Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)

The Ukrianian Orthodox Church is not under the Moscow Patriache and separated from Moscow in 2022.

https://news.church.ua/2022/05/27/postanova-soboru-ukrajinskoji-pravoslavnoji-cerkvi-vid-27-travnya-2022-roku/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.2.235 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems that it is not so clear cut... See Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)#Autocephaly claims? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

autonomy and name

Please see the note at Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Thanks! -Irpen 20:22, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion below was copied from Talk:St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral#autonomy_and_name

Dear people, I don't think that "an Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow" is a very good name and have changed it to "an Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Moscow". If somebody doesn't like this change: always ready to discus it. Best regards. --N8Sl8er

Dear Irpen, I've looked on the website of the Church, thank you very much. As a matter of fact, I'm looking on this site right now. It's really an Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Moscow. Look for yourself on www.orthodox.org.ua. Best regards. --N8Sl8er

Thank you very much again. But it does not change the fact that the Church is NOT "autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow", but just "under Patriarch of Moscow". If it not so, you can than very easy find another example of such a name. If you don't, well... Best reagrds.--N8Sl8er

I think there is some confusion here. There are two issues:

1. the name of the church
2. whether it has been formaly granted an autonomy by the mother church (ROC)

On (1) the answer is clear. The name is just UOC. Now, it is sometimes called UOC-MP and the reasons for that are well-known but the church never self-applies this wording to its name and always calls itself just the UOC. Yes, it openly admits that it operates under the Moscow Patriarch's see.

On (2), OTOH, the answer is that the church does have a formal autonomy since 1990. One can argue that it is just a figurehead autonomy and the church is just a front for the Russian KGB and other similary flattering issues. In reality, the issue is complex and I am sure that the church is less self-governing than the Japanese Orthodox Church that is also autonomous under the MP. However, there is a canonical autonomy and it is wort a mention. --Irpen 21:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, you are now confusing the name of the church with something else, like you own interpretation of something. This church doesn't have a name like "the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow". Try to translate this name back to the original language, it's just not right. Anyway, this is Wikipedia, it's NOT a private property, it's a public domain, everybody has a right to correct a factual error (improve an article). Let me just correct it. I like you, I like everybody here, but I just like the truth better.

Regards, --N8Sl8er

Could you just be more clear on what your point is. Mine is that:

1. The name of the church is UOC.
2. It is also sometimes, but not always, called UOC-MP. The church rejects that it is its name, while admits that it ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Moscow
3. The church has a formal autonomy, and autonomy in Eastern Orthodox Church organization is a specific term, which denotes a degree of selg-governing one step short of full autocephaly, which is a complete independence (please take a look at those links).

Please be more specific, what's your objections. --Irpen 02:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's just a common rule: don't make the information in "color". Stick to the facts. The fact is: the church listen to one name and you are trying to make up you own name for the same church. Maybe you like "yours" name better, but I don't. I like the facts. The church's name is Українська Православна Церква/ Ukrainian Orthodox Church, I think than I can live with this. But here it comes: In Ukraine exists another Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And another yet. We have to separate them somehow. I think Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchat (they are already named this way on Wiki, anyway), Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchat (they also like to call themself just "Ukrainian Orthodox Church") and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church will do the trick. Why are you not happy? It's already very difficult to understand, believe me. Regards, --N8Sl8er 03:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

@Fisenko, Ukrained2012, Bandurist, Mariah-Yulia, Hillock65, Kuban kazak, See, Irpen, and N8Sl8er: https://www.patriarchate.org/-/oikoumenikos-patriarches-einai-logikon-na-epithymomen-os-meter-ekklesia-ten-apokatastasin-tes-enotetos-tou-en-oukrania-dieremenou-ekklesiastikou-somat?_101_INSTANCE_N2gTPQxXwPlE_languageId=en_US There is a super authoritative statement about the status of the Church--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Metropolit vladimir.jpg

The image Image:Metropolit vladimir.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

UOC vs UOC (MP)

