By Hieromonk Nikitas of Pantokrator Monastery
A publication appeared some days ago referring to the appointment of an archbishop in Greece by the so-called “Patriarchate of Kyiv.” The appointment of an archbishop is not the strange aspect of the matter, because this is not a recognized Church appointing its own archbishop in Greece, but rather a schismatic structure which, in cooperation with the schismatic Old Calendarist structure GOC that operates in Greece, proceeded with this appointment. What is strange, however, is the connection made by the author of the article with Archbishop Epiphanius of Kyiv and All Ukraine, the Primate of the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine. And we shall explain.
The article very correctly states: “It should be noted that this is a structure not in communion with the official Orthodox Churches.” However, the poison of misinformation and propaganda intended to preserve division within the Church of Ukraine is poured out in the very next phrase: “while from its ranks emerged the present Metropolitan of Kyiv Epiphanius of the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine.” We understand very well, therefore, that this misinformation comes from certain people who are disturbed by the creation of the fifteenth Autocephalous Orthodox Church and who, naturally, as its opponents, continually place obstacles in its way. History has shown that those disturbed are none other than members of the Russian Church throughout the world, who have never shown interest in the unity of the Orthodox Church in general, but rather, through the spread of such articles and reports, strive to preserve division so as not to oppose the geopolitical interests of the Russian Federation.
It is clear that any unity achieved within the Church of Ukraine would be a tremendous blow to the Church of Russia, which would gradually lose all its influence there. But it would also be a tremendous blow to Putin’s government, since it would weaken the last small pro-Russian nucleus remaining in Ukraine. And this nucleus is sustained by the existence and activity of the hierarchs and clergy of the Russian Church within Ukraine, headed by Metropolitan Onufriy. Attempts were made to prove that this structure (headed by Metropolitan Onufriy) had severed all ties with the Russian Church. But these attempts failed, because not all its hierarchs ceased commemorating Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, nor was this separation ever accepted by the Russian Church, which always continues to declare this structure as one of its own parts. Putin himself, in fact, repeatedly referred to and demanded the protection of this branch of the Russian Church from organizations dealing with human rights and religious freedoms.
It has therefore become obvious even to the simplest Ukrainian believer that this entire effort to sever relations with the Russian Church was done in order to muddy the waters and confuse the faithful Orthodox people of Ukraine. Even today they do not wish to be called the “Russian Church in Ukraine,” because the word “Russian” has become far too burdensome for Ukrainians to accept after the destruction they have suffered from the Russians. They insist instead on the title “Ukrainian Orthodox Church” in order to remain somewhat acceptable to the last faithful remaining to them.
Let us now see why the article’s reference to Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kyiv as having come from the so-called “Patriarchate of Kyiv” is entirely false and misleading. The Patriarchate of Kyiv was founded in 1992 by the former Metropolitan of Kyiv Filaret after his deposition by the Patriarchate of Moscow. No canonical ecclesiastical procedure was followed for its establishment, and therefore from the very beginning it was schismatic and recognized by no Orthodox Autocephalous Church. Metropolitan Filaret appealed several times to the Ecumenical Patriarchate seeking recognition of his structure, but without result, since the Ecumenical Patriarch always awaited action from the Russian Church in order to avoid reactions.
However, the Church of Russia never consented to this and instead maintained the existence of this schismatic structure without attempting to build bridges of unity, lest the Orthodox Ukrainian clergy and people be influenced toward the request for Autocephaly promoted by the Patriarchate of Kyiv. After nearly twenty years of patience, the Ecumenical Patriarch felt that he would be answerable before God if he did not provide a solution to this schism. Thus, on October 11, 2018, he accepted a renewed appeal from Metropolitan Filaret and restored him to canonical order, reinstating him to his episcopal rank and bringing the faithful of this structure back into ecclesiastical communion.
The Patriarchate of Kyiv remained as a structure for two more months, until the “Unification Council” convened in Kyiv on December 15, 2018. Before the work of the Council began, the presiding Metropolitan Emmanuel of France (now of Chalcedon), quite rightly demanded that the two former schismatic “Primates,” Filaret and Makarios, bring signed documents dissolving their structures so that the proceedings of the Council could begin. This was done, thereby manifesting the necessary repentance required in cases of restoring schismatics to canonical order. Thus, on that day, the Patriarchate of Kyiv was dissolved definitively and irrevocably.
Metropolitan Epiphanius, therefore, along with many of the present hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, came from the ranks of that structure which was dissolved in December 2018 — not, as the article states, from the present structure called the “Patriarchate of Kyiv.”
The creation and history of the present so-called “Patriarchate of Kyiv” is as follows: after the “Unification Council” and the establishment of the new Autocephalous Church of Ukraine, Metropolitan Filaret was appointed a permanent member of its Synod. However, six months later, in June 2019, the now ninety-year-old Filaret came into conflict with Primate Epiphanius and the members of the Synod and broke away, declaring that he was restoring the Patriarchate of Kyiv.
Yet such a declaration, without the required documents and permissions, could hardly be taken seriously by anyone, especially since the dissolution of the Patriarchate of Kyiv had already been signed by him six months earlier. Those who benefited from this new situation were those trying by every means to preserve discord and confusion within the Church of Ukraine. The Autocephalous Church of Ukraine tolerated Filaret’s activity, permitting him to serve in Saint Vladimir’s Cathedral in Kyiv and to reside in the metropolitan residence he had used for many years. And all this was done out of respect for his contribution to the Church of Ukraine and for his advanced age.
At the same time, it was understood that his actions had no canonical validity concerning the Church, and that after his repose all the buildings and properties he used would return to the ownership of the Church of Ukraine. And this indeed happened in March 2026, when the former Metropolitan Filaret reposed.
It is noteworthy that among the seven hierarchs belonging to this new structure of the so-called “Patriarchate of Kyiv,” four did not participate in the meeting for the election of a new “Patriarch of Kyiv,” while the remaining three met in a hotel in Kyiv during Filaret’s funeral service and announced that the new “Patriarch of Kyiv” would be Nikodim (Kobzar). All the remaining clergy (priests and deacons) who had served with Filaret joined the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine. This structure possesses no real institutional existence, and all its services are conducted in an apartment.
Indeed, the Church of Ukraine has nothing to fear from the so-called “Patriarchate of Kyiv,” which is supported only by opponents of unity and of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. It is entirely understandable that such articles are intended to strike at Metropolitan Epiphanius and the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine in general.
As time passes, we increasingly marvel at the farsightedness of His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch, who three years before the Russian invasion of Ukraine granted Autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine. In this way, the Orthodox of Ukraine are now able to have their own Church. Otherwise, all would have fled to the Catholics and Uniates, since remaining Orthodox in Ukraine would have meant attending churches of the Russian Church — something no one in Ukraine desired. Thus Orthodoxy in Ukraine was saved, and what happened in Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland, which for the same reasons became predominantly Catholic countries, was not repeated.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
