"Silence in the face of blasphemy in Ukraine is complicity": Bulgarian view
In a comprehensive interview with the UOJ, Bulgarian lawyer and Master of Theology Alexander Todorov offered an uncompromising perspective on the challenges facing Orthodoxy – in both Ukraine and the wider world.
Bulgarian lawyer and Master of Theology Alexander Todorov, in an extensive interview with the UOJ in Bulgaria, stated that the true root cause of the sacrilege against the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra is not political, but rather a lack of knowledge of God and hostility toward the followers of Christ – that is, the Church.. According to him, the persecutors have simply lost their way and chosen the side of darkness. He highlights that the desecration of the Lavra – particularly the seizure of its caves and relics – is being carried out with the silent consent of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), which he sees as further proof, beyond canonical grounds, that the OCU is not a true part of the Church of Christ. He also criticizes the silence of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, noting that he has yet to speak out against the removal of relics or the expulsion of monks from the Lavra.
- About a month ago, the authorities in Kyiv carried out a new raid on the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra with the stated aim of conducting “scientific research” on the relics preserved in the caves beneath the monastery. This is, first and foremost, undeniably a sacrilegious act, and secondly – it violates all ecclesiastical, legal, and canonical norms. How would you comment on this situation as both a lawyer and a Master of Theology?
- Every Christian knows that one draws near to God through faith and love – not through scientific inquiry. If it were otherwise, the greatest saints would be scientists, not humble monks adorned with faith and love. God glorifies not the remains of renowned researchers, but those of saints, through incorruptibility and miracles, just as He promised: "I will honor those who honor Me" (1 Samuel 2:30). It is the skulls of the Pechersk saints that exude myrrh – not those of scientists. Therefore,
Those who expel monks from the Lavra and seize the relics of saints under the pretext of conducting “scientific research” reveal through this very act of sacrilege that they are simply not Christians – “by their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:20).
They are not seeking the Kingdom of God or striving to become like Christ; they are pursuing earthly goals. Once again, the worldly and political persecutes the spiritual and Christian. This is nothing new – the Roman, Ottoman, and Communist regimes all acted the same way. Some perished, others were saved through such persecutions. Each revealed their true nature – and will be judged accordingly.
Since 2023, when the state announced the “return” of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, the authorities seized several buildings where monks had lived, but initially did not touch the caves housing the relics of saints. Now, however, they are seizing the sacred caves as well. Yes, this can be formally justified by some temporary secular law – just as during the Bolshevik persecutions after 1917, when the godless regime killed and arrested Orthodox clergy and monks in the USSR (and after 1944, in other communist countries as well) under false charges of “anti-revolutionary activity” according to Soviet law, rather than accusing them directly of being Christians.
For those who serve the deceiver, it is natural to act with deceit. The communists who seized power through violent revolution did not openly declare: “We are enemies of Christ, with Judeo-Masonic origins and ideology, financed by certain American bankers, and that is why we persecute Christians – because we hate Christ and want to replace faith in God with faith in our party, to replace Christ’s Cross with the Judeo-Masonic five-pointed star, and to ensure the masses submit to us instead of Christ. Therefore, we will present ourselves as a so-called people’s government, so they will accept us as their own.”
Likewise, today’s persecutors of Christ’s Church in Ukraine will, of course, not openly declare: “We are at war with Orthodoxy” – after all, they present themselves as “democrats” who supposedly respect freedom of religion as a fundamental human right. Instead, they will invent various formally “legal” justifications for persecution, property confiscation, “scientific research,” imprisonment, and so on. Ultimately, all of this is quite consistent – because they are the spiritual offspring and heirs of those who “watched Him closely and sought to catch Him in something He might say, so that they could accuse Him” (Luke 11:54), who “sought false testimony against Jesus” (Matthew 26:59), and cried out, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” (John 19:6).
The persecuted monks of the Lavra are the spiritual children and heirs of the One who was “spit upon and struck, and others slapped Him on the face” (Matthew 26:67), and whom the secular authorities “scourged and handed over to be crucified” (Matthew 27:26). As the Lord said: “A servant is not above his master” (Matthew 10:24) and “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20) – and this is exactly what is happening now in Ukraine with the UOC, and especially in the Lavra. But to our persecuted and beaten Orthodox brothers and sisters, the Savior says: “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for great is your reward in heaven. For this is how their ancestors treated the prophets” (Luke 6:23).
