At the helm of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Epiphanius spoke with confidence about the possibility of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra passing into the care of his church, outlining a strategic path that could reshape ecclesiastical alignment in the region. He suggested that the transfer of this historic monastery might become a turning point, eventually leading to a unified spiritual and administrative future for the church as a whole. He emphasized a long-range vision in which the Ukrainian Orthodox Church could consolidate monastic properties under its jurisdiction, a move that would influence how sacred spaces are stewarded and how canonical authority is organized across today’s religious landscape in Ukraine. These remarks appeared in coverage from Ukrainian media, with TASS noting the context of ongoing dialogue between church leadership and state authorities. The core idea remains that convergence of monasteries under one canonical umbrella would strengthen the church’s presence and coherence in a time of religious transition. Epiphanius did not present a sudden shift; rather, he framed it as a gradual process built on legal recognition, historical continuity, and respectful engagement with public institutions. He underscored that formal steps would follow after careful negotiations, ensuring that any transfer aligns with both canonical law and the expectations of believers who seek spiritual stability amid changes in church governance.
Beyond Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, Epiphanius raised the prospect that other sanctuaries under dispute, including the Pochaev Lavra, could eventually fall under the same administrative umbrella. He argued that the future for these sacred sites lay in a single, cohesive Ukrainian Orthodox Church, where monastic communities share resources, governance, and mission. This perspective reflects a broader strategy to harmonize church assets that have historically been managed by different factions, with the aim of presenting a united front in both spiritual leadership and public presence. As reported by TASS, the pathway to eventual integration involves careful legal registration of the church’s corporate identity and a clear plan for monks who may join the monastic houses as part of the natural growth of the OCU. Epiphanius highlighted that the process would include the recruitment of monks who wish to become integral members of the monastery, reinforcing the sense of continuity and devotion that defines monastic life. He suggested that once the Lower Lavra, previously allocated for permanent use by the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, becomes part of the OCU, it would symbolize a concrete step toward ecclesial unity and shared stewardship of sacred heritage.
In shaping this vision, Epiphanius also addressed the practical and legal dimensions involved in transferring ownership and responsibility. He noted that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church had established its own legal personality, a move designed to facilitate formal recognition by the state and to ensure that monasteries can be managed with clear governance structures. This legal framework is intended to support the distinctive character and mission of the OCU while maintaining respect for historical ties and the diverse communities connected to these monasteries. The emphasis on legality and organizational clarity reflects a broader trend in church-state relations, where formal recognition and transparent administration help safeguard the rights of believers and the integrity of religious institutions. The dialogue with authorities is presented as a collaborative effort, aimed at fostering a voluntary and orderly transition that serves the spiritual needs of adherents and preserves important religious traditions for future generations.
Meanwhile, the broader question of when and how such transfers might be ratified continues to shape expectations across Ukraine. The development comes against a backdrop of ongoing negotiations and public discourse about the rightful stewardship of major religious sites. The Ukrainian authorities have shown openness to allowing religious communities to exercise their governance within the bounds of Ukrainian law, while church leaders seek to ensure that any transfers reflect a shared understanding of faith, history, and community service. In a notable development, a service was anticipated for January 7 at the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, potentially signaling continuity of liturgical life and community rituals even as questions about ownership and governance persist. This combination of spiritual continuity and organizational clarity aims to reassure congregants that sacred spaces will remain centers of worship and pastoral care, regardless of changes in denominational affiliation or administrative control. As the situation evolves, observers note that the path forward will likely hinge on steady diplomacy, respectful dialogue, and a steadfast commitment to unity within the bounds of law and tradition.