Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate

The Schism of 2018 article might be of interest

This article -- Schism of 2018 -- might be of interest to editors here. Maybe we can put a summary on this page of the dispute and point people to this article as the main article. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting!--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The event (the split) is naturally relevant; but, technically speaking, it does not belong to this article: the split thus far is between the Sees of Moscow and Constantinople. I agree with some postings above that the Kiev P′s status as a whole (as a jurisdiction) has not really changed yet (moreover, Philaret is not recognized as Patriarch by Phanar ). The decision of 11th Oct, if carefully read, only means that the clergy of the two jurisdictions in question are henceforth in communion with the Church of Constantinople. Moreover, by rescinding the 1686 Decree, Phanar has effectively re-asserted its own jurisdiction over Ukraine ("the eparchy of Kiev"), which could be the most important part of the Synod′s deed, not yet internalised in Ukraine. The situation at this stage is exceedingly opaque as to what will occur next. Best we wait and see. The only thing that is utterly clear now is that the chain of events thus triggered is of grave importance that far exceeds the squabble between the two groupings of clergy. I would like to be mistaken but all indications suggest this is just a prelude for a serious all-out conflict, possibly not just between Ukraine and Moscow, but much wider. My point being: Let′s be chary of rash editing.Axxxion (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

@Shmurak: is there any reliable sources for this new name? I mean this edit: --Nicoljaus (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have just followed rename in German wiki: de:Ukrainisch-Orthodoxe Kirche – Ökumenisches Patriarchat --Shmurak (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• There are bunch of sources there. Probably I will try to add them here too. --Shmurak (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Shmurak, you have no right to make such edits until you get consensus on this page. There is no RS for such renaming, right the opposite is the case: just have a look-see of their official site, pls.Axxxion (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the article in Wikipedia itself is not a RS for another Wiki-article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church

Nicoljaus undid my insertion of the word "independent" in a reference to the Independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP). If you were to consult the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) you will see that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is listed as independent. Obviously, actually labelling it correctly is causing an issue.Moryak (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Direct link please. However, regardless of what they write on the "official website", even their formal status is "autonomous". In practice, they are fully obedient to Moscow.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Statistics

The statistics section of this Wiki article contains interesting data that has no citation of origin. Unless and until such a source citation is provided, the statistical information presented should be considered UNVALIDATED and possibly incorrect.Moryak (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• that has no citation of origin - This is an incorrect statement, there are links in the statistics section.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the UOC-KP of 2019 a continuation of the UOC-KP of 1992?

I think Filaret and his supporters say "Yes". But, others will not agree – the OCU views itself as the only lawful successor as UOC-KP 1992, and so would say that UOC-KP 2019 is something new – and I think Constantinople would endorse the OCU position on this. I think what position the Ukrainian state authorities and court system take on this question would be important, but it appears to me they haven't reached a definitive decision on that point as yet. I guess, what concerns me, is this article seems to (even if only implicitly) endorse Filaret's view that 2019 UOC-KP is a continuation of 1992 UOC-KP, when that is a controversial claim which many others will not accept. I think, maybe it would be better to split the article, in to one on 1992 UOC-KP and one on 2019 UOC-KP, to make clear the claim of continuity/identity between them is controversial. Or, if people don't agree with an article split, at least quarantine discussion of the 2019 UOC-KP to one section, and make clear that its opponents don't accept its claim to be a continuation of the 1992 UOC-KP. SJK (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The UOC-KP was never legally liquidated, the recent jugement of the District Administrative Court of Kiev supports this, althought I know it constitutes in no way a final and absolutely decisive argument; this non-liquidation has also been confirmed by the primate of the UAOC, UAOC which legally liquidated itself... on 14 August 2019, way after the unification council. Moreover, the UOC-KP still - as far as I know - uses the same statutes as before it joined the OCU, has kept some hierarchs, the same primate, some churches, etc. I therefore personally believe there is a continuity, and I hope you will concede at least that there is a continuity in the same way as the UAOC of 1990 was the successor to the 1921 and the 1942 UAOC.Veverve (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the Ukrainian authorities haven't yet reached a definitive decision on this issue yet. The court decision to which you refer, as far as I am aware, it is not a final decision, it is still subject to further legal proceedings, it is a decision of a court of first instance which can be appealed, so we should really wait until the legal process is complete before saying the Ukrainian legal system has endorsed the claim that "2019 UOC-KP = 1992 UOC-KP". It also has to be weighed against the previous decision of the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture which said the opposite. Plus, even if it is true that 1992 UOC-KP still exists, that doesn't conclusively prove that 2019 UOC-KP is same thing as 1992 UOC-KP; maybe, they are two separate organisations that exist side-by-side, with the 1992 organisation being in some sort of suspended or rump state? (I'm not saying such a thing is true, just that I think it is a possibility that can't be definitively excluded given the evidence before us.) Given the matter is controversial, and the Ukrainian authorities have not as yet made a crystal clear decision for one side or the other, I think it is important for Wikipedia to appear neutral in the dispute, but I don't think the article as it currently stands does this, since it appears to endorse the claim rather than leaving it open. Also, I'm not sure that the claim "2019 UOC-KP = 1992 UOC-KP" necessary has the same status as the claim that "1990 UAOC = 1942 UAOC = 1921 UAOC". The claim about the UOC-KP is rejected by some significant players; did anyone significant reject the equivalent claim about the UAOC? Anyway, if the answer to that is "Yes", I think the proper response would be to split the UAOC article as well, or at least make it clear that the continuity is disputed, just as I'm proposing to do for this article. SJK (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)