A bishop of the UOC requests a statement regarding the boundaries of Ecumenism (“following the example of the decisions of ROCOR in 1983 on ecumenism.”)

 

Introduction

Metropolitan Luke of Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol (UOC – Synod of [Metropolitan] Onufriy [of Kiev and All Ukraine]), at a conference organized in Belgrade under the auspices of the Center for Geostrategic Studies, called for a Pan-Orthodox Council with the aim of condemning “Eastern Papism” and the geopolitical interventions of the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the life of Orthodoxy.

In his keynote address titled “The Ecumenical Offensive as an Instrument of Geopolitics: Media, Finances, and the Diplomacy of the Vatican and the Phanar,” he analyzed in detail the mechanisms of external influence employed through Ecumenism, international media, financial support, and diplomatic activity. He emphasized the dangers to the spiritual and canonical integrity of Orthodoxy, highlighting the need for unity and collective action among the Local Churches.

The conference gathered leading theologians, Church representatives, journalists, and international analysts from Greece, Italy, Serbia, Poland, Mount Athos, and the United States. The participants discussed critical issues such as the crisis in Orthodox ecclesiology, the consequences of Ecumenism, the protection of spiritual heritage, and strategies for safeguarding canonical unity.

The address of Metropolitan Luke clearly presents the necessity for a systematic response to ecclesiastical and geopolitical pressure, combining spiritual, theological, social, and pan-Orthodox measures.

The text adopts a clearly critical stance toward the Ecumenism of the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It maintains that the ecumenical initiatives:

1. They exceed theological dialogue and are transformed into instruments of geopolitical influence, affecting the Church through media, financial resources, and diplomacy.

2. They create dangers for Orthodoxy, such as dogmatic distortion, polarization among the Local Churches, the instrumentalization of religion by states, and the loss of the faithful’s trust.

3. They present Ukraine as an example, where the OCU was portrayed by pro-Phanariot and Western media as “the only canonical Church,” thereby reinforcing its political dimension at the expense of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

4. He analyzes the diplomatic and humanitarian activity of the Vatican, noting that humanitarian aid, international meetings, and participation in forums are used for political and ecclesiastical influence.

5. He proposes specific countermeasures.

Overall, the Metropolitan perceives Ecumenism as a threat to Orthodoxy, emphasizes its geopolitical and communicative dimensions, and highlights the need for a strategic response that combines spiritual, theological, social, and legal means.

…

Fr. D.A. [Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou, a walled-off clergyman in Greece – trans. note]

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/uoc.html

 

***

 

LUKE (Kovalenko),
Metropolitan of Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol
Ukrainian Orthodox Church

 

The Ecumenical Offensive as an Instrument of Geopolitics: Media, Finances, and the Diplomacy of the Vatican and the Phanar

 

Introduction

Contemporary geopolitical struggle goes far beyond the limits of economics and military security, actively intruding into the spiritual sphere. It affects the life of the Church, distorts the understanding of canonical order and the true state of affairs. In this context, a special role is played by the ecumenical initiatives of the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (the Phanar), which are rapidly being transformed from platforms for inter-Christian dialogue into instruments of “soft power.” Through media channels, material support, and direct participation in diplomatic processes, these centers influence the sympathies of elites, legitimize new ecclesiastical (and quasi-ecclesiastical) structures, and alter the balance of power in entire regions, as clearly demonstrated by the example of Ukraine. [1]

The task of this report is to analyze how ecumenical projects shape the international agenda, which media resources and financial mechanisms are employed, and what consequences this leads to for the Orthodox world. On the basis of this analysis, specific steps are proposed for the protection of the spiritual and canonical integrity of Orthodoxy.

1. Ecumenical Projects as Instruments of Political Influence

1.1. The Change in the Nature of Ecumenism

Contemporary ecumenism, initiated by the Vatican and the Phanar, often goes beyond the bounds of theological dialogue, turning into a means for the formation of geopolitical alliances, the exertion of pressure on the Local Orthodox Churches, the introduction of a liberal social agenda, and the justification of the legitimacy of secular states’ interference in internal ecclesiastical processes. Thus, the form of “dialogue” is used as a diplomatic platform for the advancement of influence.

2. Media as an Instrument of Pressure and Legitimation

The Phanar actively uses a number of English-language and Greek-language information channels, such as Orthodox Times, Ecumenical Patriarchate News, Greek Reporter, and resources connected with the diaspora. [2] These media perform key functions in shaping an interpretation of events favorable to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, attempting to present and confer legal force and generally recognized significance upon its controversial canonical acts.

This can be traced very clearly in the media support of the “Ukrainian project — the OCU.” During the period 2018–2020, pro-Phanariot news resources disseminated a narrative in which the OCU was presented as “the only canonical Church of Ukraine,” and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a “Russian structure not connected with the Ukrainian people.” The decisions of the Phanar were presented as obligatory for the entire Orthodox world, [3] and informational pressure was exerted on those Local Churches that expressed doubts and disagreement with its actions.

