Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)

Untitled

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)

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".

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. 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)

The UOC has been banned as of a few days ago. The way in which this violates human rights should certainly not be omitted in this article.

My heart goes out to all those that are persecuted, whose lives become more grim with every day. Schutsheer des Vaderlands (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Your heart is no RS. I didn't find a RS speaking of "persecution" yet. According to NYT, it is a political measure. "[A]ny legal prohibition is months or years away" according to a respected observer quoted in that article. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)