Some say that the seizure of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra and the relics of the saints is a political matter and merely reflects political disagreements. But that is not entirely true. If the persecutors truly knew the Savior and sought, according to His words, “first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33), then political goals would take second place, and the salvation of souls would come first. In that case, they would not naively dare to lay hands on holy things without understanding the consequences of such a sin. But due to their spiritual blindness, the order is reversed: political aims come first, salvation comes second – if they think of salvation at all or of the inevitable judgment of God.
Thus, the deeper and truer cause of this sacrilege is not political, but spiritual: a lack of knowledge of God and hostility toward the followers of Christ – that is, the Church. The persecutors are simply lost, having chosen the side of darkness.
On the other hand, it is noteworthy that
this sacrilege is being carried out with the silent consent of the OCU to the government’s actions in seizing the caves and relics. This consent serves as yet another piece of evidence – beyond the sacred canons – that this structure is not part of the Church of Christ. And we have heard nothing from the self-proclaimed head of the OCU, nor from Patriarch Bartholomew, objecting to the removal of the holy relics or the expulsion of the monks from the Lavra.
- The persecution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) has been ongoing for nearly three years. Why do you think it has come to this?
- God’s judgments are ultimately beyond human comprehension (Isaiah 55:8–9). Still, based on Scripture and Church history, we can suggest a few possible insights: As Christ foretold, "because lawlessness will increase, the love of many will grow cold" (Matthew 24:12), and faith will dwindle: "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). The fewer faithful there are, the easier it becomes for enemies of the Truth to persecute them – for the world hates what it does not understand: "If the world hates you, know that it hated Me first... If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. But you do not belong to the world, and that is why the world hates you"(John 15:18–19).
If 90% of Ukraine’s population were Church-going believers striving for the Kingdom of God, these persecutions would likely never have occurred. But we live in a different era. Most people no longer concern themselves with their Savior or their eternal life – and the masses dominate.
This trajectory will continue, even to the rise of the false Messiah, who – by God’s allowance – will rule the world for a time and ‘wage war against the saints and conquer them’ (Revelation 13:7). Persecutions will intensify. Yet, thanks be to God – those who remain faithful through suffering will inherit eternal life."
A second possible reason [for the persecution of the UOC] can be found in the words: "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent”* (Revelation 3:19) and “The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Hebrews 12:6). God, in His providence, arranges such discipline for His own children *“for our good, that we may share in His holiness” (Hebrews 12:10).
Therefore, it is possible that
God permits these persecutions against the Orthodox by Christ’s enemies in order to save more Orthodox believers in Ukraine.
Ukraine may have begun drifting away from Orthodoxy, leaning toward a secular worldview and secular values (including abortion, surrogacy, placing national identity above faith, hating individuals or groups based on ideology, etc.). Just as in ancient times God used suffering and foreign invasions to turn Old Testament Israel away from idolatry and back to monotheism (for in their sorrow the Israelites saw how powerless and meaningless the idols were and cried out in repentance to the Living God), so perhaps now the Lord, through this suffering, is helping many of His beloved children to come to their senses – to open their eyes to the hollowness of modern idols (money, pleasure, politics), and return to the pursuit of the Kingdom of God as life’s highest goal, thus ultimately attaining eternal salvation.
In this regard, St. Nikolaj Velimirović (Nikolai of Serbia) offers precise answers in his monograph “War and the Bible.” There, he proves through numerous biblical examples that war and persecution are extreme measures used by God to bring nations back to Him – the Source of life. He concludes:
“The causes of war lie in the apostasy from God and the idolatry of Christian nations and their leaders. These causes are identical to those that led to the wars that afflicted and destroyed Israel, which was once the salt and light of the world. These causes must be swiftly eliminated through repentance and a return to God, or else a series of future wars will undoubtedly lead to the downfall of Christian peoples – though not of Christianity itself.
Whether or not war breaks out depends on the quality of our peace. If, in times of peace, our life is pleasing to God, then there will be no war. But peace without God is the cradle of war. In peace, the bacilli of war multiply and grow, and when they reach a certain point, war becomes inevitable. Whether people want it or not – it will come.
