Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate

Old talk

Paged move to UOC-Kiev Patriarchy. Please see the Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other talk pages in my edit history. Irpen 20:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please see the note at Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Thanks! -Irpen 20:23, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Moves

Please no more article moves without discussion. Current name is here for a reason. You are welcome to propose them move of course but do not assume anything. Ask for feedback first. --Irpen 08:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

'four more bishops left the Church with their parishes'

'parishes' or 'dioceses'? I think if 'parishes' is correct it implies that each bishop took only one parish, namely the one he regularly served in. If it means 'all his parishes' then 'dioceses' would be clearer.142.68.44.16 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox jurisdictional churches in Asia

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate is a church (meaning denomination, not building) of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and in Asia, thus I putit in "Eastern Orthodox jurisdictional churches in Asia"

Please explain why you took it out--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Kyiv Patriarchiate: proper noun

Kyiv Patriarchate refers to an actual church body, an institution, and is thus a proper noun, not a reference specific to the city, just as FC Dynamo Kyiv refers to a football club, also an institution, and is also a proper noun. In English correspondence, the Київський Патріархат does not refer to itself as the Kiev Patriarchate, but instead as the Kyiv Patriarchate. For example, this differs from a title such as "The Bishop of Kyiv/Kiev" which references the city. -67.225.38.162 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• addendum: for anyone wishing to make further edits to the page, until the city name Kiev is changed within wikipedia to the more common Kyiv, within this article, where references are made specifically to the city, Kiev is to be used. For example, where it says in the sidebar, the correct usage for the time being is "Headquarters: Kiev." Also to note, the only reference to Kiev Patriarchate before it was corrected, was in the title. Everywhere else in the article the proper noun was used correctly. -67.225.38.162 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Kyiv Patriarchate Churches in Ukraine

I'd suggest a new section of the listing of KP churches in Ukraine also be added. For now, I've added the two prominent churches of KP in the see also section. -67.225.38.162 (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to article

I've noticed the Kyiv Patriarchate has been vandalised to Kiev several times, without changes to the discussion page nor with changes to the body text. Once again, the Kyiv Patriarchate is an institution, and according to the WP policy should follow convention to retain the name the organization is known by. If you feel the article should be changed to Kiev, you need to state your rational reason before changing it. -Yakym (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The preceding two sections and part of the one before those moved here from this page, the result of an old cut-and-paste move. Ucucha 14:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not done. After four weeks of discussion, I am not seeing consensus for any particular title here. I suggest further discussion on the component issues (i.e. abbreviation, Kyiv vs Kiev, hyphen vs conjunctions) before specific proposals.  Skomorokh  06:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Ukrainian Orthodox Church - (KP) → Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate — This is the full title. --Vanjagenije (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• An amusing effort to include the nationalist spelling of Kiev. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Or, to Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Well, or Kiev, I don't know which spelling is correct, I just think that this "(KP)" in the article title looks bad. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• It's now been moved to another title; is this title fine with everyone here? Ucucha 10:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Kyivan looks weird - can't we keep the present title (which seems to be an exact translation of the original name) but replace Kyivan with Kiev, which people will recognize? Or follow the pattern of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)?--Kotniski (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchate) or Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate)? The IP in the section above this one makes a reasonable case that "Kyiv" is indeed preferable here. Ucucha 13:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced - we don't have to follow what the body uses for itself, but should prefer what is most likely to make sense to readers. Unless there's a lot of usage of Kyiv for this body in independent sources, I would go with Kiev, since that's the most recognizable name to English-speaking readers. (FC Dynamo Kiev would also be a perfectly reasonable name for the same reason.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked around a little in Google Books and found all kinds of different names, but you are right, Kiev is apparently more common even in this context. I think I might prefer Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate, since that would seem more reader-friendly than something within parentheses and is used reasonably often. (Same would go for the Moscow Patriarchate page, of course.) Ucucha 13:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

4th citation

The fourth citation is merely a link: there is no actual citation for the website. The citation should be written down and a date provided so that if the webpage it links to ever changes, the citation would still be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.111.8 (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky Uprising

"Eventually the persecution of Orthodox Ukrainians, led to a massive rebellion under Bohdan Khmelnytsky [...]".

I would rather say "Eventually the persecution of Orthodox Ukrainians, next to many other complicated economical, social and political reasons, led to a massive rebellion under Bohdan Khmelnytsky [...]".

If Cossacks were not treated as worse subjects of the King, and were granted nobility (at least a major part of their elites), they wouldn't be so pro-rebellious.

Secondly, there was a big problem within the private fiefs, where some Jews and Poles renting inns, lands and villages from aristocratic landowners, wanted to make as big profit as possible within the rent period, overusing peasants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.184.67 (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Serious errors in the article

The article currently has a number of rather glaring errors.

