… Ukraine, because we did not receive recognition from them or according to rules they invented. They interpret our humility and patience towards the continued existence in Ukraine of a jurisdiction subordinate to Moscow, as well as our calls for dialogue and ecclesiastical peace, as supposed evidence of our weakness and their own correctness.”
“Recognition of our Church did not depend upon Moscow”
The Metropolitan insisted that Moscow’s approval was not required for the establishment or recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
“Indeed, it was not from Moscow that we received our autocephaly. It was not Moscow that granted us the Tomos, nor did recognition of our Church’s authenticity depend upon Moscow—just as the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship did not depend upon the opinions of his opponents,” Metropolitan Epifaniy stated.
“Just as Paul was called to become an apostle by the Head of the Church Himself, so we received …
Metropolitan Epifaniy of Kyiv and All Ukraine issued strong criticism of the Patriarchate of Moscow, accusing its supporters of challenging the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, interpreting its calls for dialogue as weakness and promoting the ideology of the “Russian World.”
The Metropolitan made the remarks during his sermon on August 16, 2026, the Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost, at St Michael’s Golden-Domed Cathedral in Kyiv.
Drawing on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he compared Moscow’s rejection of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine with the opposition faced by the Apostle Paul from those who questioned the authenticity of his apostleship.
“They interpret our humility as evidence of weakness”
Metropolitan Epifaniy accused supporters of the Patriarchate of Moscow of attempting to determine the legitimacy of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine according to rules established by Moscow itself.
“All these events remind us to some extent of our own time, in which the zealous followers of the Russian Patriarchate act in the same way as the opponents of the Apostle Paul,” he said.
“They accuse us, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, because we did not receive recognition from them or according to rules they invented. They interpret our humility and patience towards the continued existence in Ukraine of a jurisdiction subordinate to Moscow, as well as our calls for dialogue and ecclesiastical peace, as supposed evidence of our weakness and their own correctness.”
“Recognition of our Church did not depend upon Moscow”
The Metropolitan insisted that Moscow’s approval was not required for the establishment or recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
“Indeed, it was not from Moscow that we received our autocephaly. It was not Moscow that granted us the Tomos, nor did recognition of our Church’s authenticity depend upon Moscow—just as the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship did not depend upon the opinions of his opponents,” Metropolitan Epifaniy stated.
“Just as Paul was called to become an apostle by the Head of the Church Himself, so we received the Tomos and the proclamation of our status as an autocephalous Local Church from the first among the Primates of the Orthodox Church—the Ecumenical Patriarch, who alone, according to the conciliar canons, possesses this authority.”
According to Metropolitan Epifaniy, the Tomos granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate provides the canonical foundation for the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, irrespective of whether Moscow accepts it.
Dialogue with the Moscow-affiliated jurisdiction
The Metropolitan also addressed the presence in Ukraine of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction historically subordinate to Moscow. He argued that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine had chosen dialogue and reconciliation rather than stricter canonical measures.
“The fact that, instead of imposing strict demands upon the followers of Russian Pharisaism in Ukraine, we demonstrate humility and call them to fraternal dialogue, mutual understanding and unity—rather than judging them according to the canons, as the Patriarchate of Alexandria has done with similar Russian ecclesiastical usurpers in Africa—does not mean that we lack the right to act in this way,” he said.
“Our conciliatory approach must not be interpreted by anyone as supposed evidence that we do not possess this right or that we ourselves harbour doubts about it.”
Through these remarks, Metropolitan Epifaniy also aligned his criticism with the position of the Patriarchate of Alexandria regarding the activities of the Russian Church in Africa, describing its representatives there as “Russian ecclesiastical usurpers.”
“For Ukraine, we are the Local Church”
Concluding, Metropolitan Epifaniy emphasised what he described as the particular responsibility of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine towards the country and its people.
“Even if, somewhere far away, some do not regard us as a Local Church—just as some did not regard Paul as an apostle—for Ukraine we are the Local Church,” he said.
“We recognise the unique and particular responsibility for Ukraine that follows from this. Therefore, like the Apostle Paul, we shall strive to do what is most beneficial for the Orthodox community of Ukraine. We shall continue firmly to expose the false teaching of the ‘Russian World,’ and we believe that, through our common efforts and with God’s help, we shall succeed.”