Chronicles of Berdiansk Eparchy's “departure”
The ROC Synod has officially accepted the Berdiansk Eparchy of the UOC under the authority of Patriarch Kirill – without presenting any solid justification for such a decision.
On May 16, 2023, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church resolved that the Berdiansk Eparchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) would come under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow. This development was hailed by Russian media and ROC representatives, while encountered with rightful indignation from UOC clergy and faithful. What exactly is happening in the Berdiansk Eparchy, and what can we expect next?
A decision without canonical grounds
The ROC Synod’s resolution states that the Berdiansk Eparchy is being placed "under the direct canonical and administrative jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, with the matter to be reviewed at the upcoming Bishops’ Council."
Similar decisions had been made previously with regard to the Crimean dioceses or those in Donbas that were annexed following military action in Eastern Ukraine. However, there is a notable difference in this case: the ROC Synod is explicitly referring the decision to the Bishops’ Council – a signal that they are well aware of the lack of canonical basis for the “transfer” of the Berdiansk Eparchy.
Moreover, the clergy meeting that sent a letter to Patriarch Kirill – without the knowledge or involvement of the ruling hierarch – directly violates both the UOC’s Charter and the canons of the Church. Such a gathering has no authority to make decisions about internal diocesan governance, rendering any resolutions invalid.
The ROC Synod’s stated justification for accepting the diocese includes:
- “The effective abandonment of his see by His Grace Metropolitan Ephraim of Berdiansk and Prymorsk.”
- “The absence of any possibility for the Synod of the UOC to resolve the situation in the Berdiansk Eparchy freely.”
This reasoning is questionable for several reasons.
First, the very next day after the ROC Synod’s decision, the UOC's official website reported that Metropolitan Ephraim had left for medical treatment, informing His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry accordingly.
Second, in an age of digital communication, claiming that a bishop’s physical absence obstructs the governance of a diocese is unconvincing. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the ROC Synod functioned remotely for nearly two years, and the Patriarch often celebrated services in isolation.
Third, the ROC Synod claimed that “Metropolitan Ephraim confirmed in a phone call with Metropolitan Dionysius of Voskresensk, the Chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate, that he was leaving Zaporizhzhia for a distant foreign country.”
Does this departure for treatment abroad really justify the de facto seizure of a diocese? These statements do not contradict the UOC’s report that the metropolitan had left for medical reasons.
Where did Metropolitan Ephraim go, and why?
Some clergy of the Berdiansk Eparchy – possibly those who traveled to Moscow seeking to be received under the ROC’s omophorion – contradicted this version. According to one dean, “he didn’t go for treatment; he packed all his things and moved to Zakarpattia, not Romania. He told us he was stepping down. He said nothing about an illness or about governing the diocese remotely. He said he was handing over management to his secretary.”
In other words, we’re to believe that the metropolitan simply declared to his clergy that he was stepping down and left the diocese, informing only a gathering of clergy? That’s difficult to believe – especially in light of the same dean’s additional claims.
According to him, the metropolitan convened a meeting before his departure and said he was leaving because he disagreed with the new policies of the occupying authorities. He also stated that he was not prepared to transfer diocesan parishes to the ROC.
So, a Ukrainian hierarch opposes the policies of the occupying authorities, which seemingly include the forced transfer of parishes to the ROC. Previously, reports stated that Metropolitan Ephraim had been “given time to think” about the future of the diocese. It appears that time ran out, and he was forced to make a choice.
He convened a meeting, announced his departure, and then continued to serve and preach for several more weeks. There were no official statements or letters to the UOC Synod declaring that he was stepping down.
Some claim the metropolitan feared for his life. Telegram channel Chrism quoted him as saying, “I could be blown up,” implying a fear of Ukrainian sabotage units. But why would Ukrainian forces target a UOC metropolitan who opposes the ROC’s policy of annexation? There’s no logic to that – just as there is little logic in most of what’s been said based on second-hand accounts.
Who is governing in Berdiansk?
Media reports of Berdiansk clergy appealing to the Patriarch appeared on May 11. However, the ROC Synod states that the appeal was received on May 1, 2023. Yet, Metropolitan Ephraim was still serving in the cathedral on April 25, during Radonitsa. So, if this appeal even occurred, it happened just days after the bishop's departure.
That same dean claimed that Ephraim had delegated authority to his secretary – but not all clergy were aware of this. Some deans didn’t even know about it.
On May 8, the dean of the Tokmak District, Fr. Mykola Ranzhyn, suspended Fr. Kostiantyn Maksymov from liturgical duties. Leaving aside the questionable act of a priest suspending another priest, note this line in the document:
“You are suspended from performing services until further instruction from the ruling hierarch. You must submit a written explanation addressed to the ruling hierarch.”
This shows that as of May 8, the clergy still recognized Metropolitan Ephraim as their ruling bishop – even though, according to the Patriarchate, he had already abandoned his duties on May 1.
No new bishop had been appointed by the UOC Synod. The ROC Synod had not yet appointed one either – it was only on May 16 that they “entrusted” administrative duties to Bishop Luke of Iskitim and Cherepanovo (titled “Bishop of Bronnytsia,” not “Bishop of Berdiansk”).
So, as of May 8, Metropolitan Ephraim was still regarded as the diocesan bishop, despite all the rumors and claims to the contrary.
Who benefits?
An official UOC statement noted that “clergy of the Berdiansk Eparchy who unilaterally made provocative statements in the media that do not reflect the UOC’s official position and who sow confusion among the faithful will be suspended from ministry by their ruling hierarch, Metropolitan Ephraim.”
This suggests a banal but effective explanation: conspiracy. Not in the sense of a secret plot, but in the sense that a group of clergy were persuaded – likely by trained operatives – to stage a defection.
We are not accusing the Moscow Patriarchate directly. It is possible the ROC Synod simply took advantage of a situation engineered by those trying to compensate for military failures with symbolic victories in the religious sphere. In that sense, the Moscow Patriarchate acts similarly to the Patriarchate of Constantinople – nibbling away wherever possible.
This comparison is not rhetorical. It’s likely that the Berdiansk clergy suspended by the UOC will appeal to Moscow, and that their suspension will be “nullified,” just as Patriarch Bartholomew annulled the ROC’s excommunication of four priests in Lithuania.
But one question remains: to whom will the Berdiansk clergy appeal if the front lines shift in Ukraine’s favor? And another: why did the Moscow Patriarchate choose to escalate a direct conflict with the UOC in the midst of war and persecution by the secular authorities?
We do not have answers. But in the end, the Lord will place everything in its proper order.