I wanted to remind that Wikipedia is a secondary source and reflects what sources and academic literature say about this particular church per WP:V. [1][2] As such, what that church calls itself and what name it is registered uder is but secondary to credible academic sources. The article is correctly titled Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and so it should be reflected in the intro. It also explains that the Church prefers to be called Ukrainian Orthodox Church. I thought that was simple enough and not a cause for another revert war. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hillock, please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT and stop creating an empty ground for a flame and edit war. You know better than that. Also when reminding of wikipedia policies, try to spell correctly so that noone will be lost in translation and avoid contradicting like: Wikipedia is a secondary source and is but secondary to credible academic sources.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not about what I like or dislike, it is about WP:V, and for you particularly WP:EW. Please have a very good look at the title of this article and read the academic sources I cited above. This church is known to the outside world as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) as evidenced by multiple printed sources in English. The opinion of the church itself is amply reflected in the appropriate section. Unfortunately it appears you are looking at this as another battle ground and even erased well sourced statements. Your sterile edit warring will not succeed and will not be tolerated, I have a feeling you know how this one's going to end. So, please follow the WP guidelines and stop edit warring. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the article clearly states this in its current form and via the title. For example the Pochayiv Lavra of the Assumption of the Theotokos is simply titled as Pochayiv lavra, yet the lead displays it in full, same way how the Cathedral of Intercession of the Virgin on the Moat is given in full on the article about Saint Basil's Cathedral. So why per WP:POINT must you ignore the official registar of Ukraine? As for battlegrounds, it seems by your edit contributions over the past month, that apart from interwiki additions your contribution to article space is all but absent, save the times you had to stalk on my edits and revert... --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 22:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The version that you POVishly keep reverting to attempts to represent it as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church whereas in the English language academic literature this church is known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Even the source that you yourself labeled as justified source clearly states that the Moscow Patriarchate's autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, by far the largest ... became known as UOC-MP. So why are you waging this revert war if the source that you yourself provided labels it as the UOC-MP? I haven't found a single English language source that calls this church just UOC, it is always UOC-MP, for example here or here or here or here. There is an abundance of sources to justify its true name UOC-MP, while you presented none whatsoever! Please stop revert warring and check the sources! --Hillock65 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise?

the last edit of Hillock65 seems to be a good compromise. I think it's better to if Hillock65 & Kuban kazak do not change it before the reach a compromise on this talk page. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

According to official wikipedia infobox rules in a infobox The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. Mabey we can put in there Ukrainian Orthodox Church and below there (with or without or) Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) as in the Kyiv infobox where technically Kiev shouldn't be in, but if rules are ignored there why not in this article too? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The name in the lead is important as it attempts to represent this church as the only one Ukrainian Orthodox, whereas there are at least two churches contesting its name. Most importantly, that's what the multiple English language sources name this church. And per WP:V that's the way it should be called in Wikipedia. There is a compromise already present in the article - it states that the church prefers a different name and it is provided in bold. The whole section explains the controversy over the name. I understand some prefer this antisemitic and anti-ukrainian church to be the only Orthodox Church in Ukraine, but the credible sources cited above clearly and convincingly disagree. Compromise is only possible when it doesnt violate WP rules, WP:V in particular. I thought him spending so much time correcting Kyiv to Kiev he should know that it dosn't matter what one whants to be called, it is what the sources call it that matters. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)#Name should be placed early in the lead? Since it seems to be a more actual description of the name problem between the 2 churches then what the current lead says (the lead is a bit vague about that now).... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is already early in the lead, it is the second sentence. How much earlier can it be? It is explained right after the first sentence and even in bold. --Hillock65 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Church is registered under the name "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" in the State Committee of Ukraine in Religious Affairs. is not in the lead I got the idea that is Kubans main problem but well see what he says..... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I have reworked the article, and I can say that Hillock's call of this church as anti-semitic and anti-Ukrainian has just stripped him of his neutrality view. What can I say, the sources Hillock provided actually use terms like UOC-MP rather than UOC(MP), which is different, since in the latter case the (MP) arises as the clarification. It also does not change the fact that this church unlike other schismatic organisations is recognised by the whole Eastern Orthodox communion as the only legitimate church in Ukraine. Thus the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as it is officially registered, and as it is officially called is the only Orthodox Church in Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In one last attempt for a compromise, I changed only a couple of sentences in the lead to correspond with the title, mentioned about the church's insistence on being simply the UOC. I do hope this will stop the revert war. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Saint Basil's Cathedral first the official name, then the common name. Also please stop adding the dead link about the 7.2 million adherents. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, eh?