As long as people, through their thoughts, feelings, and actions, wage war against God, their dreams of peace are in vain. War must arise where the seeds of war have been sown... 'There is no peace for the wicked,’ says the Lord (Isaiah 48:22)."
Idolatry is an abomination before God – whether people worship created things or their own inventions. In both cases, it is detestable in God's eyes. All forms of idolatry, now as in ancient times, are punished by God with various harsh chastisements, the most severe of which is war.
The mission of Europe was to live as Christians and help its pagan brothers ascend to Christ. Instead, Europe itself fell into idolatry. Rather than being the light of the world, it clothed itself in darkness; rather than shining with spiritual men, it flaunts material things. Rather than teaching the nations to seek first the Kingdom of God, it teaches them to chase trinkets and vanities. From this spiritual poverty come all other calamities – including wars."
To the question: “How can a merciful and loving God allow such horrors as war?” one could respond with another question: “How can people, to whom God has clearly revealed His will and His law, shamelessly and unrepentantly insult God and trample His commandments?”
A third reason:
Through the persecution of the canonical UOC, many likely receive not only salvation, but also the crowns of confessors and martyrs. In the hierarchy of the Beatitudes, the Lord places those persecuted for righteousness and for His name’s sake in the highest rank (Matthew 5:10–11).
From the lives of the saints and Church Tradition, it is also known that God permits martyrdom – and the accompanying glory in His Kingdom – for those who are already firm in the faith and in Christian virtues. It is precisely such people who undergo the greatest trials. And rightly so – for if they were lukewarm in faith and virtue, the Lord’s words would apply to them: “They have no root in themselves and are not steadfast; when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away” (Mark 4:17). But the confessors are not like that.
In summary, we may assume that these persecutions serve, on one hand, as a call to repentance (i.e., a return to God) and the salvation of many more souls, and on the other, as a test and refinement of already faithful Christians, so that they may receive a greater heavenly reward – the reward of martyrs. How highly God regards them is shown in the fact that only the relics of martyrs (not of other saints) may be placed in altar tables and antimensia, upon which the Divine Liturgy is celebrated.
At the same time,
these persecutions also reveal the moral character of the schismatics in Ukraine – through their complicity in the persecutions, as well as through their blasphemous celebrations, songs, and dances in churches they have seized by force.
Circumstances allow everyone to reveal what is truly in their heart. In the end: “Those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:29).
- Do you believe that improved relations between the U.S. and Russia and negotiations to end the war might also lead to a shift in Kyiv’s stance toward the Orthodox Church?
- Perhaps, but not necessarily. The authorities in Kyiv rely not only on U.S. support, but also on backing from the U.K. and other European nations – none of which are known (at least in the past hundred years) for their love of the Gospel. So what motivation would they have to stand up for the persecuted Church in Ukraine or to restore its holy places? The world is moving not toward a renewal of piety, but toward the foretold end.
A more realistic scenario is that the authorities’ attitude toward the Orthodox Church will change only when the government itself changes. But when, how, or whether that will happen depends on God – and on how many people turn to Christ. It likely matters to Him whether a large or small portion of the nation seeks Him and strives to keep His commandments.
Let more people take seriously God’s words: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things” (Isaiah 45:6–7), and “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker” (Isaiah 45:9).
Many are deluded in thinking that peace depends on politicians. Everyone focuses on them, defends them, chases after them, discusses them, blames them, and expects prosperity from them. What a tragic delusion! “They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living water, and dug their own cisterns — broken cisterns that cannot hold water” (Jeremiah 2:13).
Peace depends on God, who “changes times and seasons, deposes kings and raises up others. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning” (Daniel 2:21). And God desires our repentance and transformation – even if, as a last resort, through war – because He wants to save us for eternal life.
- Is it possible that a Pan-Orthodox Council in the near future could resolve the schism in Ukraine, or are we witnessing a “frozen schism”?
- It would be wonderful to have a genuine Pan-Orthodox Council – one that would at least condemn the main heresies of the 20th century, namely ecumenism and the new un-Orthodox doctrine of the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (so-called Eastern papism). This heretical teaching was expressed clearly in at least two documents:
- The Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s decision of October 11, 2018, which recognized the “hierarchs” and “clergy” of the two schismatic groups in Ukraine – the Kyiv Patriarchate and the UAOC – and reinstated them to communion “in their ranks” without any examination of the reasons for their excommunication, their canonical ordination, or any act of repentance. This violates numerous canons forbidding those excommunicated by one bishop from being received by another without due process.
