Pat. Bartholomew: "I was wrong about Ukraine but won't correct anything."
In an interview with French TV, Patriarch Bartholomew made a number of statements concerning Ukraine. What do they mean in the short and long term?
On September 7, 2025, the weekly Sunday program Les Chemins de la Foi ("The Paths of Faith") aired on the French TV channel France Télévisions. The program is dedicated to various religions, from Christianity to Buddhism. This time, it featured an interview with the head of the Constantinople Church, Patriarch Bartholomew. Part of the discussion was focused on Ukraine. But before moving on to that topic, we must pay attention to how Patriarch Bartholomew views the role of his See among the Local Orthodox Churches, as well as his remarks about the Council of Crete in 2016.
On the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch
Interviewer, Archpriest Zhivko Panev: “What is the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch? Is he the first among equals or the first without equals?”
The wording of this question points to a certain duality in how the Patriarchate of Constantinople positions itself. On the one hand, Orthodox ecclesiology holds that not only are the heads of Local Churches equal among themselves, but that all bishops governing their dioceses are, in principle, equal. In Orthodoxy, there is no such sacred rank as the Roman Pope, who is considered above all bishops and holds authority over them.
On the other hand, over the past hundred years or so, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has increasingly claimed to possess certain exceptional powers not inherent to any other patriarch – and certainly not to ordinary bishops. This new ecclesiology is expressed in a work by Archbishop Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, the current head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The work is titled “First Without Equals”.
Patriarch Bartholomew’s response shows that he fully embraces this view. Quote: “The primacy of Constantinople is not merely an honorary title. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has specific prerogatives, specific powers, so to speak.”
"The fact is that the Patriarch of Constantinople enjoys certain privileges that other primates do not have. From this point of view, he is the first without equals. These privileges belong exclusively to the Ecumenical Patriarch."
Patriarch Bartholomew
So, Patriarch Bartholomew is essentially claiming that the head of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is a “light version” of the Pope. Though he may not claim the title Vicar of Christ on Earth, he nonetheless believes he possesses the rights that no one else has. This contradicts the Orthodox teaching about the Church, where no one has nor can have any exclusive powers. It’s as if one of the Apostles had told the others, “I enjoy certain privileges that none of you do.” Such fantasies would only make us smile. Yet no one seems to smile when it comes to the words of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Many even consider him to be correct.
The canons of the Church speak only of a primacy of honor, which is limited to the fact that the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople is commemorated first during liturgical services in the diptychs, the list of the heads of the Local Churches.
Moreover, even this primacy was conditioned by the political circumstances of the first millennium, during the time of the Eastern Roman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople.
Thus, Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council states: "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome."
And Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council says: "…we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome…"
Today, the conditions under which the canons defining the privileges of the Church of Constantinople were established no longer exist at all. Constantinople, once the capital of a mighty empire, the city of the “the Sovereignty and the Senate”, has long since become the provincial Muslim city of Istanbul, which isn’t even the capital of Turkey.
The only thing supporters of the “first without equals” theory can cite in defense of their claims is the decrees of Turkish sultans from the Ottoman Empire era. It was the sultans who made the Patriarch of Constantinople the head of the entire Greek millet, that is, the Christian population of the vast Ottoman Empire, which at various times in history encompassed nearly all of the ancient patriarchates.
Indeed, there was a period (and a fairly lengthy one) when the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch were independent only in name, but in practice lived in Constantinople under the patronage of the Ecumenical Patriarch and were completely dependent on him. However, it is doubtful that such historical circumstances, relevant many centuries ago, can serve as a basis for contemporary claims to primacy.
Nevertheless, such claims are not only being put forward – Constantinople bishops are using them in their attempts to determine the fate of millions of believers. One such case is Ukraine. However, before addressing the issue of Ukraine, it is necessary to analyze Patriarch Bartholomew’s view of the Council of Crete (2016) and the question of granting autocephaly.
The issue of autocephaly and the Council of Crete
The idea of convening a pan-Orthodox council had been proposed roughly a hundred years ago.
As is well known, the Ecumenical Councils were convened during the first millennium, while in the second millennium, the Orthodox Church seemingly lost the ability to resolve matters of its life through conciliar decision-making. However, many issues had accumulated – important, pressing matters requiring precisely a conciliar approach and resolution.
But the Council that took place in Crete in 2016 had no intention of addressing these issues. Even such an urgent question as the procedure for granting autocephaly was excluded from the agenda. In essence, the Council of Crete was convened, first, to use its pan-Orthodox authority to affirm the theory of the “first without equals”, granting the Patriarchate of Constantinople exclusive powers, and second, to open the door to ecumenical dialogue, primarily with the Catholic Church.
However, at the last moment, four Local Churches, for various reasons, refused to participate, and as a result, the Council simply did not turn out to be truly pan-Orthodox.
Nevertheless, Patriarch Bartholomew, even today, nearly ten years later, refuses to acknowledge this fact. Here is what he says: "Unfortunately, at the last moment, four sister Churches declined to participate in the council, which nevertheless successfully took place with ten Churches. I want to believe that, by the grace of God and with the help of the Holy Spirit, we composed excellent texts. I would like them to be disseminated as widely as possible so that the world can benefit from the united voice of Orthodoxy, as it was expressed at the Council of Crete."
