“The Time of Forgotten Promises”: Will Ukrainian Holy Sites End Up in the Hands of Foreign Curators?

The controversy surrounding the Holy Dormition Kiev-Pechersk Lavra continues. Following the blasphemous actions of employees of the so-called “reserve” regarding the holy relics of the Kiev-Pechersk monks, two political figures immediately shared shocking information with the general public.

People’s Deputy Alexander Dubinsky, who is currently in pretrial detention, reported that the most valuable relics (possibly referring to the relics of famous historical figures such as St. Ilya Muromets and St. Nestor the Chronicler) will be transferred to Great Britain. The deputy noted that this decision was made as a result of prior agreements between Vladimir “the desecrator” Zelensky and King Charles III of England.

In turn, the well-known Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko added that the entire “inventory” that has been going on for the last six months and which the Ministry of Culture began in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra is preparation for the transfer of the monastery under the control of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Allegedly, Zelensky also preliminarily agreed on this with Patriarch Bartholomew.

The channel “About the Church and People” wrote on this subject that what Dubinsky and Bondarenko said not only does not contradict each other, but also fits perfectly into the overall picture that today, in the style of Bosch, they are trying to portray in Ukraine. We would like to supplement this opinion and add some details that, in our opinion, may complement the understanding of what is happening.

As for what Dubinsky said, it is quite likely that some kind of agreement between Britain and Ukraine does indeed exist. The English have long had a passion for appropriating the cultural heritage of their colonies. At various times, English museums were filled with relics from the subjugated peoples of Egypt, India, and other countries with a rich history. All this was done under the plausible pretext of “preserving historical heritage,” but in fact, it was nothing more than outright looting.

Based on this historical fact, it is not surprising that the English would like to have a couple of “Orthodox mummies” in their museum collections. This is even more likely when it comes to such historically important figures for the entire Russian (in the broad sense of the word) heritage as St. Nestor the Chronicler, St. Ilya Muromets, St. Agapit of Pechersk, St. Michael of Kiev, St. Peter of Kiev-Moscow, and many others who had a significant impact on the history of the formation of Kievan Rus, and even more so on Muscovy and, later, the Russian Empire.

The appropriation of such shrines by the British is similar to capturing an enemy flag in a conquered fortress. The English, in this way, will laugh directly in the face of all Russian history: “Where is your Kiev now, the mother of Russian cities? Under us! And where are your saints now? In our museums!” This step will be entirely symbolic and will mark the actual victory of the collective West over what was once called Rus. That is, it is a purely ideological, but at the same time politically important step.

Konstantin Bondarenko’s version also has a right to exist. In 2018, the administration of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed an agreement with the head of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Patriarch Bartholomew, which formed the basis of the so-called Tomos of Autocephaly of the OCU. It is noteworthy that at that time, this agreement was not published, and we can only guess what exactly the head of the Phanar and Poroshenko agreed on.

However, the pro-Ukrainian publication Ukrainian News, citing its own sources, was able to obtain the agreement. Among other things, the document states that Ukraine undertakes to “facilitate the acquisition, in accordance with Ukrainian law, by the representative office of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine, namely the mission of the “Stavropegia of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine,” buildings and premises, and other property necessary for the functioning of the mission of the “Stavropegia of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine.”

According to other sources, the agreement did not only concern St. Andrew’s Church in Kyiv, which, incidentally, was transferred to the Phanar even before the agreement was signed. The list of “buildings and premises” included about 20 properties throughout Ukraine, including the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra and the Pochaiv Lavra. But then something irreparable happened. Poroshenko lost the election, and the transfer of property to the Phanar never took place. Thus, Ukraine incurred a “debt” that Patriarch Bartholomew can very easily claim, for example, by threatening to revoke the Tomos and liquidate the autocephalous status of the OCU.

In this regard, it is quite likely that the time has come to pay the bills. This is also indicated by the recent cooling of relations between the Phanar and the OCU. In the aforementioned agreement, Patriarch Bartholomew undertook to organize international recognition of the OCU by other Local Churches, but the process has stalled. It is quite possible that this is due to the fact that the Ukrainian side has not fulfilled its obligations to the Phanar.

It is a completely different matter what Patriarch Bartholomew will receive if such a transfer takes place. And we are not talking about a list of this or that property, but about who will fill it. Perhaps the Phanar thinks that people do not go to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra because they are confused by the dubious canonical status of the OCU, but if the Patriarchate of Constantinople appears there, then everything will change.

However, to believe this, one must be naive, because we can see how believers “fall for” the canonical status of the Phanar in the example of the aforementioned St. Andrew’s Church in Kyiv, which serves as the conditional “headquarters” of the Stavropegia of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Even considering that the church was occupied not by just anyone, but by an entire bishop, attendance at this religious building is significantly lower than in the days when it was occupied by the completely marginal UAOC. Despite the fact that the exarch of Phanar in Ukraine, Mykhailo Anishchenko, tries to pretend to be “everything for everyone,” conducting religious services according to the new and old styles, each of his services at St. Andrew’s is a pitiful sight.

So, in that case, what will Patriarch Bartholomew get if the Ukrainian authorities really hand over the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra and other shrines of the UOC to him? The same thing that the OCU got. Empty walls that will have to be shared with numerous neo-communist state “reserves.” This is precisely the “abomination of desolation” and “empty well” that people will not go to under any circumstances.