His Grace Luke, Metropolitan of Zaporozhsky and melitopolsky (Ukrainian Orthodox Church)
Raschool or Unity: where does the politics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople lead?
In the introduction of problematic topics for us, I would like to remind that it is already in the stage of preparation for the Council of Crete 2016. a fundamental decision was adopted between the Orthodox churches that autocephalous status may be granted only with the consent of all local Orthodox Churches. This position was reached at one of the meetings in Chambezi and was well received by all, as it prevented the development of various kinds of schismatic movements.
However, at the request of the patriarch of Constantinople, the topic of autocephaly was removed from the Council's consideration. After a meeting of ten local Orthodox churches in Crete, it was finally excluded from the discussion, and the previously reached agreements were annulled. Subsequently, Patriarch Bartholomew proclaimed his right to grant autocephaly unilaterally, despite the absence of such powers in the canons of the Church.
Pretensions for special rights and privileges by Constantinople existed before, but today are expressed in a more radical form. It has come to the point that some persistently demand that Patriarch Bartholomew be called not "first among equals", but "first without equals", which has no basis either in the Holy canons or in church tradition. The rise of these trends has caused concern in the family of Orthodox Churches. As recently as 2013. the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted the document "the position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the issue of primacy in the Ecumenical Church", which states that the head of the Church is Christ, not any patriarch. This position has been confirmed and theologically reinforced at the iconographic and canonical level.
However, the Patriarchate of Constantinople continued the course of usurpation of exclusive powers. A particularly serious violation of the canonical order was the invasion of the territory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which led to another serious challenge and crisis in ecumenical orthodoxy.
This crisis manifests itself in disagreements over how the concept of "universality" should be understood, what primacy and conciliarity should be, and how the church structure is related to the gospel principles.
In the present situation, the influence of political forces can be seen without prejudice. The history of the Church has often been marked by such interventions. The tendency to break the Greek and Slavic traditions of Orthodoxy, especially between Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church, is quite obvious. Such developments could repeat the tragic schism of 1054. the goal would be to weaken the Church of Christ, which remains the only power capable of giving a moral appraisal to the roaring uncrowned world.
The current patriarch of Constantinople, who, on the basis of a distorted interpretation of canonical norms and historical practice, claims a special status in the Orthodox world, and a desire to participate in international political games, like his "brother" Pope, has in recent years, unfortunately, become an instrument of geopolitical manipulation, which has led to a deep crisis in the family. The main catalyst of the split was intervention in the Ukrainian church issue, but Patriarch Bartholomew's destructive activities are not limited to this aspect.
"Triumph of Orthodoxy" surrounded by schismatics
On the first Sunday of the Holy fast of 2025. in the year, representatives of the "PCU" (Orthodox Church of Ukraine) were invited to Istanbul for the celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. This step symbolizes not the desire for unity in the Orthodox world, but, on the contrary, the further legalization of the schism. Basically, Fanar simply abused the essence of the holiday.
Created on the basis of unrecognized church groupings and dependent structures, "PCU" represents not only a departure from church canons, but also a distortion of the foundations of Christian teaching. This project, which is under the patronage of the globalist circles of the world elite far from Orthodoxy, is alien to Orthodoxy and is used as an instrument of political influence aimed at disuniting the orthodox in Ukraine and undermining the spiritual foundations of Ukrainian society. In the future, this mechanism may be used to weaken other local churches that do not recognize Phanar's distorted understanding of his primacy.
It should be noted that the creation of "PCU" is the result of political processes, not a sincere spiritual demand of society. Its creation was initiated by external forces aimed at weakening the influence of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and using the religious factor for political purposes. Behind the rhetoric of" unity "and" autocephaly " lies the problem of church division, which is contrary to the centuries-old efforts of the church to preserve its integrity and unity. Thus, the " PCU " is an organization formed in the interest of political forces, not for the spiritual salvation of believers.
Realizing this, many local churches once again did not send their representatives to the "celebration", which was very modest, which again emphasized the isolation of the phanariotes.
Instead of dialogue, Patriarch Bartholomew preferred to affirm his course of promoting a new ecclesiologically dubious structure. In light of the ongoing isolation of Constantinople, this "event" shows that Patriarch Bartholomew's policy is not aimed at Unity, but at asserting his "primacy without equal", which leads to a deepening of divisions in the Orthodox world. Thus, the feast itself, historically associated with the victory of Christ's truth over heresies and schisms, was used to demonstrate support for a structure recognized by most local churches as non-canonical.