- The unfortunate Tomos of autocephaly issued on January 6, 2019, which Patriarch Bartholomew gave to the Ukrainian schismatics – without having jurisdiction over that territory and without a request from the canonical Church there. And about schismatics it is said: “Whoever does not enter by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber” (John 10:1).
In this Tomos, Patriarch Bartholomew makes several heretical/false claims:
- That he is the “head” of all local Orthodox Churches,
- That he has the right to overturn decisions made by other patriarchs,
- That he alone holds the authority to issue unappealable rulings on bishops and clergy of other jurisdictions,
- And that he is the “center of Orthodoxy.”
It would also be beneficial for such a Council to condemn the new calendar, introduced into some local Churches by Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis – a Freemason – again with the help of secular authorities and repressive measures against the faithful. The new calendar has become a vehicle for ecumenism and a disruptor of Church unity and apostolic tradition, including the Petrine Fast. As St. Seraphim of Sofia the Wonderworker observed, it represents open disobedience to the conciliar Church.
If God grants such a truly Orthodox Council that condemns these heresies, then yes, the Ukrainian schism would end – as would similar schisms in Lithuania (where in 2023 Patriarch Bartholomew created another uncanonical “exarchate”), in Estonia (where a parallel uncanonical “Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church” exists alongside the canonical Church under the Moscow Patriarchate), and elsewhere. In all such cases, Patriarch Bartholomew consistently supports schismatic groups, acting with secular powers against the Orthodox – just as in Ukraine.
Unfortunately, however, the practical likelihood of convening such a Council remains slim for now.
Firstly, because there is no Orthodox emperor to convene and support it, as Byzantine emperors once did. Secondly, because few Christians today possess the zeal for the purity of faith that we see, for instance, in St. Mark of Ephesus. The proof is the widespread silence among bishops worldwide, who have passively observed Patriarch Bartholomew’s open espousal of ecumenism and his repeated violations of sacred canons through prayer services with heretics.
For example:
- 45th Apostolic Canon: “A bishop, priest, or deacon who only prays with heretics shall be excommunicated; if he allows them to perform clerical duties, he shall be deposed.”
- 10th Apostolic Canon: “If anyone, even in a house, prays with someone excommunicated, he too shall be excommunicated.”
- 11th Apostolic Canon: “If any clergyman prays with someone who is deposed, he shall also be deposed.”
Yet for years, almost no one has raised objections to these canonical violations.
Another piece of evidence pointing to the lack of zeal for the purity of the faith – and making the convening of a Pan-Orthodox Council unlikely – is the series of official documents signed by Constantinople and certain representatives of other Local Orthodox Churches, which contain openly heretical – particularly ecumenical – statements that contradict the dogma of the One Church.
These include:
- the Balamand Agreement between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, signed on 23 June 1993;
- the Ravenna Document, signed on 13 October 2007, also between Orthodox and Roman Catholics;
- the Common Declaration and Proposal to the Churches, signed on 28 September 1990 at the center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate near Geneva (in Chambésy) by 21 representatives of the majority of Local Orthodox Churches (with the exception of the Jerusalem Patriarchate) and 10 representatives of the non-Chalcedonian “churches” that reject the Fourth and subsequent Ecumenical Councils;
- the Declaration of 12 November 1991 by the Patriarchate of Antioch with the Oriental Syrian Church, which likewise rejects the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils – thus holding a confession of faith that is not Orthodox, but heretical.
Against these documents – and against joint prayers with heretics – the majority of Orthodox bishops around the world, as far as is known, have not expressed open disagreement or even criticised Constantinople or the Patriarchate of Antioch for distorting Orthodoxy. And so, in the absence of any opposition at the highest ecclesiastical level, Patriarch Bartholomew has gone so far as to fall into neo-papism, which he officially proclaimed in writing in his uncanonical Tomos of 6 January 2019. It should also be noted that in 2015 he awarded Joe Biden – a supporter of abortion – for “defending human rights.”
