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”
(Eph. 4.3)—His Beatitude the presiding Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Ukraine
is required to commemorate, in accordance with the ancient traditions of our
holy Fathers, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Their Beatitudes the Patriarchs and
other Primates of the local Autocephalous Churches, in the sequence of the
Diptychs, according to canonical order, assuming his proper place after the
Primate of the Church in the Czech Lands and Slovakia both in the sacred
Diptychs and church assemblies.
At the same time, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, through its Primate or
else the canonical locum tenens on the Throne of Kyiv, is obliged to particip-
ate in periodical Inter-Orthodox consultations on significant canonical, doc-
trinal and other issues, in accordance with the sacred custom of the Fathers
that has prevailed from the outset. The First Hierarch, after being installed,
must also immediately dispatch the necessary Irenic Letters concerning his
establishment both to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the other Primates, just
as he is also entitled to receive the same from these, while commencing his
irenic journey as customary from the First-Throne Church of Constantinople,
wherefrom it will likewise receive the Holy Myron as affirmation of its spir-
itual unity with the latter. In the case of major issues of ecclesiastical, doc-
trinal and canonical nature, His Beatitude the Metropolitan of Kiev and all
Ukraine must, on behalf of the Holy Synod of his Church, address our most
holy Patriarchal and Ecumenical Throne, seeking its authoritative opinion and
conclusive support, while the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Throne over the
Exarchate and Sacred Stavropegial institutions in Ukraine shall be preserved
unmitigated.
Consequently, on the basis of all the above and on the basis of these con-
ditions, our Holy Great Church of Christ blesses and declares the Orthodox
Church in Ukraine as Autocephalous, invoking the abundant gifts of God
and boundless treasures of the All-Holy Spirit upon the venerable Hierarchy,
the righteous clergy and pious people throughout the land of Ukraine, and
praying that the First and Great High Priest Jesus Christ—through the inter-
cessions of our all-holy and most blessed lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin
Mary; the holy and glorious prince Vladimir, equal to the apostles; the holy
and glorious queen Olga; our venerable and God-bearing Fathers, the ascetics
and monastics of the Kyiv Lavra and all the Monasteries—may forever sup-
port the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine, now reckoned in the body of the
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and grant it stability, unity, peace
and increase for His glory and that of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
These things, then, are deemed and determined, joyfully proclaimed to
you from the venerable Center of Orthodoxy, having been ratified in synod,
whereas this Patriarchal and Synodal Tome is issued for permanent protec-
tion, being recorded and signed in the Code of the Great Church of Christ in
Constantinople, delivered in an identical and accurate copy to His Beatitude
Epifanios, the Primate of the Most Holy Church of Ukraine, and to His
Excellency the President of Ukraine, Mr. Petro Poroshenko, for abiding veri-
fication and permanent confirmation.
On this sixth day of the month January of the year two thousand and nine-
teen, Of the XII indiction
+ Bartholomew of Constantinople, hereby determines in Christ God
+ Panteleimon of Vryoula
+ Gennadios of Italy and Malta
+ Avgoustinos of Germany
+ Germanos of Tranoupolis
+ Evangelos of New Jersey
+ Kyrillos of Rhodes
+ Evgenios of Rethymnon and Avlopotamos
+ Ambrose of Korea
 The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine 229

+ Konstantinos of Singapore
+ Arsenios of Austria
+ Chrysostomos of Symi
+ Nathanael of Chicago