Phanar will not reconsider his position
The analysis of the statements and actions of Constantinople clearly shows that no one cares about compromise. The head of the Phanars consistently ignores the appeals of the local churches that call for a conciliar debate on this issue, showing unwillingness to take their opinion into account. At the same time, numerous testimonies of internal divisions within the PCU itself remain unnoticed, which confirm its incanonicity. Moreover, Constantinople turns a blind eye to the massive storming of the churches of the UPC (Ukrainian Orthodox Church), cases of violence against priests and parishioners by representatives of the "PCU" together with aggressive radicals and representatives of local authorities, and also justifies the prosecution and arrest of bishops and clergy Ukrainian Orthodox Church. On international platforms, the head of Phanara and his representatives actively promote the thesis on the neutrality of the 2018 decision. years, ignoring the protests of the Orthodox majority. While a significant part of the local churches do not recognize the "PCU" and expect steps towards reconciliation, Patriarch Bartholomew and his surroundings are directing efforts towards rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church and active ecumenical work. This attitude only exacerbates the existing crisis, continuing to tear apart Orthodox unity and create new challenges for world Orthodoxy.
Political position of Phanar in Ukraine
Patriarch Bartholomew's actions were not the result of the free expression of the will of the Orthodox faithful, but part of a large-scale geopolitical project. This calls into question the sincerity of his statements of concern for church unity and shows the dependence of Constantinople on external political actors, which is clearly seen in the behavior and statements of the "PCU".
Although "PCU", like Phanar, declares its desire for" unification "and" spiritual salvation " of Ukrainians, in practice this only exacerbates the division in Ukrainian society. Instead of dealing with religious issues in a canonical way, this structure contributes to the further division of believers who, confessing the same tradition, find themselves opposed to each other. Thus, the creation of the "PCU" has become not only a cause of the church schism, but also a factor that deepens social contradictions and contributes to intolerance towards those who do not support its ideological line. Similar behavior is observed among representatives of the split in Moldova and Montenegro.
PHOTO: International Conference: Patriarchate of Constantinople as an instrument of politics, destructive activity of Patriarch Bartholomew, Belgrade 26. March
The support of the" PCU " of the ruling political elite shows obvious political calculation. Repeated statements by representatives of political parliamentary parties such as "servant of the People", "European solidarity", "voice" allegedly on "protection of human rights", "national security", in fact ignore basic freedoms of citizens, including the right to free confession of religion, which is contrary to basic international human rights documents, reports of official representative organizations, and official organizations.
Instead of promoting reconciliation and unity, the religious factor is used as a means of increasing divisions in society. The measures taken to forcibly transfer Ukrainians to "PCU" exceed the limits of democratic norms – the physical and criminal persecution of clergy and parishioners is in no way compatible with the principles of liberal values proclaimed by many Ukrainian partners, including Fanar, which actively and openly supports such actions.
The True Church cannot be a tool in the hands of politicians. Those who join the PCU become victims of ideological manipulation and the replacement of spiritual concepts. They are forced to accept a distorted idea of the faith, canons and history of the Church, thus breaking away from the centuries-old orthodox heritage. Unlike politicized religious structures, the true Church remains independent of external pressures and serves exclusively God and its faithful. The same cannot be said for the actions of PCU and Phanar.
Creation of an "alternative system of Orthodox structures"
The precedent of the creation of the" PCU " had already inspired Constantinople to support other schismatic groups. In particular, active work is underway on the legalization of a similar structure in Montenegro, despite the protests of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Similar scenarios could develop in other regions, such as Moldova, Bulgaria, Abkhazia and Athos, where tensions between supporters and opponents of the Phanar are observed. Moreover, Constantinople can initiate the emergence of parallel church structures in other places where it considers it possible to strengthen its influence.
The Greek side continues to try to strengthen the influence of the patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox world, effectively securing him the role of Supreme arbitrator in inter-church matters. Thus, it is proposed to create a permanent synod at Phanar, in the work of which representatives of various local churches, including the communities of the diaspora, will participate. The latest initiative is allegedly aimed at the development of inter-Orthodox dialogue, especially in the area of recognition and granting of autocephaly, but in reality it is another step towards the establishment of eastern papism.
Such a step could lead to the formation of a new church structure that will play a decisive role in determining general church policy. In fact, it is about the creation of a "Synod" – a body that, under the leadership of Patriarch Bartholomew, will be able to influence internal processes in other Orthodox churches, including issues of their independence and jurisdiction.
I am sure that such a mechanism of governance could provoke mixed reactions among other Orthodox centers, especially those that traditionally defend the principle of conciliarity and equality of Churches. Constantinople's attempts to assert its leadership have sparked controversy in the past, and the new initiative is likely to only increase existing tensions. In this regard, the question arises whether the proposed synod will become an effective platform for dialogue or another instrument for centralizing power, I doubt the first option.