In the context of this ecumenical and neo-papist activity and profession of faith of Patriarch Bartholomew, many bishops and synods continue to remain silent and do not raise their voices against his doctrinal transgressions, treating him as if he were Orthodox. Yes, the Russian Orthodox Church exposed his papal claims to power in 2023 – but I have not heard of any episcopal-level denunciation of his ecumenical profession of faith or his joint prayers with heretics.
A third piece of evidence suggesting that a genuine Pan-Orthodox Council is unlikely to take place is the 2016 Council of Crete, which the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, in its official conclusion dated November 15, 2016, declared to be “neither Great, nor Holy, nor Pan-Orthodox.”
However, this council was indicative of the prevailing spirit among many bishops worldwide. While Ecumenical Councils have historically been convened to protect Orthodoxy from heresies – condemning heretics who did not repent in order to safeguard the Church from their false teachings – the Council of Crete did the opposite: heretics were received as honored guests, their communities were referred to as “churches,” with no distinction made between them and the Church of Christ. No heretical doctrines were addressed, as if heresies no longer existed. Moreover, even the ecumenical heresy and the World Council of Churches were referenced in a positive light. This reveals a tendency not toward Orthodox confession but toward blurring the boundaries between Orthodoxy and heresy, and a desire to please the world, contrary to God’s word: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15).
For all these reasons, from a human perspective, it seems more likely that a new pseudo-Orthodox council will be held, similar to the one in Crete. Saint Justin Popović and Saint Kuksha of Odessa warned of this danger as early as the mid-20th century. Saint Seraphim of Sofia the Wonderworker analyzed and condemned ecumenism in a dedicated report, and Saint Gabriel (Urgebadze) called it a “super-heresy.” Yet a significant number of Orthodox bishops around the world ignore the teachings of these saints. Therefore, many bishops accepted the unorthodox declarations of the Council of Crete instead of denouncing them like the Bulgarian Synod, following the example of the apostles and guardians of Holy Tradition. Later, some also accepted the Ukrainian schism and the uncanonical Tomos of January 6, 2019, issued by Patriarch Bartholomew.
Another portion of bishops shows no concern about the new calendar and the divisions it caused in Romania, Greece, and Bulgaria, or about the diminishing and, in some cases, disappearing observance of the Apostles’ Fast.
Given this spiritual disposition – where significant numbers of bishops are apathetic toward ecclesiological heresies and calendar-driven division (a tool of ecumenism) – it is unlikely they will show zeal in organizing a Pan-Orthodox Council to condemn the Ukrainian schism. Yet this does not mean that the schism is thereby legitimized. The OCU remains a schismatic body, since the sacred canons do not grant the Ecumenical Patriarch the authority that Patriarch Bartholomew attempts to claim. Anyone seeking salvation and truth can easily read the canonical rules and Orthodox ecclesiology to discern which church in Ukraine belongs to Christ and which is in schism.
However, in the absence of an Orthodox empire on earth, like Byzantium, and considering all the aforementioned facts, one can assume that Orthodoxy is heading toward increasing fragmentation, where the faithful will find salvation under the few bishops who remain loyal to Holy Tradition. This fidelity includes rejection of the schisms instigated by Constantinople in Lithuania and Ukraine, the heresy of Eastern papism, and the pan-heresy of ecumenism, including joint prayers with the Miaphysites, “legitimized” by the 1991 Declaration of the Patriarch of Antioch. (Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira wrote that this declaration “threatens salvation.” But such episcopal voices can now be counted on one hand.) The faithful will be subjected to various forms of persecution: “You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22).
- Is a categorical position by the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church necessary regarding the situation in Ukraine, and why has such a position not yet been taken? We know a synodal commission was established for this issue, but it seems its true purpose is simply to justify inaction.
- Of course, a clear and categorical stance is needed from every Holy Synod (of each autocephalous Church) against schism and in support of the canonical Church in Ukraine, because God commands us “to do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Galatians 6:10). That means we are obliged to at least honestly distinguish between what is sacred and what is not, between the Church and schism – not hide behind political correctness when our Orthodox brothers and sisters in Ukraine are being persecuted and when the Church is even being banned by law.
