By Protopresbyter of the Ecumenical Throne PANAGIOTIS KAPODISTRIAS
The ecclesiastical crisis in Ukraine remains one of the deepest and most complex ruptures in the contemporary Orthodox world. At the heart of this conflict lies the dispute between the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) — canonically recognized in 2019 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate — and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC‑MP), which for decades occupied the sole canonical status in the country.
For many years, the UOC‑MP regarded the previously unrecognized Ukrainian ecclesial reality as schismatic, rejecting it outright and failing to make sincere efforts toward healing or canonical incorporation of the tens of thousands of clergy and millions of faithful it comprised. This stance perpetuated a profound wound in the ecclesial body of Ukraine and reinforced division, leaving an open, bleeding wound for decades.
Today, however, the roles have been reversed. The OCU — now canonically acknowledged by the Ecumenical Patriarchate — appeals for dialogue, reconciliation, and unity to the UOC‑MP, which finds itself now under canonical scrutiny. Following its 2022 declaration of “autonomy” from the Moscow Patriarchate, the UOC‑MP claims it no longer maintains a formal canonical bond with the Russian ecclesiastical authority. Yet this is not a recognized autocephaly but an undefined status of ecclesiastical autonomy that has neither been established nor widely accepted in the Orthodox world. The problem is twofold: on the one hand, separation from the Moscow Patriarchate removes the UOC‑MP from the canonical shelter that previously validated it; on the other, Moscow itself does not acknowledge this separation and continues to support and defend it — not as a separated body, but as an integral part of its own structure.
Thus, an inherently contradictory situation has emerged: the UOC‑MP exists in a canonical limbo — neither fully integrated into the Russian Church (in practice) nor canonically independent (in recognition). This dual status hampers both dialogue and trust from the OCU, while obscuring its position within the broader Orthodox communion.
The dispute is not merely institutional. It touches issues of identity, memory, and national self‑consciousness. For many Ukrainians, the OCU represents the spiritual independence of the nation; for Moscow and its supporters, it is seen as the product of political intervention and a schismatic act. This divide has not remained theoretical: parish transfers, local conflicts, disputes over church buildings and property, and legal battles have shaped a reality of tension that extends beyond theology and ecclesiology.
Faced with all this, the question remains: is there a realistic hope of bridging the divide? The answer — while not hopeless — must be cautious. The prevailing political and ecclesiastical conditions do not favor unity in the immediate term. Distrust, the historical weight of inflexibility, and the unclear canonical status of the UOC‑MP are significant obstacles. The OCU, for its part, feels canonically grounded and justified, and does not appear inclined to question the foundational core of its identity: the Tomos of Autocephaly granted by Constantinople.
Yet, amid the war, in a society wounded and fragmented, there is a palpable yearning to transcend ecclesiastical polarizations. The faithful — often more than the clergy — seek unity, healing, and clear pastoral care, not ongoing disputes. Perhaps, with the encouragement of other Orthodox Churches, a framework for dialogue could be established. But this will require, above all, sincere self‑criticism on both sides.
History teaches that unity cannot be imposed, but must be built — through effort, sacrifice, and repentance. If the temptation toward power and domination does not yield before the imperative of peace and humble confession, then every hope will remain theoretical. Yet the essential precondition for any genuine reconciliation is the substantive and verifiable disentanglement from the imperial ecclesiastical‑political mindset of the Moscow Patriarchate — a mindset that transforms the Church into an instrument of national policy rather than a sacramental communion in Christ. Only when this spirit is relinquished and ecclesial freedom acknowledged as foundational to unity can true healing of Ukraine’s ecclesiastical wound occur.
No comments:
Post a Comment