OR Staff Note: For anyone who cared to do even basic research, the truth about the Tomos that created the OCU has been apparent since 2018. Above the following article are some of our prior ones on this topic, dating as far back as 2022. Based on everything we know, one conclusion is inescapable. The Tomos was never meant for the benefit of Ukrainian Orthodox Christians. The Church in Ukraine was victimized to serve the agendas of powerful global players for whom the Orthodox Faith means nothing. This is a fact that supporters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople have long denied, calling any notion that Bartholomew was bribed, coerced, and/or enticed into betraying Ukraine nothing more than a “conspiracy theory.” New information coming to light, from within the Patriarchate itself, makes this claim increasingly difficult to stand behind. In the article below, a Greek Orthodox Christian provides more background information on how the Tomos really came about. It is not a pretty story.
Related Articles:
By Peter, a Greek Orthodox Christian
Having examined the linguistic authenticity and archival alignment of the so-called “2018 Kyiv chronicle” – an insider document from Phanar published on September 28 – today we turn to its most consequential passage: the account of December 14, when the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s delegation met with President Poroshenko under conditions of state coercion. What Georgios Frangakis, then a deacon, presents as a triumph is, upon closer inspection, a masterclass in diplomatic capitulation. For Greek American Orthodox communities navigating the pastoral fallout of the Phanar’s disastrous policy in Ukraine and worldwide, this document demands sober scrutiny.
The Illusion of Courage
Frangakis writes with belligerent bravado about how the delegation “exchanged views” courageously, signaling “unwavering resolve,” and how Patriarch Bartholomew’s “bold” speech utterly subdued Poroshenko and secured the delegation’s triumph.
Yet, the delegation’s “exchange of views” was not followed by any debate with the Ukrainian President. At least, the chronicle makes no mention of any such discussion. They found neither the courage nor the power to resist what was imposed upon them; they simply endured. Metropolitan Emmanuel (likely in a state of profound distress) confided in his companions that they were under de facto house arrest. Frangakis himself admitted he was so paralyzed by panic that he could not even take proper notes. Most striking of all: Patriarch Bartholomew never asked Poroshenko the single canonical question that should have anchored the negotiations— “Where are the twenty UOC bishops you promised?”
According to the chronicle, the Patriarch’s phone call to Kyiv devolved into a one-sided reprimand, demanding “immediate correction of the situation” and Filaret’s withdrawal as a candidate in the OCU Primate elections. But Poroshenko already had a draft of Filaret’s letter of renunciation ready! The implication is inescapable: it was not Bartholomew who coerced the Ukrainian President, but Poroshenko who suggested pressuring the schismatic UOC-KP leader, and the Patriarch merely agreed without making any further demands. Even the condition of the UOC bishops’ participation—the very canonical safeguard the Phanar once insisted was non-negotiable—was quietly abandoned.
What Was Hidden from History
In his chronicle, Frangakis provides Bartholomew’s “bold” remark as a literary quote while claiming fear rendered him unable to take the conversation minutes. He writes that he instead “repeatedly penned words of prayer.” This is a transparent evasion of submitting the full record of the negotiations.
However, at the Phanar, patriarchal telephone conversations—especially confidential ones—are always recorded. If Frangakis truly could not take notes, where did his precise quotation come from? The logical answer: it was sourced from an official audio transcript from the Phanar. Yet the chronicle contains no reference to a full transcript or minutes, although, in other parts of the document, Frangakis meticulously referred to the complete conversation records. So, in this case the omission is clearly deliberate.
Why hide the full exchange from the Holy Synod and from history? Because the unvarnished conversation would reveal that Poroshenko won decisively, reducing Patriarch Bartholomew’s envoy to a compliant messenger rather than a canonical defender.
An alternative explanation, whispered in the Phanar corridors: Frangakis did keep notes, but was ordered not to submit them to the archives. The “prayer-writing” excuse then becomes a necessary fiction to explain why Ukrainian officials and delegation members saw him writing continuously—when in truth, he was documenting state pressure that could not be officially acknowledged.
The Bathroom Meeting & Allegations of Corruption
Perhaps the most revealing passage is Frangakis’s account of a “private conversation” with the then-“Archbishop” Eustratios Zorya in a restroom during the negotiations. He claims to have delivered a theological lecture that moved Zorya away from promoting Filaret Denysenko’s stance, bringing him to repentance and to supporting the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s delegation thereafter.
In fact, in private conversations, those who know Zorya personally unreservedly dismiss this account as pure fiction. As a long-standing operative of the Security Service of Ukraine, an unapologetic OCU hawk, and a master of political manipulation, he would never speak to a minor Phanariot clerk in such a servile manner.
Zorya has never shown subservience to Phanar officials; indeed, he remains so uncompromising that Patriarch Bartholomew himself recently instructed the OCU Primate, Epiphanios Dumenko, not to bring him to future talks.
Ukrainian and Phanariot sources allege that the very reason Frangakis was dismissed from his post as Secretary of the Holy Synod in 2023 was corruption: specifically, that he (alongside Metropolitan Emmanuel) accepted funds from Poroshenko through Zorya to soften Constantinople’s stance, influence Bartholomew’s decisions, and expedite the “Unification Council.”
The restroom encounter, then, was likely not a spiritual victory but a transactional meeting, in which Zorya was delivering instructions or transferring funds. Frangakis was compelled to acknowledge their private conversation publicly but he reframed it as diplomatic finesse to protect himself from internal scrutiny.
His claim that the Ecumenical Patriarchate “won” over the UOC-KP delegates rings hollow when history has since proven otherwise: within a year, the OCU adopted a statute that contradicted the Tomos of autocephaly and undermined the control of the Mother Church of Constantinople. Today, the OCU operates effectively beyond the oversight of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The Aftermath & Canonical Consequences
Despite Frangakis’s biased narration, the chronicle inadvertently testifies to what many faithful Orthodox Christians have long perceived. Patriarch Bartholomew was deceived, outmaneuvered, and used as a legitimizing figurehead for a state-engineered ecclesiastical project. He failed to uphold canonical conditions and allowed political expediency to override conciliar procedure. The consequences have been profound: deepened divisions across the Orthodox world, eroded trust in the Phanar’s diplomatic credibility, Greek American parishes grappling with the pastoral fallout of a jurisdiction that now answers to Kyiv, not the Divine Head of the Church.