At the same time, something even more important is at stake: the preservation of Orthodoxy from the neo-papist claims of the Ecumenical Patriarchate – such as the assertion of supreme judicial authority within the Church, the supposed right to “restore” schismatics to their clerical ranks even if they lack canonical ordination or have been defrocked due to schism, the claim to receive clergy without letters of release or even those who have been deposed (as has happened multiple times), and the asserted right to grant autocephaly or establish exarchates within the territory of other churches – against the will of the local canonical church.
Why is the preservation of doctrinal purity, including ecclesiology, so vital?
Because good deeds alone are not sufficient for salvation. If human kindness were enough, then there would have been no need for the Word to take on flesh, endure ridicule, scourging, mockery, and death on the cross. God’s commandments would only require human virtue and nothing more.
But reality is different. When asked, “What must we do to be doing the works of God?” Jesus replied: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:28–29), and elsewhere: “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10), because “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6).
God is love. Out of love, He humbled Himself to take on human nature, to suffer, redeem us from the curse of sin and death, and give us eternal life. In return, He desires our love: “I came to cast fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” (Luke 12:49). If our Savior wants us to burn with love for Him, and tells us, “whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me” (Matthew 25:45), how can we remain indifferent, silent, or politically correct when a patriarch not only distorts ecclesiology by introducing a new heretical doctrine of his authority (one that is found in no catechism, dogmatic textbook, or canonical law), but also unites with the enemies of the Church in their efforts to destroy Orthodoxy and persecute Christ’s little brethren in Ukraine?
The secular authorities in Kyiv not only supported the creation of the Ukrainian schism and the acquisition of the Tomos of January 6, 2019, but also actively persecute the canonical Church through a special law banning the UOC. They have even laid claim to the relics of the Pechersk saints – treasures not just of Ukrainian, but of universal Orthodoxy.
Given all this, if the bishops of the world continue their silence in the face of Patriarch Bartholomew’s brazen and destructive actions, such silence will amount to varying degrees of complicity – in his ecumenical joint prayers with heretics, in the uncanonical incursions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate into Ukraine, Lithuania, and Estonia, and in the heresies outlined in his Tomos.
Sadly, some hierarchs, wishing to please Patriarch Bartholomew and the powers of this world, have politicized the Church’s crisis of schism and heresy, placing fidelity to sacred canons beneath their political sympathies. They seek to justify doctrinal violations with secular political arguments, either through silence or by openly defending Patriarch Bartholomew. Blinded by a desire to appease non-Orthodox politicians, they side with them in persecuting the faithful and violating sacred canons – whether by tacitly supporting the Ukrainian schismatics, by concelebrating with them as if they were canonical clergy, or by outright recognizing them (as did the majority of the hierarchs in the Churches of Greece, Cyprus, and Alexandria).
This behavior, besides being complicity in schism, shows that these hierarchs fail to grasp the danger of forming a new ecclesiology similar to that of Rome, where the heresy of papism gradually developed and led to a break with the Church. The separation of the Roman Church from universal Orthodoxy was the fruit of long-nurtured seeds of heretical innovation. The final rupture occurred on July 20, 1054, under Patriarch Michael Cerularius, when Rome, due to its heretical innovations, was cut off from the Church like a dry branch – no longer bearing fruit, and potentially deadly to the whole body. Just as heretics fell away from the Church before, so it will be now. In recent years, bishops and faithful are being called to self-identify – whether they will remain faithful to Orthodoxy unto death, or compromise with Holy Tradition to please the world.
Still, there is some consolation: although the Holy Synod has not yet found the strength to formally state how the Ukrainian schism and the papal claims in Patriarch Bartholomew’s 2019 Tomos relate to Orthodox ecclesiology and the sacred canons, lawlessness has not gone entirely unanswered.
- In a letter from the head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Neophyte, to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko dated December 15, 2015, it states: “We are seriously concerned about numerous violations of the rights of believers of the only canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine. These include, above all, the forcible seizure of UOC churches. Particularly troubling is the attempt to take away from the canonical Church two of the most revered holy places of all universal Orthodoxy – the Pochaev Lavra and the world-famous Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra – in favor of the so-called ‘Kyiv Patriarchate,’ which is not recognized by any Local Orthodox Church.”\
- In another letter from Patriarch Neophyte dated June 12, 2017, he clearly refers to the schismatics as such, and laments the ongoing civil war: “With sorrow and concern, we have been watching for the past three years the growing fratricidal war in Ukraine. Of special concern to us is the fact that, under these difficult conditions, the schismatic ‘Kyiv Patriarchate’ – a self-proclaimed, uncanonical structure unconnected with canonical Orthodoxy – is, along with extremists, attempting to seize the sacred heritage of the Ukrainian people.”