But how can one speak of a “united voice of Orthodoxy” when, just moments earlier, the Patriarch admitted that four Local Churches refused to participate in its work? Moreover, these four Churches, in terms of clergy and faithful, outnumber the ten that gathered in Crete. Of course, conciliar wisdom is not measured by the number of communities within a given Local Church but neither is it measured simply by the arithmetic number of Local Churches.
The Council of Crete (2016) was not successful, yet Patriarch Bartholomew continues to assert that the decisions made by the Council are binding for all, including those Churches whose representatives were absent in Crete.
As for the issue of granting autocephaly, during the preparatory phase for the Council, it was removed from the agenda because the Patriarchate of Constantinople insisted that only it had the authority to grant autocephaly, regardless of which Local Church the new Church was separating from. Naturally, the other Churches disagreed, as this would mean that any schismatic group in any Local Church could be legitimized by a decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (which is precisely what the Phanar did in Ukraine). For its part, the Patriarchate of Constantinople was unwilling to agree that autocephaly should be granted by the common consent of all the Churches.
Quote: "Although only the Ecumenical Patriarchate had the right to grant autocephaly, starting with the Russian Church and then all the Balkan Churches. <…> Our Patriarchate proposed that the Ecumenical Patriarch would make the decision and sign it, while the primates of the other Churches would participate in the decision and sign it along with him."
In other words, the Patriarch’s proposal to the other Churches regarding the granting of autocephaly was, in fact, no different from the existing practice: the decision would be made by Constantinople in any case, while the other primates were assigned the role of mere bystanders. It’s no surprise that the Local Churches rejected such a proposal.
This statement (like many previous ones) shows that Patriarch Bartholomew is convinced that only he has the right to grant autocephaly. This conviction is unfounded. There are no canons that establish this right for him.
Historically, Constantinople did indeed grant the status of autocephaly to various Churches. However, it should be remembered that, first, almost all of these Churches existed in countries that were gaining freedom from the yoke of the Ottoman Empire, which subjected all Christians not only to the spiritual but also to the administrative authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople. And second, the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not so much grant autocephaly as recognize an already established situation (i.e., a self-declared autocephaly). Sometimes this recognition took many years or even decades. For example, the so-called Bulgarian Schism lasted more than 70 years.
It should also not be forgotten that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was not the only one to grant autocephaly. For example, the Russian Church granted autocephaly in 1961 to the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, and in 1970 to the Orthodox Church in America. The former was recognized by Constantinople only in 1998, in the form of a repeated grant of autocephaly, while the latter has still not been recognized.
Autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church
And finally, about the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church. The question itself was formulated with understanding. Here is how it was posed by Archpriest Zhivko Panev, a member of the diocesan canonical commission of the Archdiocese of Orthodox Churches of the Russian tradition in Western Europe (Moscow Patriarchate): "In 2019, you granted the Tomos of autocephaly to the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Now there are two Orthodox Churches in Ukraine: the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, led by Metropolitan Epifaniy, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, headed by Metropolitan Onuphry. Why was such a decision made?"
The priest asks why the Tomos of autocephaly was granted to the “new Church,” while the “old” Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) still exists. Why did Patriarch Bartholomew grant autocephaly only to a part of the Ukrainian Orthodox faithful, and a relatively small one at that? But Patriarch Bartholomew does not answer this question. Instead, he begins to talk about the right of Ukrainians to receive autocephaly and the right of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to grant it.
Quote: "At that time, our Patriarchate made this decision, believing that the Ukrainian Church has the right to gain independence, and this was after numerous appeals to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Not only in recent years, but also much earlier – in the 1920s and even before."
Here, Patriarch Bartholomew completely reveals himself, but this becomes clear only if one knows the history.
The fact is that the Ukrainian Church has never petitioned the Patriarchate of Constantinople for autocephaly. It was done only by politicians and various, very small schismatic groups that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in most cases, recognized as excommunicated from the Church and, naturally, refused any autocephaly. The mention of the 1920s is especially strange since it was then that Ukrainian self-proclaimed hierarchs applied for autocephaly, but they didn’t have a single legitimate bishop. And suddenly Patriarch Bartholomew tells Fr. Zhivko Panev that, based on these appeals, he eventually granted autocephaly to the OCU. Essentially, this is self-discrediting, although there could be an assumption that Panev was not particularly familiar with the Church history of Ukraine.
Next, in response to the priest’s question, Patriarch Bartholomew spoke about the appeal made by Ukrainian hierarchs of the UOC in the early 1990s, requesting autocephaly. This also does him no credit, as it is well known that these signatures were obtained by then-Metropolitan of Kyiv, Filaret Denysenko, through strong authoritarian pressure. And when several bishops withdrew their signatures, they were subjected to severe reprisals.
Patriarch Bartholomew also once again asserted the right of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to grant autocephaly to Ukraine despite the fact that such a claim is groundless.