I thought the edit war was finally over, when Kuban Cossack is starting again with distorting the lead to reflect his POV and removing statements about academic literature on the subject. My patience with this nonsense is wearing thin. It's been talked over ad nauseum and forever. Something needs to be done. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, the edit war, which you started for you is over when one accepts your version? Interesting compare how you "revamp" and how this edit is compared to the original. Now your patience is wearing thin, well I can only point you to this which I hope will one day cure you of your bad habits...--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you just rejected my recent compromise and started another round of edit war. Very unwise. You'll see. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Its you who rejected the compromise, and please don't WP:THREATen me, you know its pointless.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the most recent independent survey of the Ukrainian population, one conducted in June and July of 2007 by the Ukrainian Sociological Service, Ukrainians identified their own church affiliation as follows:

• UOC-KP 32.4%
• Non-religious 23.0%
• UOC-MP 20.9%
• Greek Catholic 10.3%
• Believer, but no affiliation 9.7%
• "Other" 1.8%
• UAOC 0.8%
• Roman Catholic 0.6%
• Protestants 0.2%
• Jewish 0.1%
• Muslim 0.0% (less than 0.1%)

That is, in this survey 32.4% of the Ukrainian population, or roughly 14 million people, identify themselves as members of the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarch (UOC-KP), while only 20.9%, or about 9 million, claim to be members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate, or UOC-MP).

The CIA World Factbook provides the following figures for religious affiliation in Ukraine:

• "Ukrainian Orthodox - Kyiv Patriarchate 50.4%,
• Ukrainian Orthodox - Moscow Patriarchate 26.1%,
• Ukrainian Greek Catholic 8%,
• Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox 7.2%,
• Roman Catholic 2.2%,
• Protestant 2.2%,
• Jewish 0.6%,
• other 3.2% (2006 est.)"

While there have been fluctuations over the years, I am personally not aware of a single, independent survey of the Ukrainian population subsequent to 1997 which would indicate that the UOC-MP is larger than the UOC-KP. For example, in analyzing an earlier set of surveys, historian Andrew Wilson writes, in "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation" (Yale University Press, 2002: pp 236-237):

"...According to the largest and most comprehensive poll undertaken in 1997,

• 65.7% of the sample considered themselves believers, and of these
• 62.5% expressed an allegiance to particular Church. Of the latter,
• 12.3% declared themselves supporters of the UOC-MP and a further
• 11.6% claimed to belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, although technically it no longer

exists in Ukraine (its supporters can basically be grouped with those of the Moscow Patriarchate). An impressive

• 43% named the UOC-KP, and only
• 4% the Autocephalous Orthodox. Greek Catholics accounted for
• 14.3%, concentrated overwhelmingly in the western

regions of Galicia and Transcarpathia."

According to Dr. Wilson's footnotes, the above figures are from a 1997 Socis-Gallup poll. Dr. Wilson adds, on page 361:

"According to another Sosis-Gallup poll in February 1998, 41% claimed no religion, 20.4% backed the UOC-KP, 7.5% the UOC-MP, 1.8% the UAOC and 6.3% the Greek Catholics..."

The fact that, despite the availability of objective data such as the above, the Moscow Patriarchate continues to claim to represent almost 70% of the Ukrainian population, would suggest that the claims provided by Moscow are extremely doubtful.

Bandurist (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bandurist please provide references for all the polls you cited above. In most polls on religious affiliation in Ukraine, most people simply said they are Orthodox Christians and did not clearly identified themselves with either UOC-KP and UOC-MP. However, it is a common knowledge of any practicing Orthodox Christian in Ukraine what UOC-KP is simply not a factor outside of Western Ukraine and Kiev. At least 70 % of Ukrainian population lives outside of Kiev and Western Ukraine and it is hard to find a UOC-KP church there. Religious adherence polls based on CIA factbook or Razumkov Centre are misleading. The biggest problem is the religious split between two largest Ukrainian Orthodox Churches - Ukrainian Orthodox Curch-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) and Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate (UOC-KP). Majority of Ukrainians are not able to identify themselves with a particular church organization (62.5 % according to 2006 Razumkov Center poll [[http://razumkov.org.ua/ukr/poll.php?poll_id=300 "What religious group do you belong to?". Sociology poll by Razumkov Centre) Majority of this 62.5 % of Ukrainians were baptized in UOC-MP churches and attend church services (even if only during Easter mess) in UOC-MP churches. This is simply because great majority of Ukrainian Orthodox churches and clergy belong to UOC-MP (approximately 68 % of all Orthodox Christian communities in the country. The trick that allows UOC-KP to make claim to be the largest church in Ukraine is that the majority of their adherents clearly indicate they belong to UOC-KP (which is generally more nationalist and politicized), while most people who were baptized by UOC-MP and attend UOC-MP church services simply state they are Orthodox Christians. UOC-MP also often portrays itself as the canonical Orthodox Christian church in Ukraine rather than the "Moscow church", downplaying its connections with Moscow Patriarchate (esp. in Central and Western Ukraine) and this also contributes to the confusion polls on church allegiance in Ukraine create. In addition, many of the UOC-MP churches and majority of people who identify with UOC-MP are in the more urbanized South and East Ukraine where church attendance is low compared to the rural Western Ukraine where UOC-KP is the strongest. If the pollsters would have used a different methodology that would explained the differences between the two churches and really press the Ukrainians to choose between the two more than 50 % of Ukrainians would identify with UOC-MP while only around 15 % with UOC-KP. The religious divide in Ukraine is not exactly the same as a linguistic, political, cultural and historical divide in Ukraine between Russian-speaking south-east(majority of Yanukovych voters in the second round of the recent presidential poll) and Ukrainian speaking north-west (mostly Tymoshenko voters), there is an Orthodox Christian majority in the North and Central Ukraine and a sizable Orthodox minority (including the UOC-MP laity) in the West, yet there is a relation to the overall split which divides Ukraine in two. Roughly 55 to 60 % of more or less religious Ukrainians identify with UOC-MP (or the canonical Orthodox Ukrainian church as many know it) while the rest are members of UOC-KP church, Greko-Catholic church, Roman Catholic church, various Protestant churches and so on.

