Children of One Schism: Why the Structures of the UOC-KP Are a Bill Presented to Phanar
«Ordinations» of Nikodim, from the point of view of Phanar logic, should be «more canonical» than the ordinations of Epiphanius, and not the other way around.
When in Romania, a country with an ancient autocephalous Church, a "vicariate" of a structure that is not recognized by any Local Church in the world suddenly emerges, it is easy to dismiss it and say that this is simply a local incident. Just think, a few defrocked monks who went into schism. And unfortunately, many do just that – in Cyprus, in Greece, and in Constantinople itself. But such an attitude toward what is happening is dangerous. Because the appearance of the UOC-KP in Cyprus, Greece, Czech Republic, Romania, Italy and Portugal is not a coincidence. This is a symptom of one disease that was declared cured in 2018–2019 without actually being cured. This disease is called simply – schism.
Map of Expansion
Let us immediately clarify that we are not talking about the late Filaret Denisenko, who died in March 2026 at the age of 98. We are talking about the new head of the "Kyiv Patriarchate" – Nikodim Kobzar, former "archbishop" of Sumy, whom a group of hierarchs of the UOC-KP elected "patriarch" the day after Filaret's death.
It was under Nikodim, not under Filaret, that the "Kyiv Patriarchate" shifted from defense to attack, primarily against other Local Churches.
Since the day of his election (that is, over several months) Nikodim:
- Accepted a group of communities into the "Czech Vicariate" and appointed a "bishop" for Czech Republic (communities in Prague, Teplice, Bilina, Most, Duchcov, Decin, Chomutov, Litomerice and Usti nad Labem are mentioned).
- Established an eparchy in Greece. The eparchy included: the abbot and monks of the Panagia Glyfokylussa monastery in Keratea, the rector and clergy of the Church of Saint Therapon in Ano Liosia, the Church of Saint Paisios and the Church of the Life-Giving Source in Attica, the Church of Saint Cosmas of Aetolia.
- Accepted a community in Romania into the UOC-KP (the "Monastery of All Saints" in the village of Sagasa) under his direct subordination.
- Accepted a community from Uganda into his structure. Archpriest Charalambos Otsena joined Nikodim's organization together with the parish of Saint Joseph. The decree notes that now the Ugandan cleric and his flock will be under the direct subordination of the head of the Kyiv Patriarchate.
- Established by decrees of May 28, 2026, a "vicariate" in Cyprus, accepting former clergy and monks associated with the monastery of Saint Habakkuk, and granting the new monastery stavropegial status.
- Created patriarchal vicariates in Italy and Portugal, giving a certain Nicola Nunzio Rimaudo the title of "Archbishop of Milan."
- Accepted into the UOC-KP a community of the Constantinople Patriarchate in the Spanish city of Denia.
Let us repeat once again that all this happened literally within a few weeks. Yes, each of these episodes can individually be attributed to some marginals who went to the UOC-KP and have no influence in their homeland. But first, this is not entirely true (especially in the situation with Czech Republic and Cyprus), and second, the problem still remains, because all these marginals, taken together, build a quite clear system. And this system works according to one formula: when this or that Local Church prohibits someone or defrocks them, the "Kyiv Patriarchate" accepts this person, appoints them where needed, ordains them if necessary, and establishes a structure for them. Today it is Czech Republic or Romania. Tomorrow – any country in the world where some number of problematic or simply dissatisfied clergy can be found. And if they cannot be found – the UOC-KP will send its own. There can be no doubt about this.
Misunderstanding the Essence of the Problem
At the same time, the hierarchy of the Local Churches, it seems, does not fully sense the threat that comes from the UOC-KP. And they do not sense it not only because most of them have not yet had to deal with parallel church structures on their canonical territory, but also because they do not know what the Kyiv Patriarchate represents.
For example, Cypriot theologian Theodoros Kyriakos, speaking on television, expressed concern about the fact that the UOC-KP created its structure on the territory of the Church of Cyprus (the monastery of Habakkuk and the parish of Archangel Michael).
He accurately described the mechanism that was used in this case: the decrees are genuine, Nikodim's seal and signature are real, there are no refutations from the accepted monks, and the structure is really subordinated to Kyiv. He also correctly noted that the Church of Cyprus will have to make a decision, rather than pretend that "they are defrocked, and this does not concern us."
But there are two fundamental errors in his reasoning, and both show that even intelligent Greek theologians have not reached the essence of the problem.