This interpretation was synchronized with Western media, which presented the granting of the Tomos to the “OCU” as a “victory of democracy and sovereignty,” which demonstrates close media-political coordination. [4] Studies and publications show that the Phanar (as well as the Vatican) work carefully with society through their own information platforms and partner media, and this makes a religious initiative also an information operation within a broader political game.

3. Financing and the Role of External Actors

Open sources indicate systematic external financial and political support for the Phanar’s projects by structures of the Greek diaspora in the United States, American diplomatic foundations, and transnational non-governmental organizations oriented toward the promotion of “religious freedom.”

The Lantos Foundation included Patriarch Bartholomew in projects for the “promotion of freedom of conscience.” This narrative then returns in Church media as “international support for church reforms.” In the “Archons”—an organization connected with the Patriarchate of Constantinople—it was stated that at the International Religious Freedom Summit (IRF Summit) Patriarch Bartholomew was mentioned as a “bridge-builder.” [9]

4. The International Policy of the Vatican and Its Connection with Ecumenical Initiatives

4.1. The Vatican as a Diplomatic Power

The Vatican demonstrates considerable experience in constructing interconfessional dialogue, humanitarian initiatives, and political diplomacy, creating for itself the image of a “peacemaker.” [7] Ecumenical dialogue is used by it as a channel for forming special relations with influential states, exerting influence on religious processes in Eastern Europe, and promoting the social doctrine of Catholicism as a global norm.

4.2. Synergy of Instruments: Media, Finances, and Diplomacy

Media (official channels such as Vatican News), financing (through Caritas, Catholic Relief Services), and diplomacy operate in close coordination. [8] Public campaigns create a favorable background for political decisions, humanitarian assistance ensures a presence “on the ground,” and official diplomacy consolidates the results at the symbolic and formal levels. [9]

5. Concrete Examples and Illustrations

• The Tomos of autocephaly of the OCU (2019) — the ecclesiastical act of Constantinople was publicly and politically supported by Ukrainian state leaders, which strengthened its perception as an element of pro-Ukrainian diplomacy rather than an intra-ecclesiastical matter. [10]

• The participation of the Phanar in international summits on Ukraine (2024–2025) — speeches and the signing of final documents by Patriarch Bartholomew at diplomatic venues demonstrate the integration of the ecclesiastical institution into political processes and make it possible to transmit its position through international formats. [11]

• Vatican diplomacy around the “Russia–Ukraine” conflict — calls for peace and large-scale humanitarian assistance through Caritas were combined with formulations that critics regarded as neutral toward the Russian Federation, which was used in information wars. [12]

• The meeting of Pope Francis with [OCU “Metropolitan of Kyiv”] Epiphany Dumenko is a continuation of the process of recognizing the “OCU” in the religious world and a support of the non-canonical actions of the Phanar. [13]

• Humanitarian support through Catholic structures — large volumes of funds and projects of CRS / Caritas strengthen not only the social but also the socio-political influence of Catholic structures in the regions. [14]

6. The risks and consequences of this activity for Orthodoxy are seen in:

• Doctrinal dilution and institutional subordination to the Vatican.

• Polarization within the Orthodox world, since there exists a threat of division into supporters of different centers.

• The instrumentalization of religion by secular states through the support of particular ecclesiastical actors.

• Loss of trust among the faithful, who may begin to perceive the Church as a political project.

• Escalation of inter-Orthodox conflicts through the use of information campaigns and sanctions.

7. Our proposals for the protection of spiritual and canonical integrity

To counter these risks and threats, a systematic, multi-year strategy is necessary, which may include the following components, presented here for discussion:

1. Media counter-narrative and information security

o The launch of a multilingual media platform of Orthodox unity (an analogue of Orthodox Faith, but with a budget and a professional editorial team).

o The preparation and dissemination of short educational series (videos 3–5 minutes, infographics, podcasts) on the topics: “What is canonical territory,” “Why ecumenism contradicts Holy Patristic Tradition,” “How to distinguish humanitarian aid from an instrument of influence.”

2. Strengthening one’s own social and humanitarian programs

o The creation or significant expansion of existing charitable services, so that external assistance is not perceived as the sole source of support.

o The introduction of a system of “Orthodox crowdfunding” — a unified platform for raising funds for social projects within the Local Churches.

3. Education and catechesis of the new generation

o The introduction of a mandatory course “Contemporary Challenges to Orthodoxy: ecumenism, globalization, geopolitics,” both in theological seminaries and academies and for the laity.

o The holding of annual inter-Orthodox forums for clergy and laity.