--Fisenko

I made a picture. ;) haha

L'viv Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate

We just had a walk with my friend through L'viv and it seems our picture was quite a success. :) Maybe you can use it somehow. ;) -- Nazar (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The caption under this picture is incorrect. As the official site (Ukrainian)http://upc.lviv.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149:2011-03-25-18-53-35&catid=14:2011-02-09-21-06-26&Itemid=18 says, UOC(MP) in Lviv have at least three working churches. Danko109.201.228.168 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Language?

As far as I know, this Church uses only Russian and Church Slavonic. Who put Ukrainian?

Can anyone who is expert on this subject solve the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.242.235 (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 schism

As all Ukrainians know, the MP church has broken apart in 2011 when Mythropolit Sabodan was critically ill. Without this information, the article is outdated and biased which I now going to note with my tags. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"were transferred"

In the history section "Merger into the ROC", we see the sentence "six eparchies (dioceses) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine were transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church." The passive tense hides information. Who transferred them? And again "eparchies in Lviv, Peremyshl and Lutsk that were transferred to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church." Some more detail would be helpful. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 1995-fil intr.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Church Recognition

The article previously falsely claimed that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not recognized as a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church by three churches (the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Church of Greece). This is not true. According to decisions of the Holy and Great Council of Crete, there is no need of other churches to recognize the autonomous status of a local church. The sources that were previously provided just referred to the Churches' recognition of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and didn't mention the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP) at all. The bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are still normally listed in the annual directories of global Orthodoxy published by both the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece as members of the Russian Orthodox Church. On the other hand, the Patriarchate of Alexandria does not publish such a directory but has not made any official conciliar decision either on the status of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine or on that of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Rhodion (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 17:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) → Ukrainian Orthodox Church – The UOC-MP has announced its separation from the Moscow Patriarchate. Vypr (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose.

  1. This church structure remains in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The ROC still can arrange a new sobor and appoint other bishops in charge of the UOC-MP, just as they did in 1992 (see uk:Харківський собор (1992)).

  2. Ukrainian Orthodox Church is an alternative name for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, used in official state documents and by the church itself. It can't be used as an article name for an unrecognized, newly proclaimed independent church. EricLewan (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  UPD. It seems like they didn't proclaim anything new at all. According to the statement from the UOC-MP, they speak about "independence" and "self-governance" (something they've declared for years, not autocephaly), and only "express disagreement with the position of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia". I think chaotic edits here must be stopped, as they didn't break any communion with the Russian Church. EricLewan (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Breaking communion isn't the only way a split can occur. As the head of External Church Relations has said, they have completely disassociated themselves with the Moscow Patriarchate and their statutes are now akin to that of an autocephalous church. Vypr (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"The Council adopted relevant amendments and additions to the Statutes on the administration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, indicating the full self-sufficiency and independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church."