1. Patriarch Bartholomew (hereafter Bart) has not granted autocephaly to the UOCKP. He has established sacramental communion with it and declared the clergy to be restored to their claimed clerical ranks and no longer in schism from the Church. Point 3
2. He has rescinded a letter from 1686, which Constantinople now claims was temporary in nature, granting jurisdiction over Ukraine to Russia. Effectively Bart is now claiming jurisdiction over Ukraine for the Ecumenical Patriarchate.Points 2 & 4
3. And he has reiterated his intention to grant autocephaly at some point in the presumably near future. point 1

None of this is currently recognized by any other canonical Orthodox church. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed on all points. I believe the article should be locked from editing by IPS for a week or so to prevent the edits similar to the recent ones like 1 and 2 and add the three points you've listed above to the body of the article. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You will have to make that request at RfPP as I am WP:INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Tried my best 1 Openlydialectic (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I've read in most news sources, Bart has given autocephaly.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Even the Orthodox Christianity blog, owned by Russians, acknowledges they were granted autocephaly here: http://orthochristian.com/116462.html TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No, he has not. There are two major schismatic churches in Ukraine. One self identifies as the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate." The other self identifies as the "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church." All Bart did was establish sacramental communion with them, declare their clergy to be canonical and lift the various excommunications, claim jurisdiction over Ukraine on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and reiterate that he plans to grant autocephaly to a single unified Orthodox church in Ukraine at an as yet unspecified future date. None of this is currently recognized by any other canonical Orthodox Church. I think you are being confused by the name of the second of the two schismatic churches which contains the word "autocephalous." -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me put this bluntly. He has granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate. Just about every news article from all sources mention the Kiev Patriarchate's move toward being granted autocephaly since April. The decision was hotly debated between Bartholomew and Kirill, yet in the end, as seen, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has indeed moved forward and granted autocephaly, as even evident from that Russo-biased website I linked prior, and in this letter from the Ecumenical Patriarchate: https://www.patriarchate.org/-/communiq-1. What you are doing is putting your own pro-Russia information into the article, and writing it from a standpoint where its autocehaly has not been approved whatsoever (which is in fact, a lie). Now, regarding me and my supposed "confusion", barely any article mentions the latter church because no one dared to truly pay much attention to them, especially since they walled themselves off voluntarily according to many online sources. There cannot be confusion because over 90% of the discussions and articles pertain to Filaret and Kiev Patriarchate. Autocephaly is granted. It just needs to be delivered to them in paper, and as seen in multiple sources, that may come by November.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are making statements that are not accurate. The EP has stated "To renew the decision already made that the Ecumenical Patriarchate proceed to the granting of Autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine." (emphasis mine) No tomos has been granted, and indeed cannot because there is no specific target with a unified ecclesial structure. The EP has been quite clear that they will need to have some kind of meeting to merge the various jurisdictions into one unified Ukrainian Church before the tomos can be granted. I concede the near certainty that one is coming. The non-recognition of the rest of the Orthodox world is neither here nor there on this point. But the EP has not issued a tomos of autocephaly... yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, at the very least, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople recognizes that UOC-KP is in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy. At least that has to be in the article. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The Ecumenical Patriarch recognizes that the UOC-KP is in communion with him (the EP) and his local Orthodox church. They remain in schism from the rest of the Church. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Then by your words, it is actually autocephalous and part of the Orthodox Church. The Russian Patriarch recognizes that the OCA is in communion with him and his "allied" Slavic patriarchs and their churches. The OCA is not recognized by the Greeks yet everyone else accepts it. Therefore, we must put that autocephaly and communion is granted with these Ukrainian churches, otherwise I would be right about you a "Russified" sentiment being pushed here...--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for editors to accuse and impute each other of impropriety due to nationalistic "sentiments"! The facts can be easily checked and they speak for themselves. Firstly, the link to the article by the Russian Orthodox Church only states (correctly) that the Patriarchate of Constantinople “canonically restored” the head of the “Kiev patriarchate” and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church — nowhere does it claim that Autocephaly had already been granted, only that it had been "initiated". As already pointed out, the latest official communique of the Ecumenical Patriarch (dated 11 October 2018) states that a decision was made to "proceed to the granting of Autocephaly". Nowhere does it state that Autocephaly was granted! The situation does not need to be interpreted by editors — it may be best to read the confirmation that autocephaly has not been granted just yet in detail in a major Ukrainian-language newspaper, the Українська Правда (11 October 2018) which outlines the steps needed in the future to achieve Autocephaly. Also, this is confirmed in a major English-language Ukrainian newspaper, the Kyiv Post (14 October 2018): "The Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church are planning to merge with pro-independence bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate into an independent (autocephalous) Ukrainian church, which is expected to receive a tomos". How much more plain can this be? Very trivial (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming the rest of us are Orthodox, split between the Greek and Slavs. You helped solve this. Thanks.TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

TheTexasNationalist99, you err on several counts. When talking about such matters, read actual documents, not journalistic claptrap: written for those who know nothing about the subject by those who know even less. See my posting below, in the next thread. Apropos the OCA, the jurisdiction is recognized by all; but Phanar views it as a part of the Moscow Patriarchate (as they do not recognize, as a matter of principle, the right of the new Patriarchates, which had been established by them without an ecumenical council′s imprimatur, to grant autocephaly). The autocephaly to the Church in Ukraine (not the KP!) has not been granted yet. More importantly for this article, autocephaly is not about to be granted to the Kieve P, but to a new body that has yet to be instituted at the constituent council of all the bishops of all jurisdictions who are willing horses.Axxxion (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that was already clarified...TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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 [1] ). 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: [2]--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)