Modeling the Canonical Resolution of the Orthodox Church Division in Ukraine: Institutional Stages and Principles of Oikonomia

by Mikhail Tokar

Introduction: The Factor of Time in the Dynamics of Ecclesiastical Divisions

The study of contemporary intra-Orthodox conflicts requires a shift away from opportunistic political narratives in favor of rigorous canonical and ecclesiological analysis. The chronic crisis of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, manifested in the coexistence and severe confrontation of two parallel jurisdictions—the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU)—has reached a dogmatic and administrative impasse.

In the sociology of religion and church history, the destructive factor of time is of fundamental importance. The trajectory of a protracted schism possesses the property of irreversible institutionalization. Historical precedent proves that if an ecclesiological division is not healed within its initial chronological periods, the separated structures adapt to an autonomous existence under conditions of isolation, developing their own institutional mythology, while channels of communication break down permanently. Consequently, the prolongation of the conflict works against all its participants, legitimizing destructive processes within the very body of the Church.

The patristic heritage views a schism as an ontological catastrophe. St. John Chrysostom postulated that “to produce divisions in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresies,” emphasizing the absolute nature of this separation by stating that “a schism is not washed away even by martyrdom’s blood” (In Eph. Hom. XI). From the perspective of Christian soteriology, condoning the transformation of a schism into a habitual historical reality for the sake of retaining administrative power negates the pastoral legitimacy of the hierarchy, turning the insignia of spiritual rank into mere formal accessories. The ecclesiological imperative for overcoming the crisis lies in adhering to the evangelical principle: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35).

Below is a conceptual roadmap—a four-stage model of canonical transit aimed at restoring unity through the curbing of institutional pride and the application of the mechanisms of oikonomia.

Methodology and Stages of Conflict Resolution

Stage I. Overcoming the Communicative Barrier (Period of Covert Dialogue)

Ecclesiological reintegration is impossible without the preventive preparation of the socio-cultural fabric of church communion, which aligns with the biblical warning: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined” (Matt. 12:25).

  1. Horizontal Expert Convergence. The first step is the initiation of informal, closed-to-the-media expert meetings between moderate clergy and theologians from both jurisdictions. This format excludes polemical triumphalism, focusing instead on developing shared canonical approaches.
  2. Transformation of the Discursive Field. A complete mutual renunciation of destructive discourse is required: on the part of the OCU, a cessation of the rhetoric of state-enforced coercion and demands for the “capitulation” of opponents; on the part of the UOC, an end to a priori accusations of the “gracelessness” of the other side’s sacraments.
  3. The Institution of Pan-Orthodox Arbitration. In view of the deep mutual distrust between the parties, mediation by neutral Autocephalous Orthodox Churches possessing recognized authority (specifically, the Jerusalem, Albanian, or Romanian Churches) is deemed necessary to act as impartial facilitators.

Stage II. The Institutional “Window of Opportunity” and Canonical Compromise

The resolution of deadlocked ecclesiological knots is often realized through natural historical cycles (the changing of eras), which open opportunities for resetting mutual grievances. A hypothetical simultaneous (or sequential) vacancy of both Kyiv sees is considered a potential catalyst.

  1. The Principle of Institutional Kenosis. A vital step toward consensus on the part of the OCU leadership (represented by Metropolitan Epiphanius) at this critical juncture would be a voluntary retirement for the sake of the common good of church unity. This would remove the primary psychological barriers for the conservative wing of the UOC.
  2. Moratorium on Separate Elections. During the vacancy of the sees, the Synods of both structures must introduce a moratorium on electing new separate primates, officially announcing the commencement of preparations for an Extraordinary Unifying Council.
  3. Revision of the Canonical Status of the UOC. The official removal of the 1990 Charter of the Patriarch of Moscow from the Statute of the UOC. This document has fulfilled its historical role; its rejection eliminates legal and political suspicions by the state and society regarding the existence of covert, destructive ties to the primacy in Moscow.

Stage III. The Extraordinary Unifying Council and the Application of Canonical Oikonomia

The theoretical basis of conciliar unification is the evangelical primacy of pastoral care over the letter of the law: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). The question of the validity of ordinations (cheirotonias) performed outside canonical communion is secondary and can be resolved within the framework of a pan-Orthodox ecclesiastical consensus.

  1. The Historical Precedent of the Pan-Orthodox Council of Sofia (1998). In modern church history, there is a successful precedent for healing a schism. At the Pan-Orthodox Council in Sofia, repented schismatic hierarchs were received into the bosom of the Church “in their existing rank” (in suis gradibus) for the higher good of peace, and their ordinations were recognized as valid without re-ordination.
  2. Pan-Orthodox Legitimization of the Primate. The convocation of the Extraordinary Council is carried out under the joint auspices of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the heads of neutral local Churches. A new Primate of the unified structure is elected—a figure equidistant from past administrative conflicts. The joint ordination (concelebration) of the new Primate by the Ecumenical Patriarch and other heads of Churches provides him with an impeccable, indisputable canonical status. By virtue of this, the Unified Patriarch of Kyiv acquires the right to validate, through eucharistic concelebration or prayer, the entire episcopate of the united Church.
  3. Historical Title. The elevation of the newly elected Primate to the dignity of Patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus-Ukraine historically and symbolically returns the unified Church to the ancient Kyivan font of Vladimir’s baptism.

Stage IV. Post-Conciliar Integration and Reception

In accordance with the classic formula of ecclesial life—“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”—the process of institutional merging on the ground must be highly flexible.

  1. Model of Parity Co-Governance. In regions and cities with parallel diocesan structures, the rights of the bishops of both sides must not be infringed upon. The creation of parallel vicariates or a territorial redistribution of districts is envisioned, with the full preservation of the bishops’ respective flocks.
  2. Respect for Liturgical and Calendar Identity. Conservative parishes and major monastic centers (including the Pochaev and Kyiv-Pechersk Lavras) are legally guaranteed the right to preserve their traditional liturgical practice, the liturgical Church Slavonic language, and the Julian calendar. This minimizes the risks of marginalization and communities entering a catacomb state.

Conclusion

The Church, as both a mystical and social organism, risks permanently deforming its structure due to a deficit of internal spiritual hygiene (manifested in synodal egoism, pride, and an unwillingness to make mutual concessions). If the episcopate of both conflicting sides refuses evangelical humility in favor of administrative triumphalism, the schism will be locked in for centuries. The responsibility for the metastases of division and the destruction of the souls of millions of believers will rest upon the entirety of the contemporary Ukrainian episcopate. Overcoming the crisis lies in the synergy of human efforts, canonical reception, and the attainment of genuine Christian love capable of restoring the damaged ecclesiological unity.

Mikhail Tokar

Mikhail Tokar is an independent researcher and educator based in Vyshny Volochyok, Russia. He graduated from the Tver Polytechnic Institute in 1993 as a chemical engineer and subsequently completed his postgraduate studies at the Topchiev Institute of Petrochemical Synthesis of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IPS RAS). He currently teaches at the Vyshny Volochyok College.
As an independent scholar, his research focuses on the nature of intra-Orthodox ecclesiastical schisms across the post-Soviet space. His academic interests examine how the collapse of the Soviet empire led to the formation of new sovereign states, triggering the crystallization of national consciousness and the search for distinct national religious identities. He sometimes publishes under a pen name of József Szakács.
All articles by this author