There are no citations on this page that include objective evidence that the UOC lied in their public statement. The Ukrianian Orthodox Church is Ukrainian, consists of Ukrianians, speaks Ukrianian, and has existed in Ukraine for a long time. The inclusion of Moscow Patriache on the title and throughout the page is Russifying a Ukrianian institution. The UOC parishioners and clergy are Ukrianian. Inclusion of Moscow Patieache creates a bias and improperly Russifies Ukrainians. Refusing to acknowledge a groups nationality and forcibly labeling them as foreigners is against hate speech platform rules and violations the UN Charter that ensures all individuals can choose their nationality. Including Moscow Patriache is forcibly labeling a Ukrainian church as Russian. Insisting that a Ukrianian church is actually Russian is discriminatory and insultive to Ukrianians. 174.100.2.235 (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Soft support. The break with Moscow appears to be pretty decisive. The old descriptor simply no longer reflects the facts on the ground or the way the church self-identifies. But perhaps it’s prudent to wait a few more days until more RS support the name change. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The UOC has clearly cut ties with Moscow for obvious and widely reported reasons. natemup (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Temporary oppose. This has only just happened, and reliable sources haven't yet had time to properly digest it. We should wait until we have a significant number of reliable sources covering this – especially in-depth analysis, as opposed to just brief news articles – that we can judge what new name reliable sources have settled upon. I think it is better to leave it under its old name temporarily, than make a hasty rename only to have to rename it again if RS later ends up calling it something else. Mr248 (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The plain name is 1) shared by another church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate, and 2) is also a descriptive phrase, sounding like it refers to the native Orthodox Church of Ukraine or a number of other churches listed at Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation). It’s undetermined whether the announcement represents a real change of status, it certainly isn’t autocephaly or any formal ecclesiastical change yet, and it has not been accepted by the Moscow church. There’s no official name change and there hasn’t been time to determine any change in WP:COMMONNAME as the event is ongoing. —Michael Z. 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can see the point of the nomination, but Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) lists too many churches for this one to be primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Church status in 2022

According to Kliment (Vecherya), who is the сhairman of the Synodal Information and Education Department of the UOC-MP, the status of the church has not changed compared to the one that exists since 1990 and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church does not break off any relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. The same thing has been stated by Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the ROC, who said that the unity between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church remains:

"Yesterday the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church took place. He confirmed the status that this Church has had since 1990, when it received a Blessed Letter of Self-Government from His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia"

The definition of independence in Eastern Orthodox churches is autocephaly. There were no statements towards that on the Council, they indeed reaffirmed their previous status of a "self-governed" church. Therefore, there was no separation from the Russian Orthodox Church.

I think we must carefully review all of the chaotic edits that were made on this page to make sure that they correspond to the reality, not to something that was presented in press. --EricLewan (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Purely based on what I’m reading, the status of the UOC-MP is very unclear to me right now. Perhaps they also don’t know it themselves. It is also unclear to me if Crimea is still under the UOC-MP as I also read reports it would be moved directly under the ROC. Also, how many Ukrainians are still under the UOC-MP instead of the OCU? I read vastly different statistics. De wafelenbak (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is independent of the Moscow Patriarchate, per the head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience. Therefore, the MP designation is no longer appropriate or accurate. I would suggest changing its designation to UOC-Onufriy or UOC (Onufriy), since this is a method already used to distinguish other Orthodox churches with similar names (like the different iterations of ROCOR). I also challenge the notion that "The definition of independence in Eastern Orthodox churches is autocephaly." There is a long history of Orthodox churches having varying levels of independence, with various terms used, sometimes with disagreement between churches on the exact definition of their independence, while remaining in communion with one another, and there are also churches that call themselves "autocephalous" without being in communion with or recognized by anyone else. --Nepsis2 (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

New Statute

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church's new statute has been published. It shows the Church is not canonically dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate. --Nepsis2 (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Please don't make chaotic edits, because the version of the statute that you've sent shows exactly the opposite.

"1.1. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is self-ruled (самостійною) and independent (незалежною) in its management and organization in accordance with the Charter of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II of October 27, 1990."

The referred Charter declares:

"The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, united through our Russian Orthodox Church with the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, without a conciliar decision of the entire Orthodox Catholic Plenitude, shall not change anything with regard to the dogmas of faith and holy canons".

This is what canonical dependence is about. Moreover, there are no such terms as "self-ruled" or "independent" in Eastern Orthodoxy. A church can either be an exarchate, an autonomous, or autocephalous. Only an autocephalous church does not report to any higher-ranking bishop, and UOC-MP has never declared itself as one.