The next question concerned the issue of schism, which did not disappear with the granting of the Tomos.
Archpriest Zhivko Panev: "Six years after this autocephaly, Orthodox Christians in Ukraine are still divided. Do you believe that unity will eventually be achieved, and what, in your opinion, is the path toward that?"
In this question, there is a barely concealed reproach: how is it that in 2018 and 2019, Patriarch Bartholomew claimed that the Russian Orthodox Church had failed for many years to heal the schism in Ukraine, and now he would resolve the issue swiftly with his wise decision? But six years has passed, and the division has only deepened. What went wrong?
And here Patriarch Bartholomew began making statements that, until recently, would have been considered unthinkable:
“Our goal is to unite all the Orthodox Churches of Ukraine – both Metropolitan Onuphry and Metropolitan Epifaniy – so that they are united in theory and in practice, become one Local Church, and are recognized by the other sister Orthodox Churches.”
Patriarch Bartholomew
First of all, since 2019, Patriarch Bartholomew has refused to recognize Metropolitan Onuphry as the legitimate Metropolitan of Kyiv. In 2022, he said that all hierarchs of the UOC are merely titular bishops, whom he, in his great mercy and humility, still tolerates on his canonical territory, that is, in Ukraine. According to Patriarch Bartholomew, the only legitimate Metropolitan of Kyiv is Serhiy (Epifaniy) Dumenko, who, in his view, has authority over absolutely all Orthodox communities in Ukraine, even if they do not agree with this.
And suddenly, he speaks of the UOC as a really existing Church. This is something entirely new.
Secondly, Patriarch Bartholomew now wants the UOC and the OCU to unite into one Local Church, although previously, he had stated that only individual structures of the UOC might join the OCU, since the OCU already exists as the autocephalous Ukrainian Church.
Thirdly, Patriarch Bartholomew reverses the sequence of events. While earlier he insisted that the OCU would gradually be recognized by all Local Churches, today he says that first the UOC and OCU must unite, and only then will the Local Churches recognize this unified structure.
Furthermore, Patriarch Bartholomew assured that delays in the recognition of autocephaly are a completely normal phenomenon, and that it will happen sooner or later. While earlier he spoke of the rapid recognition of the OCU by the Local Churches, now he is saying that the process may take decades.
And one of the most important statements made by Patriarch Bartholomew: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate does not intend to revoke its decision to grant autocephaly to Ukraine. I want to be clear on this matter.”
What this means
Everything said by Patriarch Bartholomew in his interview with French television may mean the following:
Firstly. Despite the obvious failure of the OCU project, despite the fact that the religious organization headed by Serhiy (Epifaniy) Dumenko has earned the reputation of a "church of crowbars and angle grinders" due to its violent seizures of temples, and despite the deepening of the ecclesiastical schism in Ukraine (which was, in fact, acknowledged by Patriarch Bartholomew himself), Constantinople has no intention of backing down and will continue to push its line to the end.
Patriarch Bartholomew’s mistake with the OCU project is now obvious to everyone. In fact, by stating that the unification of Ukrainian Orthodox believers is still something that lies ahead, he essentially admitted this himself.
But the Patriarch is unable to correct his mistake. The inability to correct one’s own mistakes is something that happens to many people in life. However, when such mistakes are made by someone who claims the status of "first without equals", they affect the lives of millions and come at too great a cost.
Secondly. By refusing to revoke the Tomos, Patriarch Bartholomew has indirectly confirmed that he does not intend to convene a pan-Orthodox council or meeting on the Ukrainian issue, which many primates and bishops of Local Churches have called for.
Thirdly. Patriarch Bartholomew no longer expects the process of OCU recognition by the Local Churches to continue. The fact that he now speaks of this process taking decades is quite telling: no one beyond the Churches of Greece, Alexandria, and Cyprus will recognize the OCU. And this has now been understood in the Phanar. We would even dare to suggest that we might see one of them eventually revoke its recognition, if not explicitly, then in a veiled manner. For example, on Mount Athos, some monasteries that previously recognized the OCU now refuse to receive its "clergy" or concelebrate with them.
Fourthly. The change in rhetoric toward the UOC and Metropolitan Onuphry by Patriarch Bartholomew should not mislead anyone. The fact that he now speaks of the existence of the UOC and its Primate (whom he previously described as canonically non-existent) does not mean that the Phanar will respect the UOC’s position or speak in its defense against persecution by the Ukrainian authorities. No, the Patriarchate of Constantinople will continue to welcome the destruction of the UOC and will point to only one "solution": unification with the OCU.
Fifthly. Patriarch Bartholomew’s interview is a warning bell for Dumenko, Zoria, and other leaders of the OCU. Despite the claims that the Tomos will not be taken away from them, the shift in the Ecumenical Patriarch’s rhetoric is already quite significant.
In fact, the Phanar has acknowledged that, regarding the unification of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine (or rather, the lack of unification), everything has actually reverted to the situation of 2018. And this means that there will definitely be changes in the Ukrainian church issue. And it’s not certain that they will be to Epifaniy’s advantage.
