Why the UOC cannot resume relations with the Patriarchate of Constantinople

One of the readers of our website asked a good question — why does the UOC not allow the resumption of Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople? The motivation is simple — if the UOC had done so, then it could have joined the exarchate of the Phanar with its full membership in order to avoid the ban and expropriation of property. The arguments in favor of such a decision, according to the questioner, can be reduced to the fact that the Local Churches — even those that do not support Patriarch Bartholomew’s decision to create the OCU — still have not broken communion with the Phanar and have not become worse because of this.

The UOC is often accused that the decision to break relations with the Phanar was unnecessary. Moreover, many believe that in this case the Church actually duplicated a similar decision of the Moscow Patriarchate, but in fact, there were no sufficient reasons for such a step. Nevertheless, only those who are either completely ignorant of the situation or who are deliberately trying to exclude Patriarch Bartholomew from the «formula» of the religious confrontation in Ukraine can claim so.

So, let us begin to answer this complex question from the end. The local Churches that have not recognized the OCU do not break eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople because the Ukrainian church conflict is, by and large, none of their business. At least, that is what most of them believe. They have taken the position of «both yours and ours», maintaining relations with both the Phanar and the Russian Orthodox Church because no one can say for sure which way the pendulum will swing in this issue.

Besides, it should be understood that the majority of them still gave preference to the ROC. This is evidenced by a single fact — non-recognition of the OCU from their side. This is probably one of the greatest victories of the ROC in this conflict. There is another, psychological factor. The churches realize that sooner or later the Ukrainian situation can be staged under their noses. Therefore, Patriarch Bartholomew’s «tsarist ways» hardly delight any of them. And most importantly, there is no doubt that if Patriarch Bartholomew plays out the Ukrainian scenario on the canonical territory of any other Church, the break in communion will happen without fail!

Now let us answer the question — why did the Ukrainian Orthodox Church break communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople? And even more importantly — why does she not want to renew these decisions? As we have already written above — to resume relations with the Phanar at this stage for the UOC is like: a) recognizing the correctness of Patriarch Bartholomew’s actions with regard to Ukrainian issues, b) agreeing with the theses that the entire previous struggle of the UOC for its rights is a complete nonsense, which, in fact, nobody needed.

To put it simply, the rupture of relations between the UOC and the Phanar is a forced measure, which was dictated by the decision to create a parallel jurisdiction, from which the UOC could only suffer and everyone understood it perfectly well. Seizure of the UOC property, attacks on the clergy and believers of the Church — this is by no means the know-how of the OCU. The UOC has lived in a state of permanent persecution for thirty years, and quite naturally, the UOC clearly and clearly understood what the legalization of yesterday’s offenders of the Church would lead to. That is why the break in communion with the Phanar became the only possible way to respond to the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew, who, incidentally, was repeatedly dissuaded by numerous UOC delegations — from the episcopate to Orthodox philanthropists such as Novinsky.

But even if we leave aside church politics and look at the issue from a purely domestic side. As we have written earlier, the Phanar exarchate will not become a fully independent structure from the OCU. One way or another, those who will be part of such an association, sooner or later will be forced to serve with the schismatics. In this case, what is the point of this step? That is, «we will not go to the OCU, because they are so-and-so, but in our exarchate we will serve with the OCU, because we were told so by the Phanar».

Especially important in such a case is the moral and ethical aspect. Let us imagine that the UOC restores communication with the Phanar on an official level. What, in such a case, should we say to those who suffered directly from Patriarch Bartholomew’s decision to create the OCU? What should we say to the priests whose lives have been turned upside down after the seizure of churches? What to say to the believers who were beaten for trying to prevent the seizures of churches? Does anyone think they are all so stupid that they can expect to be ignorant of exactly who is to blame for their troubles? What should the Primate of the UOC say to all these people? «Dear friends, we have here decided to schedule a peace with the Phanar and go under the Greek cover. You there do not rebel too much! Humble yourselves! Forget all offenses! Patriarch Bartholomew is not to blame for the fact that you pray in apartments and basements. He is a good, kind shepherd! The fault is with the evil OCU, who in a couple of years, at the behest of a pike, will also become right and good, because we are all called to unity!». Is that it?

Therefore, until the Ukrainian church crisis is not solved according to the canons of the Church. Until the seized churches and monasteries are returned. Until, in the end, our opponents will not awaken a sense of remorse for the atrocities committed against the UOC. There can be no talk of any concessions! First of all, to Patriarch Bartholomew, whose decisions are undoubtedly the root cause of everything that is happening to the Church in Ukraine.