The statute also declares its support to "preserving the canonical unity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with all Local Orthodox Churches". All local Orthodox Churches recognize UOC-MP as a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, this is the canonical unity that exists between them. None of them has ever recognized it as an autocephalous church, as they never claimed to be one. Neither anyone has called them schismatics, they continue to be in communion with all of the churches that Russian Church is in, including the Russian Orthodox Church itself. And the UOC-MP, just as the ROC, continues the schism with the churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Greece and Cyprus.

I really hope that you do not try to prove a fraudulent point here, since Wikipedia isn't really a place for political opinions. I will request protection for this page. EricLewan (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Fraudulent is calling them part of the Moscow Patriarchate when they no longer see themselves that way. https://velychlviv.com/mytropolyt-filaret-kucherov-v-ukrayini-bilshe-nemaye-upts-moskovskogo-patriarhatu/ --Nepsis2 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

How a group sees themselves is not materially relevant. Only how they are characterized by secondary sources, and reliable ones at that. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not appropriate or accurate to characterize them as part of the Russian Orthodox Church any longer. Nepsis2 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

What you've sent is an opinion of a single bishop, not an official statement of the church. They never stated that they are separating from the ROC. The confirmed that they follow the Charter of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II of October 27, 1990, which directly declares that they are a part of this church.

There are other bishops of UOC-MP that say the exact opposite thing of what you've said: [3]https://lb.ua/society/2022/12/09/538499_andriy_pinchuk_upts_yak_bula_i.html

And this a more recent opinion, when time has passed and they saw that nothing is actually going to change. The Feofania sobor probably gave a lot of people a false impression, which most likely was the initial purpose of the sobor.

To state that now they're an "ex-branch" or have had a "separation" in 2022 would be complete false. They state that they're "an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church" since 1990, not 2022. Nothing has ever changed in these kinds of statements. EricLewan (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What a day to make a bold claim like that!

"The Council of Bishops considered changes and additions to the Statute on the Administration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which would testify to the complete autonomy and independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church approved changes to the Statute on the management of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In particular, the clause that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church was removed from the Statute. In this way, not only the administrative independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which existed even before that, was established, but also the separation from the Moscow Patriarchate was confirmed." --Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv and All Ukraine, Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, December 14, 2022[4] Nepsis2 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It might be worth waiting for the dust to settle on this and the raids that also occurred today. Change/a shift could well be in the air. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The UOC separated from the MP six months ago. Where else is the dust going to go? Nepsis2 (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Words are cheap, especially so when coming from primary sources. We need secondary sources confirming a definitive split. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

You could at least note that the church's status with respect to the Russian Orthodox Church is disputed, instead of simply proclaiming it part of the Russian church. Nepsis2 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

A note that the church's official position with respect to Russia is somewhat unclear/ambiguous might be due, yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"The Court of Pentarchy (the court of the five heads of the ancient Orthodox churches) — the highest instance of world Orthodoxy, is very rare: the last precedent was more than 450 years ago, when the Moscow Patriarch Nikon was deprived of patriarchy and sent to repentance by a simple monk; his followers are still known in Russia as old believers." Any source that claims Old Believers are Nikon's followers should be taken with a grain of salt. Nepsis2 (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Headquarters

Infobox says "Headquarters: Kyiv Pechersk Lavra; Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ (under construction since 2007)", and provides a broken link as a reference to the second." Anyone familiar with this topic would know what the first is, but what is the second? There is a disambiguation article Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ listing several cathedrals by that name, but the only two in Ukraine, Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, Kyiv and Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, Ivano-Frankivsk, are Greek Catholic churches not Orthodox ones. So, does anyone know what it is talking about? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Autocephaly claims?

The current version of the article says: "It is a matter of dispute as to whether the Church is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church or is autocephalic."

It is not really clear who is making claims about their alleged autocephaly. The UOC-MP never claimed to be autocephalous. Representatives of the church themselves, such as Clement (Vecheria), the head of the UOC-MP Synodal Information and Education Department, had denied that their church has an autocephalous status when asked by a journalist.

My suggestion is that we stick to the official position of the church AND their recognized canonical status, that they actually refer to – "the Ukrainian Orthodox Church shall be a self-governing church with the rights of broad autonomy". It is not about an alleged autocephaly, whoever makes these claims.

