This presentation was delivered on April 29, 2025, during the Round Table “Contemporary Ukrainian Orthodoxy: Debunking Myths for the Sake of Reconciliation and Social Consolidation in Ukraine,” organized by the “Sofiyske Brotherhood” with the support of the Renovabis Foundation. The Sofiyske Brotherhood may not necessarily share the views of the speakers; likewise, individual opinions expressed within the project may not reflect the consolidated position of the Brotherhood.
Andriy Smyrnov, The Myth of Moscow as the “Mother Church” for the Ukrainian Church
Within the Orthodox environment, certain historical church myths have become widespread. I believe history influences the present, and the divisions we now experience—including jurisdictional ones—are the result of historical events and persistent historical myths. Russian propaganda continues its centuries-old tradition of distorting Ukrainian history, using it as a form of soft power, and at times even sharp power, in the context of its genocidal war.
When speaking of church myths, I recall a television debate between Lyudmyla Oleksandrivna Fylypovych and Metropolitan Klyment, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). When the journalist asked him, “Your Eminence, who is the Mother Church of the UOC?”, he couldn’t answer. I believe the Metropolitan knew, but was afraid to state the truth: that today, a persistent myth exists within the UOC that the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is its Mother Church. We see this in the continued commemoration of the Moscow Patriarch during liturgies by many bishops and priests, despite the decisions of the Feofaniya Council and amendments to the UOC Statute. Even Metropolitan Onufriy, though he changed the diptych, still commemorates the Moscow Patriarch—albeit in a modified form.
At one point, Fr. Mitrofan Bozhko, a lecturer at the Kyiv Theological Academy, wrote a dedicated article attempting to distinguish between the concepts of “Mother Church” and “Kyriarchal Church.”
While the Greek tradition does not commonly use the term “kyriarchal church,” it does recognize the term “kyriarch” to refer to a primate. Fr. Mitrofan rightly distinguishes these concepts and shows that “Mother Church” can be understood in several ways. The ecclesiological sense refers to “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”—this is the universal dimension. A narrower, historical understanding applies when one local Church gives rise to another through missionary activity—an autocephalous Church evangelizes, converts neighboring peoples, and establishes ecclesiastical structures or jurisdictions on new territory, resulting in a dependent local Church (whether autonomous, self-governing, or an exarchate). The key point is that the Mother Church blesses or affirms the election of the leader of the local “daughter Church.”
In Ukrainian history, we clearly see how the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, following the baptism of Rus by Prince Volodymyr in the 10th century, established its jurisdiction on the territory of ancient Rus’-Ukraine. The Kyivan (or Rus’) Metropolis was created, and its first metropolitans were Greeks. This Byzantine heritage significantly shaped the identity of the Kyivan Metropolis. This is a historical fact. Fr. Mitrofan acknowledges that, historically, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the Mother Church for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
He then refers to the concept of the “kyriarchal church” as used in Russian church law. Canonist Fr. Vladyslav Tsypin, for example, uses this term to describe an autocephalous Church that has jurisdiction over an autonomous Church or ecclesiastical region, possessing certain “sovereign rights” over it.
Normally, the Mother Church is also the kyriarchal Church—but not always. The case of the Kyivan Metropolis is different. Since 1686, the Moscow Patriarchate has functioned as the kyriarchal Church due to the annexation of the Kyivan Metropolis. Fr. Mitrofan argues that although the Mother Church for the UOC remains the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the ROC still must be approached for any change in ecclesiastical-canonical status because it functions as the kyriarch.
I respectfully disagree. First, there was never a formal transfer of the Kyivan Metropolis to the ROC. Numerous recently published sources, including Greek-language documents, confirm this. What was transferred was the right to appoint, or bless, the Kyivan Metropolitan—nothing more. The Mother Church never renounced her daughter. Therefore, the Ecumenical Patriarchate had the right to annul the 1686 act and return the Metropolis to its jurisdiction. It did so in October 2018, leading to the granting of the Tomos in January 2019.
If the act was annulled, then—even if Moscow had functioned as the kyriarchal Church for a time—going forward, it is the Mother Church (Constantinople) that must be addressed. Sadly, such communication is lacking.
These are examples of old church myths. But we are now witnessing the creation of new ones. I would also like to debate Fr. Kyrylo Hovorun’s claim that a “virtual” Kyivan Metropolis continues to exist. I don’t quite understand how that works—but the idea is that members of the UOC who did not join the OCU remain part of this restored Metropolis. However, all documents from the Ecumenical Patriarchate state the opposite.
If you look at the Patriarchate’s official yearbook, you’ll find Metropolitan Onufriy listed as a hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in Kyiv, along with other bishops of the Russian Church in Ukraine. When the Ecumenical Patriarch responded to the inquiry from “Cerkvarium,” he clearly stated that “we temporarily tolerate the presence of Ukrainian hierarchs under Russia not as local ruling bishops, but only as titular bishops, or as hierarchs residing in Ukraine, in accordance with Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council, hoping that with God’s help they will soon unite with the local Church.”
That is the current position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate regarding the UOC. No other documents support the claim that a virtual Kyivan Metropolis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate exists today. But this, of course, remains a matter for discussion.