- A joint statement from Metropolitan Gabriel of Lovech, Metropolitan John of Varna and Veliki Preslav, and Metropolitan Daniel of Vidin dated October 9, 2018, states clearly: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate has no right to intervene in another’s canonical territory and to enter into communion with schismatics in Ukraine, ignoring the only canonical hierarchy in Ukraine.”
- Patriarch Bartholomew’s papal claims were also rejected in Metropolitan Daniel’s appeal “For the Unity of the Church,” published in four languages, as well as in his dissenting opinion on the Synod’s decision of June 12, 2019. Some did not heed the fact that God chose this very Metropolitan Daniel to become Patriarch of Bulgaria.
- Metropolitan Gabriel of Lovech also clearly expressed his support for the canonical UOC in his letter to Metropolitan Luke of Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol in 2023.
- Many Bulgarian monks and clergy publicly voiced their support for the persecuted brotherhood of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra in a letter dated March 25, 2023.
May God grant the hesitant hierarchs the courage to take a firm Orthodox position on these pressing issues in the spirit of the Church’s millennia-old Tradition and for the glory of God.
– One last question, if you will. Perhaps the most discussed church-related topic in recent weeks has been the firm stance of Patriarch Daniel and Minister of Education Krasimir Valchev on introducing the subject of “Religion” as a regular part of the school curriculum. Why are we witnessing this small but noisy opposition, and is the implementation of the subject likely in practice?
– The answer to why there is such vigorous backlash can be found in the Gospel – “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil – for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45).
Statements opposing the introduction of God’s word to schoolchildren come from two groups of people. The first – opponents of Christ who simply do not want His name to be heard, including in the curriculum. The second – opponents of Patriarch Daniel who, though formally part of the Church, speak against the subject solely to oppose His Holiness. They became his adversaries because they sympathise with the heretical claims of Patriarch Bartholomew to be an Eastern pope – claims which Patriarch Daniel courageously refuted even while still Metropolitan of Vidin. We see that the ideology of neo-papism has become a firm dividing line – as is fitting when a new teaching appears in the Church – “for there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19).
But you are right – the opposition is small, even insignificant – just a few individuals moving in media circles who subtly slander the commendable educational initiative of the Ministry of Education and of the Patriarch and Holy Synod. According to sociological research, about 69% of the population support the introduction of the subject “Virtues and Religion,” because they see the need for basic knowledge of God and spiritual and moral education for the youngest – something modern families on the whole are unable to provide. In this regard, it would be wonderful if the state supported the Church and the family in forming basic religious literacy and in familiarising pupils with the good example of our national heroes and enlighteners – all of whom, without exception, studied the Law of God.
Of course, if we – teachers and students, adults and children – do not lead a Christian life, then one hour of religious instruction per week will not by itself revive Bulgaria. The spiritual literacy taught at school does not remove the need for personal communion with God – which requires a firm struggle against the passions and a striving to acquire a pure heart, not merely a formal avoidance of sin. But one step at a time – children must begin somewhere, and this proposed subject can be a beautiful beginning.
The Bulgarian Orthodox Church does not retreat from its conviction that there are no virtues greater than those expressed in the Gospel and tested by the centuries-long life of our ancestors.
To the critics of the Patriarch, I would like to remind them that we are allowed to criticise bishops only for sins against the holy Orthodoxy given to us by God, and for nothing else – let them remember the book *Self-Appointed Judges* by Archimandrite Seraphim Alexiev, as well as the instruction of Saint Seraphim of Sofia the Wonderworker: “You may condemn someone for heresy and for poor treatment of the Church, but not for various moral failings – not even for fornication – not even heretics.”
And can these philosopher-opponents offer a better example or tool for the religious education and moral upbringing of children than Christian values? Values which, aside from being eternal, have proven crucial in preserving our national identity and are unsurpassed by any other moral or philosophical system?
They cannot – because there is no higher system or teaching than the Gospel.