4. Inter-Orthodox unity without the Phanar and external pressure

o Against the background of geopolitical upheavals and divisions in the Orthodox world, to consider the Patriarchate of Jerusalem as a potential center capable of uniting the Local Churches, since, unlike the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is deeply involved in provoking disagreements, the Church of Jerusalem actively works toward strengthening unity.

o The holding of regular meetings of the Primates and Synodal commissions of the Local Churches that preserve Eucharistic communion (the ROC, Serbian, Antiochian, Georgian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech Lands and Slovakia, and others).

o The drafting and adoption of a joint document “On the boundaries of ecumenical dialogue and the preservation of canonical purity.”

o The establishment of a permanent Secretariat of Orthodox unity (as I have previously proposed, using the Amman model).

5. Legal and international protection

o Support for the existing international legal group of Orthodox hierarchs and lawyers to represent the interests of persecuted communities in the ECHR, the UN, the OSCE, and others.

o The submission of collective appeals to international organizations for each instance of discrimination against the canonical Church (seizure of a church, arrest of a priest, prohibitive laws).

o In the event that sanctions are imposed against any hierarch — within 72 hours, a joint statement by all participating Local Churches.

6. Spiritual and theological measures

o An increase in the number of conciliar anathemas and public condemnations of contemporary forms of ecumenism and “Eastern papism” (following the example of the [anathema] decisions of ROCOR in 1983 on ecumenism).

o The universal revival of the practice of the public reading of the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy” on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, with the addition of contemporary threats.

o Periodic services of supplication for the admonition of those who have fallen away (in the diocese entrusted to my administration, I commemorate “those who inflict afflictions upon us” at the Great Entrance during the transfer of the Gifts).

7. Monitoring and early warning

o The creation of an additional analytical center to track ecumenical and geopolitical threats (on the basis of existing structures—for example, at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade).

8. Transparency of financing and external ties

The introduction of mandatory annual publication of reports on foreign grants and donations. The establishment of an Inter-Orthodox Commission for monitoring financing under the aegis of canonically responsible Local Churches, which will publish “black lists” of donors found to be involved in anti-canonical activity.

9. Long-term strategy

o The preparation and convening of a Pan-Orthodox Council of the Local Churches (possibly without Constantinople) for the final condemnation of “Eastern papism,” contemporary ecumenical errors, and the formulation of clear canonical norms for the 21st century.

The establishment of a permanent Inter-Orthodox court for canonical violations.

Conclusion

The ecumenical initiatives of the Vatican and the Phanar in the 21st century have turned into a full-scale geopolitical project, using media, finances, and diplomacy to alter the canonical landscape of Orthodoxy. The response can only be firm standing in the Truth, reinforced by a mature strategy, systematic defense, inter-church solidarity, and one’s own informational agency. Possessing the Holy Patristic Tradition and the ability for its creative re-actualization, the Orthodox world has everything necessary to turn the current crisis into an opportunity for purification and strengthening. We have millions of faithful children. All that remains is to act decisively and in a coordinated manner. Then the present “ecumenical offensive” will become not a threat, but an occasion for a new flourishing of Orthodoxy.

 

Notes [numbering jumps from 4 to 7 in the original Russian – trans. note.]

1. Religious Information Service of Ukraine (RISU) — a portal that regularly publishes analysis of the role of religious institutions in conflicts, including on the example of Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://risu.ua/ (official RISU website; search by keywords “hybrid conflicts,” “religion and war,” etc.).

2. Orthodox Times — an information resource close to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://orthodoxtimes.com/ (official website).

3. Official website of the Permanent Representation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the World Council of Churches (news and documents of the Patriarchate). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.ecupatria.org/ (previously the domain ecupatria.org was used as the Patriarchate’s news portal).

4. Reuters, 5 January 2019: “Ecumenical Patriarch signs decree granting Ukraine church independence.” [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1OZ0AP/ (archival Reuters article; related materials on the topic are available at https://www.reuters.com/)

7. Vatican News — the official information portal of the Holy See (analysis of Vatican diplomacy). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.vaticannews.va/

8. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) — official website, section on projects in Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/where-we-work/ukraine

9. Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate — official website (mentions of Patriarch Bartholomew as a “bridge-builder” at the IRF Summit and others). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://archons.org/ (see also materials on the IRF Summit)

10. Reuters, 5 January 2019 (the same article as in note ⁴). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1OZ0AP/

11. Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (materials on international summits and the diplomacy of Patriarch Bartholomew). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://archons.org/

12. Vatican News — official portal (humanitarian initiatives of the Vatican in Ukraine). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.vaticannews.va/

13. Religious Information Service of Ukraine (RISU) — a portal that regularly publishes analysis of the role of religious institutions in conflicts, including on the example of Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://risu.ua/ru/predstoyatel-pcu-epifanij-vstretilsya-s-papoj-franciskom_n152837

14. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) — projects in Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/where-we-work/ukraine

 

Russian source:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bHpdIrw7oOODrffCMtJwOtHPQnw6rMbN/view?usp=sharing