Answering the Orthodox Times’ Lies About the Church in Ukraine

Orthodox Times recently published an article titled “‘No’ from Metropolitan Onufriy on severing the UOC’s connection with Moscow.” The Orthodox Times is often a source of high-quality reporting. This fact makes it all the more surprising that they would publish an article like this, which is wholly composed of half-truths and outright lies.

The piece claims that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) has “formally announced its refusal to comply with legislation adopted by the Ukrainian authorities that seeks to sever its ties with the Moscow Patriarchate.” It further asserts:

What is regrettable, however, is that at no point in his letter does Metropolitan Onufriy clarify his stance on the specific issues raised by the Ukrainian government concerning the relationship of the UOC with the Russian Orthodox Church.
This omission, combined with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement during his meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump about the need to protect ‘the Russian Church in Ukraine’ (a clear reference to the UOC as part of the ROC) leaves little room for ambiguity regarding the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
With this letter, Metropolitan Onufriy had the opportunity to clearly proclaim the independence of the UOC from the Russian Church and to begin the process of securing its canonical status within global Orthodoxy, since there is no ‘independent’ Church that is not also autocephalous.

To the casual reader, this may sound reasonable: Why not just proclaim independence? Why not clarify? What about Putin’s statement?

The answer is simple: they did, he has, and what does it matter what Putin says?

The UOC Is More Autocephalous Than Constantinople’s OCU

At the Council of Feofania on May 27, 2022, the UOC:

Denounced the Russian invasion.
Denounced Patriarch Kirill for supporting the war and ceased his commemoration in services.
Amended its Statute of Governance to affirm its full independence and self-governance.
Established a commission to resume the consecration of chrism in Kyiv.

In other words, the UOC severed every administrative tie with Moscow, retaining only Eucharistic communion—the bond uniting all Orthodox Churches. Moscow did not reject this move, nor did any other Local Church break communion with Metropolitan Onuphry. On the contrary, primates of no less than seven Local Churches recently congratulated him on the anniversary of his enthronement as Metropolitan of Kyiv and All-Ukraine.

I greet you, my brother, on this anniversary, and I reassure you of my unflagging and indefatigable support for Your Beatitude in your primatial ministry as well as my prayers and support for the entire long-suffering Ukrainian Orthodox Church and all the people of Ukraine. I reiterate the love of the clergy and faithful of the Orthodox Church in America for their Ukrainian brethren. —Metropolitan Tikhon Mollard of Washington and All America, OCA

Thus, when Orthodox Times insists that the UOC must still “secure its canonical status within global Orthodoxy,” the reality is this: they already have.

Met. Onuphry — and the absurdity of DESS

Metropolitan Onuphry has called Russia’s invasion “a repetition of the sin of Cain, who out of envy killed his own brother.” He has blessed the faithful of Ukraine to resist, calling their struggle righteous in the eyes of God; the UOC has raised over twenty million hryvnias in war aid raised and handed over to the armed forces. In other words, when Orthodox Times asserts that His Beatitude needs to clarify his position, we respond: He already did.

The Ukrainian State Committee on Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (or DESS) points out that Moscow still lists Metropolitan Onuphry as a member of its Synod. Yet Onuphry cannot compel Moscow to erase his name.

The UOC rightly rejects DESS’s conclusions, because the process and standards set forth are absurd. The committee was packed with politicians and activists, not experts in Orthodox theology or canon law. The UOC was not even allowed to submit evidence or expert testimony. The outcome was predetermined.

Metropolitan Onuphry and the UOC have been crystal clear: the war is wicked and sinful, Patriarch Kirill is wrong for supporting it and shall not be commemorated by his clergy, monastics, or lay faithful. The UOC has spent the war enduring persecution from the state while simultaneously raising tens of millions to support its war effort. The OCU seizes their parishes in Ukrainian territory, and the MP seizes their parishes in Russian controlled territory.

It may be that the Russian president feels that the UOC is not (or should not be) independent of the Moscow Patriarchate. But, then, who cares what Putin says?

Constantinople’s “Autocephalous” OCU

Meanwhile, Constantinople continues to claim that the OCU is fully autocephalous. But let us look closely at its Tomos:

Patriarch Bartholomew must be commemorated at every service.
A new primate must be confirmed by Constantinople.
The Tomos overrides the OCU’s governing statute and synodal rulings.
Disputes not covered in the statute must be judged by Constantinople.
On major issues, the OCU must defer directly to Constantinople’s unilateral ruling.
Constantinople is the final court of appeal and may overturn OCU decisions.
Constantinople may establish stavropegial institutions in Ukraine outside OCU jurisdiction.
The OCU is forbidden to consecrate chrism, receiving it only from Constantinople.
The OCU is forbidden to establish parishes outside Ukraine.

This last one is important to note. This means that any Ukrainian refugee living in Europe who wants to attend a Ukrainian parish must attend a parish of the Western European Vicariate of the UOC.

Now compare this with the UOC’s status under Moscow before Feofania, when it was called “autonomous, but not autocephalous”:

The primate had to be confirmed by the Patriarch of Moscow.
The Patriarch of Moscow was commemorated in services.
The UOC primate sat permanently on Moscow’s Synod.
The UOC was bound by Moscow’s council decisions.
The UOC received chrism from Moscow.

The Only Conclusion

Even before the UOC declared its independence from the Russian Church, it enjoyed greater autonomy under Moscow than the OCU does under Constantinople.

Today, it’s not even close. Moscow has no authority over the UOC. None whatsoever. Meanwhile, the OCU is essentially a vassal of the Phanar. It is “autocephalous” in name only.

It is a tragedy that the Orthodox Times, the Ukrainian government, and even the Ecumenical Patriarchate continue to push this sort of anti-UOC propaganda. Do they not recognize the immense suffering they cause the people of Ukraine? Or do they just not care?

May God grant many years to the Primate of the only autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Onuphry of Kyiv and All Ukraine.