First Error: "This is Russian Influence"
Kyriakos tries to explain what is happening by hinting at the "east of Ukraine" and Russian influence: supposedly, the "Kyiv Patriarchate," though unrecognized, operates where Russian sentiments are strong (probably because Nikodim is from Sumy?). This interpretation is politically convenient, but theologically and canonically empty, and factually – simply absurd. And not only because there are no regions left in Ukraine whose population would be "pro-Russian" in sentiment, but also because the Kyiv Patriarchate is a structure that considers the ROC an occupier of Ukrainian Orthodoxy and builds its legitimacy on the struggle against "Moscow dependence." To explain its activity by "Moscow's hand" means not understanding against whom this project was created and what it remains to this day. The UOC-KP is the antipode of the ROC, and attributing its appearance to "pro-Russian forces" is the same as explaining a fire by the work of firefighters.
The convenience of such a version is that it removes responsibility from the real source of the problem.
If the "Russians" are to blame – then the Ecumenical Patriarchate is not to blame, the very model proposed by Patriarch Bartholomew is not to blame, when the Ukrainian schism was "healed" by decree and the issuance of a document stating that "the patient should henceforth be considered healthy."
Because it is precisely this model that is to blame.
Second Error: "Dumenko Defrocked Him"
Kyriakos repeats the thesis that the OCU itself now broadcasts: Nikodim was defrocked by the "synod" of the OCU, which means he is no "patriarch." Formally this is so. But here lies the main substitution. To defrock someone, one needs to have at least some authority over them. But the OCU has no such authority over the UOC-KP – for the simple reason: Filaret almost immediately after the formation of the OCU canceled his structure's entry into this organization. Moreover, he stated this repeatedly and publicly.
Already on June 20, 2019, Filaret announced the restoration of the UOC-KP. His "council" directly declared non-recognition of the Unification Council of 2018 and the decision to create the OCU. In connection with this, Filaret drew the attention of OCU head Epifaniy Dumenko to the fact that the latter has no right to make decisions about the liquidation of the UOC-KP, "since the Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate are not part of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine." "We are an unrecognized autocephalous Church, but independent," Filaret noted then.
According to Denisenko, the Tomos makes the OCU dependent on Constantinople, and the Kyiv Patriarchate has no relation to this structure. Filaret repeatedly emphasized that the OCU is not his Church, since Dumenko is completely and entirely dependent on Constantinople. This position remained unchanged for Filaret until his death. Therefore, the current Kyiv Patriarchate responds to Dumenko consistently, within the framework of its own logic: the OCU's decisions regarding Nikodim are "canonically null," because the UOC-KP is a separate structure. This was directly stated, for example, by "Metropolitan" Ioasaf Shibaev.
Double Standard of the OCU: The Marutsak Case
The most interesting thing in this story is how the OCU deals with Filaret's legacy in practice, not in words.
In words, the OCU claims that "ordinations" performed on behalf of the UOC-KP after December 2018 (including those of the current head of the Kyiv Patriarchate) are null, but in practice it applied absolutely no sanctions to the one who initiated and performed these "ordinations" – Filaret Denisenko. All these recent years, the OCU called Filaret "honorary patriarch," and buried him as "His Holiness."
And here the double standard becomes physically tangible. Andrey Marutsak, whom the UOC-KP considered an "archbishop" and secretary of its "synod," was admitted to Filaret's funeral in March 2026. And not just admitted, he prayed with representatives of the OCU in hierarchical vestments, with an omophorion.
But the whole point is that the OCU does not recognize his "ordination." As early as June 22, 2019, Marutsak was suspended from priesthood by Epifaniy's decree in the rank of archimandrite. And his "episcopal" rank was certainly not recognized in the OCU.
And therefore an extremely simple question arises: who stood at Filaret's coffin in an omophorion next to Dumenko? If a "hierarch" (because he was allowed to participate in the funeral precisely as a "hierarch") – then the OCU is lying that it does not recognize his "ordination." If a suspended archimandrite in episcopal vestments – then this is precisely that "canonical chaos" which representatives of the OCU denounce in the Kyiv Patriarchate.
In other words, the OCU cannot simultaneously say that Filaret's ordinations after 2018 are invalid, and at the same time pray with those whom he "ordained," commemorate him as "patriarch" and bury him with patriarchal honors.
Either Filaret's "ordinations" mean something – and then all of them mean something, including Nikodim's. Or they mean nothing – and then those on which the OCU itself stands also mean nothing.
The Main Paradox: Whose Ordinations Are "More Canonical"?
Here we approach the most uncomfortable question for the Constantinople Patriarchate – the one that Greek theologians carefully avoid.
Both the OCU and the UOC-KP grew from one source – from Filaret Denisenko's project. These are two branches of one tree.
Epifaniy Dumenko received "episcopal ordination" from Filaret before 2018, when Filaret was under anathema and was not recognized by any Orthodox Church (including the Ecumenical Patriarchate) as a lawful hierarch. But Nikodim Kobzar received episcopal ordination on December 15, 2019, when Filaret had already been "restored" by Constantinople to episcopal rank.
