Election of Bulgarian Patriarch Marks a Crossroads for Orthodoxy as a Whole: Navigating the Rift Between Constantinople and Moscow

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has caused a deep division within the Orthodox Church. The election of the head of the Bulgarian Church is therefore a critical decision that also reflects on the direction of Orthodoxy as a whole.

The rift between Constantinople and Moscow has been ongoing since 2014, when Patriarch Bartholomew recognized an independent Ukrainian Church, which was condemned by Kirill, a former KGB agent and supporter of Putin’s imperialist policies. This political move has only gained importance since Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

The Bulgarian Church, which has been autocephalous for over a century, has traditionally maintained close ties with Moscow. However, despite the dispute over Ukraine not leading to a break with Constantinople, the existence of an independent Ukrainian Church is still not recognized.

Metropolitan Daniil, one of three candidates for the Bulgarian Patriarch position, is known for his understanding towards Russia in the past. He qualified his criticism of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by drawing parallels to Maidan protests in Kiev and expulsion of Russian Orthodox priests from Bulgaria last September for espionage activities. This corresponds to Russia’s portrayal and shows their strong influence over Bulgaria’s Orthodox community.

Russian influence was particularly evident when Patriarch Kirill broke off all contact with Bulgarian bishops who celebrated mass with Ukrainian dignitaries in Istanbul in May and when Russia’s ambassador to Sofia called an invitation to attend the funeral of deceased patriarch “a huge provocation.” Abbot Nikanor even accused Daniil’s election as being according to the KGB script.

The country’s political leadership remains vacant as there were no successful attempts to form a government after June elections. The mandate now goes to two other parties and if they also fail new elections will be held making it seven elections in just over three years.

Overall, this election marks a significant decision about direction for both Bulgaria and Orthodoxy as a whole. It highlights how geopolitical issues can shape religious beliefs and practices even in countries like Bulgaria where religion plays an important role in national identity.

It is worth noting that some churches have followed Constantinople while others have supported Moscow or looked for middle ground options. This reflects how much religious leaders are able to influence their communities beyond their spiritual authority.

In conclusion, the election of a new patriarch in Bulgaria is not only about choosing a spiritual leader but also about choosing a direction for Orthodoxy as a whole. It shows how deep divisions can arise within religious communities over political issues and how these divisions can impact national identities and geopolitical relations between nations.