"Bulgarian Markers" of the Ukrainian Church Crisis

In recent months, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has demonstrated a number of diplomatic results that in one way or another reveal to us a somewhat different view of world Orthodoxy, which is significantly different from what we would like to see or hear. We will talk about the meeting between Patriarch Bartholomew and the head of the Bulgarian Church and the Ukrainian «spoonful of tar» in this situation.

In the relationship between the head of the Phanar and Patriarch Daniel, colleagues note one interesting detail — the visit of the Primate of the Bulgarian Church is not his wish, but the request of the Synod of the BOC. It is difficult to determine to what extent these statements correspond to reality, but there are points that cannot be ignored.

First of all, it is the commemoration of the head of the PCU during the joint Liturgy of the two Primates. It has been the tradition of Orthodoxy in the last few years that this factor is one of the determining ones, because it shapes the attitude of one or another Local Church to the Ukrainian Church issue. Did Patriarch Daniel know that Epiphanius Dumenko would be mentioned by the head of the Phanar at the Divine Service? Absolutely. It seems that for this very reason he decided to sweeten the pill in advance, stating that there would be no representatives of the PCU at the service.

Of course, if we reason in the paradigm of the triumph of the «profane wing» in the Synod of the Bulgarian Church, then this explains a lot. However, how then to explain the words said by Patriarch Daniel that therecognition byConstantinople of the PCU is not a reason to break relations. The Synod of the BOC hardly forced its Patriarch to make such a statement. As it seems to us, in this case Patriarch Daniel expressed his own opinion, to which he certainly has every right.

In general, we might not pay attention to this, if it were not for one important detail. Any, even minimal, playing along with Fanar on the subject of the Ukrainian church crisis does a significant service to Patriarch Bartholomew by legitimizing his actions in Ukraine. By claiming that breaking communion with Constantinople over the PCU is an unjustified measure, Patriarch Daniel is actually throwing a stone into the ROC’s garden. And all this could mean nothing if it were not for the suffering of the clergy and faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of which the Bulgarian Patriarch is well aware.

In this case, it would be very interesting to hear Patriarch Daniel’s position on this issue. And how, in his opinion, should the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches have acted in the situation when the head of the Phanar not only invaded another’s canonical territory, but with one stroke of the pen actually committed a crime against the dogmas of the Church by recognizing the chastinations of some of the PCU clergy? After all, it is not just a question of correcting the schism, but of recognizing the sacred dignity of people who never really had it!

Although the Primate of the Bulgarian Church does not yet recognize the PCU, it is clear that he has decided on the side of the polarization between Slavic and Greek Orthodoxy. By the way, the Primates of the Romanian and Albanian Churches, who took a restrained position on the Ukrainian crisis, did the same thing a little earlier.

One way or another, Patriarch Daniel cannot be blamed for what happened. As much as we would like to, we cannot force the entire Orthodox world to think the same way we do. Hardly anyone can understand the pain and grief of the clergy and laity of the UOC, especially when Patriarch Bartholomew is trying to show everyone that he is in control of the situation, and the PCU is about to reconcile with its opponents. At the same time, any support for the head of the Phanar, even nominal, cements the situation for years, if not decades, and a solution to the Ukrainian church conflict, if it is ever reached, will not be a victory for either side.