Now let us bring all the facts together. According to Constantinople's own logic, after October 2018 Filaret is a lawful hierarch in communion with the Church. But if this is so, then his "ordinations" performed after restoration are based on a more solid canonical foundation than "ordinations" performed by him under anathema.
That is, Nikodim's "ordinations," from the point of view of Phanar logic, should be "more canonical" than Epifaniy's ordination, not the other way around. This, by the way, is what Nikodim himself says, according to whom "the Constantinople Patriarchate considers the ordinations of the UOC-KP lawful," while the ordinations of OCU clergy before 2019 were accepted "by economy."
Thus, the Phanar found itself trapped by its own decision. To legitimize the OCU, it had to retroactively "heal" all of Filaret's "ordinations" during the period when he was under anathema. But having "healed" the source, it cannot now declare the fruits of the same source invalid only because they appeared later and turned out to be inconvenient. One cannot recognize the root and deny the branches that grew from it after the root was declared healthy.
Schism Is Not Cured by Decree
Here we get to the essence. The root of the current situation is not in Russia and not in Sumy. It is in the autumn of 2018, when the Constantinople Patriarchate, having considered the appeals of Filaret and Makarios Maletich, declared them and their followers restored to hierarchical dignity and returned to church communion. This became the basis for creating the OCU and granting the Tomos.
But schism is not a legal formality that can be turned on and off by an act from the chancellery. Schism is a spiritual disease, a distortion of church consciousness, in which a person places his own truth above church unity. And this disease cannot be healed without changing the very schismatic disposition of the soul through repentance. But, as we all know very well, Filaret did not repent. Moreover, he expressed doubt about the canonicity of the entire current "hierarchy" of the OCU.
This statement of his is known: "If I was under anathema, then this means that all these bishops (of the OCU, – Ed.) are invalid. And Epifaniy is not only not a metropolitan – he is not even a priest. If the Ecumenical Patriarch lifted the anathema from me in 2018, then the entire episcopate is invalid."
So it turns out that the Constantinople Patriarchate wanted to solve the age-old "Ukrainian question" with an administrative gesture: cancel the sanctions, recognize the "hierarchy" of former schismatics, create a new structure, grant a Tomos. But without repentance, without conciliar understanding of mistakes, without a canonically correct attitude toward the entire chain of previous and subsequent "ordinations," the problem was not solved. It was reformulated and transferred to a new level. And now its consequences are manifesting not only in Ukraine, but also in Czech Republic, Romania, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus and Africa.
Moreover, the UOC-KP is taking parishes away from the Constantinople Patriarchate itself. According to the Ecumenical Patriarchate's yearbook for 2026, the community in Spanish Denia that transferred to the Kyiv Patriarchate belonged to the Constantinople Church.
Why This Concerns Everyone
For Orthodox ecclesiology, the territorial principle is not a matter of bureaucracy. It is protection of the very unity of the Church. One territory – one Church, one bishop. As soon as a parallel jurisdiction subordinated to an external "patriarch" appears on the canonical territory of a Local Church, not some separate Church comes under attack, but the very principle on which Orthodox structure is based.
The danger of the "Ukrainian schism" model lies in its reproducibility. In one country, clergy under prohibition become the hook, in another – an emigrant community, in a third – administrative problems. The same scheme will work every time, and every time the Kyiv Patriarchate will offer refuge to those who have entered into conflict with their Church. And since we are talking about "sacraments" performed by schismatics and which the state often recognizes on civil lines (marriage, child's name, etc.), the consequences extend beyond the church fence.
Two Fruits of One Project
Therefore, let us call things by their proper names.
The OCU and UOC-KP are not two accidentally similar structures and not "the real Church against impostors." These are two different fruits of one and the same Filaret project.
Constantinople recognized one branch and endowed it with a Tomos. The other remained under the name "Kyiv Patriarchate" and today under Nikodim's leadership is building parallel structures abroad, relying on the same historical and personal foundation: we too are heirs of Filaret, we too have his "ordinations," we too are an "independent church."
And there is nothing to object to this substantially without reconsidering the 2018 decision. Because both branches feed from one root, and Patriarch Bartholomew himself declared this root healthy.
This is the tragedy. By recognizing the OCU without real repentance and without true and canonical overcoming of the very nature of schism, Constantinople created a problem not only for Ukraine, but for all of Orthodoxy. Nikodim's actions in Czech Republic, Africa, Romania, Cyprus, Spain, Italy and Portugal are only the visible part of this problem. The invisible part is much more serious: as long as Local Churches explain what is happening by "Russian influence" or personal ambitions of individual clergy, they will treat symptoms and not touch the disease itself.
And the disease is simple and old as the world. Schism that was not healed by repentance sooner or later sprouts again – and no longer where it was planted.
