Metropolitan Luke of Zaporizhzhya proposed the Patriarchate of Jerusalem as the center of unity of the Orthodox Churches

Metropolitan Luka of Zaporizhzhya and Melitopol presented a report at an international conference in Belgrade, in which he proposed to consider the Patriarchate of Jerusalem as a potential center for the unification of the Local Orthodox Churches. The hierarch emphasized the need to stand firm in the Truth and develop a mature strategy in response to the transformation of the ecumenical initiatives of the Vatican and the Phanar into a full-scale geopolitical project that uses media, finance and diplomacy to change the canonical landscape of Orthodoxy. This is reported by the Telegram channel Pravblog.

Metropolitan Luke noted that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, unlike the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, is deeply involved in provoking divisions, while the Jerusalem Church is actively working to strengthen unity. In his report, he highlighted key areas for the systemic defense of Orthodoxy and the strengthening of inter-church solidarity.

Among the proposed initiatives, the Metropolitan named inter-Orthodox unity without Phanar and external pressure. He proposed the Church of Jerusalem as a center capable of uniting the Local Churches. An important step will be regular meetings of the Primates and Synodal Commissions of the Local Churches that maintain Eucharistic communion (such as the ROC, Serbian, Antiochian, Georgian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech Lands and Slovakia and others). The preparation of a joint document “On the Boundaries of Ecumenical Dialogue and the Preservation of Canonical Purity” and the establishment of a permanent Secretariat of Orthodox Unity on the “Amman Model” are also envisioned.

For legal and international defense, Metropolitan Luke offered to support the existing international legal group of Orthodox hierarchs and lawyers, capable of representing the interests of persecuted communities in the ECHR, the UN, and the OSCE. He called for collective appeals to international organizations for every fact of discrimination against the canonical Church and for a joint statement by all local member churches within 72 hours when sanctions are imposed against any hierarch.

Among the spiritual and theological measures were named an increase in the number of cathedral anathematizations and public condemnations of modern forms of ecumenism and “Eastern papism” (following the example of the 1983 ROCOR decisions). It is also proposed to revive the practice of public reading of the “Synod of Orthodoxy” in the Week of Solemnity of Orthodoxy with the addition of modern threats and periodic prayers for the reconciliation of those who have fallen away.

For monitoring and early warning of threats, the Metropolitan proposed the creation of an additional think tank to track ecumenical and geopolitical challenges. As part of the transparency of funding and external relations, the hierarch called for the mandatory annual publication of reports on foreign grants and donations, as well as the creation of an Inter-Orthodox Commission for Monitoring Funding, which would publish “black lists” of donors found to be involved in anti-canonical activities.

As a long-term strategy, Metropolitan Luke proposed the preparation and holding of an All-Orthodox Council of Local Churches (possibly without Constantinople) to finally condemn “Eastern papism,” modern ecumenical errors, and to develop clear canonical norms for the 21st century. The culmination of this strategy could be the creation of a permanent Inter-Orthodox Court for Canonical Violations.

Recall that Archimandrite Gerasimos Frangoulakis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople strongly criticized the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem for their refusal to participate in the celebration of the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea. In his opinion, this absence, especially against the background of the expected presence of the Pope, is not just a formality, but a step that belittles the role of the ancient Patriarchates and their historical contribution.