They keep stressing that they aren't dependent on the ROC in any administrative or financial way, etc, which should be mentioned and explained as well. EricLewan (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So I presume you are proposing that the sentence in the lead is changed from "It is a matter of dispute as to whether the Church is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church or is autocephalic" to "It is a matter of dispute as to whether the Church is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church or not". I agree with that change. I did not come across sources that stated that the church denied that their church has an autocephalous status. Other sources gave me the reason that de-facto they inspired to be so. I am not a knower of church laws and practices, but if they are not an independent church (what I assume "autocephalic" means and are not part of the Russian Orthodox Church they should be described in Wikipedia as an unrecognized Orthodox church in Ukraine? Just as Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate? Or as a non-autocephalous self-proclamed independent church? (That is basically saying the same, I think....) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not read EricLewan's post good enough... But obviously describing the church as "a self-governing church with the rights of broad autonomy" does not make sense. In 2021 they were not self-governing but part of another church and now they have no "broad autonomy" from this other church because they claim the are not a part of this other church. You can not have "broad autonomy" if you are not part of another organization; if you are not part of another organization you have "full autonomy". This church might be schizophrenic, the description of it on Wikipedia much make logic sense (preferably). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

They do not really claim that they are no longer part of the Russian Orthodox Church. According to the church's hierarchy, their status has not changed: "the decisions of the UOC Council do not contradict the canonical norms of the church structure of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but emphasize its independent status". [5]

There have been speculations their new status since the Sobor in May 2022, but some people seem to interpret it as wishful thinking, rather than what the church actually stated. And they stated that they're "independent", basically the internal status that they had within the ROC since 1990. For other Orthodox churches, these are just ROC dioceses in Ukraine, since there's no such canonical status as "self-governing and independent".

They're not an autonomous church either, but "with the rights of broad autonomy". There are only two autonomous churches within the Russian Orthodox Church, these are Orthodox Church in Japan and Chinese Orthodox Church. Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate has a similar status to Metropolis of Chișinău and All Moldova, which is "self-governing". It has not changed, but has been "emphasized". EricLewan (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

They've said over, and over, and over that they have separated from the Moscow Patriarchate. Nepsis2 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The church did not publish its new May 2022 constitution. So we do not know how they officially describe their role. In its official declaration on May 27, 2022 about this constitution the church (only) says: "The Council adopted appropriate amendments to the Statute with regards to the Administration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), all of which testify to the full independence and autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church" and it also says "The Council approves and confirms the resolutions of the Councils of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the decisions of the Holy Synods of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which met after the last Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (July 8, 2011). The Council approves the activities of the various Departments and Synodal Institutions of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church." So the church is saying that nothing has changed since 2011? I know that members of the church have been saying that they have separated from the Moscow Patriarchate.... but I got the feeling that these people do not understand their own church or are stating misleading statements. People from the church also said that the church did not cause a schism, if they did not cause a schism they did not break with the russian orthodox church. In its official declaration on May 27, 2022 the church is also being against schism. I also noticed that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) now has since 1 year ago foreign parishes, that is something, as I understand, only a autocephalous can have... To be honest I find the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) to be a schizophrenic mess.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The Church's statute is published, it's been linked here before and clearly readable and authentic with Metropolitan Onufriy's seal.

The UOC has been functionally independent from the Moscow Patriarchate for all practical purposes since 1990. What remained were basically nominal and ceremonial connections. What happened in 2022 was cross out the "functionally" and "for all practical purposes" to sever those last ties and preclude the MP from being able to manipulate the UOC.

You claim that the UOC only has two options, continuation under Moscow Patriarchate or schism. This argument reflects splinter views held by religious groups in Ukraine that separated from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, not mainstream Orthodox practice. Nepsis2 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It would have been more decent if the UOC "severed those last ties" from the Moscow Patriarchate right after the Battle of Ilovaisk back in 2014 where it was absolutely clear that russian soldiers were killing Ukrainians and the Russian Orthodox Church (in Moscow) was doing nothing to stop that bloodbath. But unfortunately, just like other christian churches, UOC's leadership seems to care more about institutions then people. The fact that church leadership(s) seems to care more about institutions then people is the real reason churches are shrinking in most European countries. People are generally not so stupid that they can not see what institutions are not good for them (even if they can not always explain why). (Of course my opinions are not really relevant for the quality of this Wikipedia article, but I thought it would be decent to show my critical thinking about this church (and other churches).) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The UOC may have hoped that maintaining the connection and friendly relations would keep Russia from invading Ukraine, or it would be useful for convincing Russia to withdraw if they did. They did use their connection to help negotiate for the release of Ukrainian prisoners at the request of then-President Petro Poroshenko.[6] Nepsis2 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Your explanation here above ↑ is good but it is pretty confusing to read 5 minutes later that the UOC-MP Metropolitan of Kyiv Pechersk Lavra just stated that that he and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church "had nothing in common" with Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate. That could be interpreted that he does really claim that they are no longer part of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it can also can be interpreted differently... Anyhow it is pretty clear to me that this church is not autocephalic (and did nothing to deserve/get that claim). It is for now probably the safest bet to remove "or is autocephalic" from what the current version of the article says:) "It is a matter of dispute as to whether the Church is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church or is autocephalic."

