On 27 May 2025, the UOC (MP) commemorated the third anniversary of the “Feofaniyevsky” Council. Most of the bishops of the UOC (MP) gathered at the residence of Metropolitan Onufriy in the village of Feofaniya near Kyiv. Many had hoped that at least on this occasion of the 3rd anniversary, the Church would finally adopt clear and official decisions regarding its secession from the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC-MP). There were expectations that Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate would finally be restored and formal appeals would be sent to the Primates of the Local Churches for recognition the full autocephaly of the UOC. Many were waiting for this and hoping for it… But, once again, all hopes were in vain. Much to Moscow’s satisfaction.
During the bishops’ meeting on 27 May, some bishops proposed resuming dialogue and Eucharistic unity with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. A proposal was also made to issue an official appeal to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and the heads of other Local Churches, seeking recognition of the UOC’s autocephaly. These proposals, however, were not supported. Everything was limited to the reading of Metropolitan Onufriy’s address marking the anniversary of the “Feofaniyevsky” Council and a very brief exchange of views among the bishops. The tone was set by Metropolitan Theodosius Snegirev of Cherkasy, who voiced a position of allegiance to the ROC MP on behalf of a “group of bishops and clergy” of the UOC. There were some bishops who spoke in favour of full autocephaly of the UOC, but the majority simply remained silent as has often been the case.
But how could it be otherwise if the organisers of this meeting deliberately timed to coincide it with the 33rd anniversary of the so-called “Kharkiv Council”? The very same one that was convened in May 1992 under orders from Moscow, aimed to prevent the declaring of full autocephaly of the UOC from ROC MP.
It is quite characteristic that the UOC does not commemorate the anniversaries of its 1990 and 1991 Local Councils, which really laid the groundwork for the UOC’s self-governance and determined its course towards full autocephaly (and yet this year marks the 35th anniversary!). Instead, every year the UOC-MP officially celebrates the so-called “Kharkiv Council” of 1992, which not only was not a Local Council, but also, according to many canonical features, can be considered a bishops’ meeting rather than a full-fledged bishops’ council. This clandestine meeting, which was convened under Moscow’s directive and controlled in a “manual mode” by telephone from Chisty Lane in Moscow, contravened the UOC’s own Statute, actually rejecting to implement the decision of the 1991 Local Council of the UOC to obtain canonical autocephaly for the UOC. After the proclamation of Ukraine’s state independence, that meeting left the UOC in further dependence on the ROC MP (which contradicts the canonical principles of local churches), causing divisions within Ukrainian Orthodoxy. And because of this the UOC has been stuck in a dead end for 33 years, losing support from both Ukrainian society and the state.
Attempts to derive the identity of the UOC from the “Kharkiv Council” have become a trap artificially imposed by the ROC-MP, and from which the UOC has been unable to escape for over 30 years. Without re-evaluating the mistakes of the past, including the so-called “Kharkiv identity” (which is essentially pro-Moscow) and other narratives of the ROC MP, it is impossible to truly embark on the path to full autocephaly. This “identity” is the reason for the 33 years of stagnation and the internal crisis that has befallen the UOC.
Therefore, when it was reported a week ago that the bishops’ meeting on 27 May would once again commemorate the anniversary of the ‘Kharkiv Council’, it was obvious that with such an ideological background, it was futile to expect anything consistent and concrete from it. This is not what the legacy of the Kharkiv Council is about. It is about the 33rd anniversary of attempts to preserve, even covertly, the UOC’s canonical ties and dependence on the ROC MP at any cost. Even despite the fourth year of Russian aggression against Ukraine and the daily horrific bombings and killings of tens of thousands of Ukrainians, which are carried out with the blessing of the ROC MP’s highest leadership.
Since 24.02.22, remaining within the ROC-MP has become immoral. For most Ukrainians, that day changed their lives and consciousness forever. I know a lot of ordinary priests and believers of the UOC who are sincerely concerned and want a complete break with the ROC-MP. There are also bishops who are aware of this and who also disagree with the official course of “standing still” of their leadership. Regrettably, however, these healthy voices are not heard in the church leadership. They do not want to hear them. Despite the fourth year of the war. On the contrary, now their influence in the UOC has diminished even further compared to three years ago.
Once again, the Lord sent an occasion and a chance for the UOC to free itself from the Moscow yoke (and how many of them have already been given since 1991!). Unfortunately, this time they have been recklessly wasted. In response, a bunch of justifying phrases will once again be invented. Instead of just one – “we announce the complete withdrawal of the UOC from the ROC MP”. This means that the UOC, unfortunately, remains canonically dependent on the ROC MP. Consequently, its internal crisis will continue. This means that the gap with its own society and the state will grow. For thousands of believers and ordinary priests of the UOC, all this is very painful. However, all their pleas, appeals and hopes have once again not been heard. Although, can anything different be expected from the “Sergian” system of the Soviet church, which since 1927 has been operating in close cooperation with the Soviet security services, and which has never been finally dismantled?
There are again assurances that something may change at the next Synod of the UOC… I would like to believe so. But will it truly happen?
Dr. Serhii Shumylo,
Director of the International Institute of the Athonite Legacy;
Research Fellow in the Department of Classics, Ancient History, Religion and Theology, University of Exeter (UK);
Research fellow of the Institute of History of Ukraine, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
