Ukrainian authorities have again demanded that the monks leave building number 34 at the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. This was conveyed by Metropolitan Pavel, the abbot of the monastery, in a video message shared on the Lavra’s YouTube channel. The metropolitan emphasized that the building had been rebuilt from ruins by the monks and stressed that they would not be displaced from this structure or from any other part of the monastery.
Addressing questions about leadership at the museum and the ministry of culture, the bishop posed, who oversees these institutions? He described them as ordinary people, just like the monks themselves.
He urged that they ought to obey the laws of the state and show a degree of reverence for God. He argued that no court order had been issued to compel their removal.
In response to social media rumors claiming that President Volodymyr Zelensky had ordered the monks to stay or leave the Lavra, the metropolitan urged caution. He warned against congratulating oneself on such rumors and suggested that attempts were being made to silence dissent and delay action, insisting that promises still remained unfulfilled.
Earlier statements from the same source indicated that while some residents of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra might depart, a number of monks would remain on site and continue their vigil at the Lavra, steadfast in their stance until the end.
On March 10, the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra reserve’s directorate announced the termination of the indefinite lease to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Holy Dormition Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and issued a directive that the monks should vacate the monastery by March 29. Metropolitan Pavel, the abbot of one of the oldest monasteries in the region, condemned the move as unlawful and declared that the brothers refused to leave, choosing instead to defend their community and its centuries-old religious heritage.
Within this evolving situation, observers note the enduring tension between state authorities and religious leadership, with the Lavra’s leadership underscoring the monks’ commitment to stay true to their monastic duties even as legal considerations and political pressures complicate routine life at the historic site. The conversations surrounding the Lavra reflect broader debates about religious autonomy, cultural preservation, and the responsibilities of institutions in times of political strain, all while the brothers honor their centuries-old legacy amid uncertain times. This ongoing discourse continues to unfold in public forums, church councils, and community gatherings, where people weigh the sacred responsibilities of a revered sanctuary against the practical realities of governance and property rights. The situation illustrates how religious communities navigate state enforcement while seeking to preserve spiritual practices and the integrity of their shared heritage. Attribution: reported through official church communications and subsequent public statements by church leaders.