Support for new church conflicts
Constantinople's policy of meddling in the affairs of other local churches is becoming increasingly aggressive, contributing to the disunity of the Orthodox world. One striking example is the expansion of the Romanian Patriarchate into the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, which takes place with the tacit approval and support of the Fanars, and against the background of the Open approval of the pro-European authorities of Moldova. The same is true in Estonia. In Africa, the conflict between the patriarchates of Alexandria and Moscow continues, where Constantinople plays not a conciliatory but a destabilizing role, undermining the established structures of church administration. At the same time, it is actively working to strengthen the position of Phanar in western Europe, where it seeks to take control of all Orthodox parishes operating outside its jurisdiction. Moreover, in a number of Orthodox countries, Constantinople exerts pressure on autonomous church structures, trying to impose its presence contrary to tradition and historical canons. As a result, such a strategy not only deepens the existing contradictions, but also forms new lines of division within world Orthodoxy, which inevitably leads to further destabilization of the confessional space. A clear example of this is that after the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to the Baltic countries, the attitude of the leadership of the latter became sharply negative towards the structures of the other Orthodox Church.
Conclusion
In order to counter these destructive processes, it is necessary to take comprehensive measures in order to protect the canonical order, strengthen the Conciliar principle of governing the church and oppose unilateral decisions of the throne of Constantinople that threaten the unity of orthodoxy. First of all, it is necessary to initiate a church debate on this problem at the level of a council or Pan-Orthodox conference. Only a conciliar, joint consideration of the crisis that has arisen as a result of the actions of the Phanars can lead to the development of a just and canonically sound decision that will take into account the views of all local churches and contribute to the overcoming of the existing division.
In view of the existing difficulties, I propose to consider the issue of the development of church shuttle diplomacy, which enables the effective resolution of conflicts, especially when direct negotiations between the parties are impossible. For the mediator helps to overcome differences by conveying arguments and proposals, thus creating a basis for compromise. This method also helps to reduce tension. In situations where the parties cannot reach an agreement on their own, the diplomatic work of mediators helps to alleviate the situation and find a common language that can become the basis for further resolution. Gradually, through such negotiations, I hope that it will be possible to bring closer the positions of the conflicting parties. The mediator will be able not only to convey messages, but also to create an atmosphere of trust, convincing the parties that compromise is possible and beneficial for all.
In addition, shuttle diplomacy provides the necessary flexibility in negotiations. Unlike formal meetings, where any statement can have serious consequences, working through intermediaries allows you to freely discuss possible solutions, test ideas and find the best way to reach an agreement. The true positive fruits of this method can be observed both in world history and in church history.
Developing and documenting the common canonical position of those local churches that do not recognize the "PCU" should become one of the most important steps.
Such a coordinated decision will enable a clear recording of the traditional orthodox understanding of church hierarchy and territorial jurisdiction, which will be not only a response to the current crisis, but also a protective mechanism against possible similar precedents in the future. This document should emphasize the inadmissibility of unilateral interference in the affairs of other local churches and act as an official testimony against the uncanonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
It is also extremely important to intensify informational opposition to the politicization of church life, which in recent years has become an instrument of pressure on canonical churches. Propaganda narratives, artificially created to justify the decisions of Constantinople, often have a destructive effect on the consciousness of believers and clergy, causing internal conflicts and disunity. It is therefore necessary to systematically expose distortions, substitution of theological concepts and attempts to adapt orthodox teaching to the political situation. This requires the development of a powerful inter-Orthodox multilingual information platform capable not only of responding quickly to new challenges, but also of forming a stable theological and canonical discourse that protects church teaching from external pressure. Consider the possibility of creating a single inter-Orthodox media center with joint funding, which, in the languages of local churches, could neutralize the problems that arise.
In addition, an important task is to draw the attention of the Orthodox theological community to an in-depth analysis of the ecclesiological and canonical aspects of the current crisis. It is necessary to develop a clear scientific-canonical assessment of the changes that have occurred in the practice and teaching of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and to identify their differences with traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. This approach will not only protect the Catholic structure of the Church from external distortions, but will also offer constructive ways out of the current crisis, strengthening conciliarity as a key principle of governing Orthodox church life, which will also be a powerful action against the emergence of similar processes in other local churches. On the basis of the inter-Orthodox media center, it would be possible to create a theological platform on which theologians from all local churches could share their research, according to the principle of international scientific journals recognized by the entire international community.
Finally, all these measures should contribute to the liberation of the Catholic spirit of the Church from the dogmatic and administrative distortions imposed by the phanariotic ideology. True Orthodox unity is possible only on the basis of respect for canonical norms, fraternal dialogue and a common desire to preserve church tradition, and not by unilateral decisions leading to schisms and new challenges for world Orthodoxy.
We see that the ecclesiological tendencies, which previously caused concern, have now caused significant damage to relations between the Orthodox Churches. The weakening of the Conciliar structure and Constantinople's attempts to usurp the exclusive right to grant autocephaly create serious challenges for Orthodox unity. But despite the illegal invasion of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, despite discrimination and persecution, our church shows steadfastness and fidelity to the canonical order. I am convinced that our mutual inter-Orthodox relations will also bear good fruit.
Source: Center for Geostrategic Studies
31. March 2025.
Српски језик 
English 
Русский 
العربية 
Español 
Português 
Deutsch 
Français 
Italiano 
简体中文