A few days ago I included in the Infobox of this article (being quite ignorant and confused....) "Independence = 27 May 2022 (recognized only by the church itself)". Should this also be removed, or reworded? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I just removed the "autocephalic" wording from the lead. Other editors had time to chip in their thought. (And no Wikipedia article is final anyway...) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I just changed Infobox also sine the church does not call itself independent in a way as most people understand the word "independence". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Collaborating clergymen and lack of punishment

I came across sources that confirmed that this church has collaborating (with russia) clergymen and that these collaborating clergymen are not getting punished by the church. I did not come across sourced in which the church explained why they did not punish collaborating clergymen. I think it would make this a better Wikipedia article if these sources/information appeared in the article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine is a constitutionally secular state. The government has no right to get involved in a church's internal disciplinary matters. Nepsis2 (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That was not an answer to my question Nepsis2.... Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. For your grievances with Ukrainian government actions you can find out how to communicate with them on their contact (web)page. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I gave you an answer to explain that what you're asking for does not exist and has no reason to exist. Nepsis2 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This article in The Guardian might have an explanation I find plausible for the church not punishing collaborating clergymen: "Cyril Hovorun, a theologian who used to be a senior member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and then switched allegiance, compared the issue of pro-Russian infiltration in the church with the paedophile scandal in the Roman Catholic church – the leadership knows who is a Russian collaborator but turn a blind eye, or even defend the bishop in question, in order to protect the church."

On a personal note (an not as a Wikipedia editor): Christian churches sure make Buddhism look good to me..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

On 13 April 2023, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church consecrated Holy Chrism in Kyiv for the first time in 110 years, why did they not do this before?

On 13 April 2023, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church consecrated Holy Chrism in Kyiv for the first time in 110 years. Why did they not do this before? Without knowing why they did not do that before the information is actually more confusing the encyclopedic (Wikipedia is not a church encyclopedic and most of its readers, including I, do not understand church affairs.) (And quite frankly, I think that churches themselves are very bad at explaining their actions.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Good question. Was it previously done in another city? Did they take a fww liters ftom Moscow previously? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Chrism in the Orthodox Church can be made by any Orthodox bishop, but most do not, and leave it to their primate or get their chrism from another Orthodox Church. A church brewing its own chrism is taken as a sign of independence because it indicates self-sufficiency, since chrism is a critical element of several Orthodox rites.

The UOC formerly received chrism from the Moscow Patriarchate. Since breaking ties with Moscow, they started to explore the possibility of making it themselves. Another possibility would have been to start taking chrism from a different Orthodox Church that brews their own.

Chrism was previously brewed in Kyiv under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate, but that was discontinued because of World War I and the Bolshevik revolution. Holy Week 2023 is the first time the UOC is brewing chrism on its own. Nepsis2 (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

More information needed as to whether Ukrainian government is infringing UOC's religious liberty

The article currently says, in reference to 2023 legislation that allegedly would ban UOC, that "Human rights activists and commentators have expressed concern for this as an attack on freedom of religion in Ukraine." It seems this information may be outdated, and that more information would be helpful as to the UOC's current legal status and whether its religious liberty is being infringed. This Wall Street Journal article has an interesting take on the issue. I don't feel knowledgeable enough about it to edit the article myself, but it does seem like important information to cover. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I checked the two references and then removed the whole paragraph: The fist source (Christianity Today) is a good one with a lot of background information, but doesn't mention "Human rights activists". The second source (Spectator) is not relevant. As a primary source by one commentator it cannot support the claim that "commentators" (in plural) expressed concerns, nor can it establish its own relevance. Finally, both sources report on the first reading in parliament, stating that a second reading would follow. Meaning, at the time the sources were published (Fall 2023), the parliamentary process was still far from finished. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)