Over the past months, representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate have been actively and systematically promoting information at various levels that their church is supported by the majority of the population of Ukraine. In parallel with this process, from time to time the media publishes data from one or another sociological service, which is aimed at confirming the validity of the words of the so-called speakers. UOC KP.
In this case, the data is called differently. However, what is important is not their approximate coincidence, but the repeated demonstration that in many indicators the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) is inferior almost several times to its main “opponents” - the Kyiv Patriarchate.
For example, one of the studies, which received serious publicity in the media, recorded a rather gloomy picture for the UOC-MP. We are talking about a February sociological survey conducted by four companies: the Center for Social and Marketing Research SOCIS, the Sociological Group “Rating”, the Razumkov Center and KIIS. 25 thousand citizens of Ukraine took part in it.
According to the results of the study, of those who consider themselves Orthodox believers, 38% associate themselves with the so-called. UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate, almost 20% - with the UOC-MP and only 1% - with the UAOC. At the same time, supporters of the UOC-MP prevail over supporters of the so-called. UOC-KP in only 4 regions of Ukraine.
It is noteworthy that the appearance of the corresponding surveys practically coincided with the next resuscitation of the process of unification of the UAOC and the Kyiv Patriarchate. As part of numerous discussions, many copies were broken about the principles on which the merger of the two religious structures should take place. Representatives of the so-called The UOC-KP, using the sociological and statistical data they had, persistently pushed the priority of their unification scenario. In response to the indignation of their partners from the UAOC, they de facto put forward a simple argument: “There are more of us, therefore we are right.”
However, this moment should be perceived only as a tactical component. There are opinions that the Kyiv Patriarchate needs sociological and statistical data to promote more global goals.
So, in the journals of the meeting of the Holy Synod of the so-called. UOC-KP, which took place on July 27, 2015, you can find a very interesting fragment: “The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate considers itself exclusively as the heir of the ancient Kyiv Metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and in this capacity, relying on repeated decisions of Councils and the will of the majority of Orthodox Christians certified by numerous sociological surveys residents of Ukraine (only about 20% of Orthodox believers consider themselves to be members of the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate)..."
The context of this passage also includes the recent statement of “Patriarch” Filaret, which he made at a meeting in honor of the 400th anniversary of the Kyiv Orthodox Theological Academy. Its essence can be described in one sentence: the unification of Ukrainian Orthodoxy will take place on the basis of the Kyiv Patriarchate. Where does this confidence come from? It's simple: the so-called chapter. The UOC-KP again resorted to juggling with statistical data that was so convenient for it, declaring the adherence of as many as 40% of Orthodox Ukrainians to the Kyiv Patriarchate, only 20% to the UOC and a very insignificant 1.2% to the UAOC.
Statistics are a tool in the game of the Kyiv Patriarchate, the goal of which is to achieve canonical status from Constantinople
These examples prompt the idea that the mentioned sociological studies did not appear just like that. One way or another they help the so-called. UOC KP in solving a number of problems. First of all, in “confirming” the status of the “largest Orthodox” denomination in Ukraine. Operating on this factor, the Kiev Patriarchate wants to achieve the right to speak supposedly on behalf of the majority of Orthodox Ukrainians and on this basis to give unshakable weight to some of its initiatives. In particular, attempts to gain canonical status from the hands of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on favorable terms.
In theory, everything went smoothly for the Kyiv Patriarchate. However, life does not tolerate desecration of truth and reality.
3 thousand people came out for the festive religious procession of the Kyiv Patriarchate, and 30 thousand believers walked in the religious procession of the UOC Moscow Patriarchate
A knockout blow to the so-called statistical “records”. The UOC-KP celebrated the 1000th anniversary of the repose of the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir. On June 27, a grandiose event took place through the streets of Kyiv move of the believers of the UOC, in which over 30 thousand people took part. The next day, the Kiev Patriarchate brought its supporters to the streets. According to the most optimistic data, about 3 thousand people gathered.
In the context of this, an interesting question arises. Namely: how did it happen that the so-called. The UOC-KP, which has been “assigned” by sociological research to have the largest number of Orthodox parishioners in Ukraine, has brought into action at least 10 (!) times fewer people than the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?
After all, it cannot be said that the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the death of Prince Vladimir was an ordinary event. And what in the so-called The UOC-KP did not fully prepare for it.
So, most likely, the matter is different. Namely, in the significant gap between “paper” indicators inspired by surveys and reality.
In light of the above, it is also worth noting that doubt is raised not only by the data of sociological studies that give the leading position to the Kyiv Patriarchate, but also by other statistics related to it.
The head of the UAOC, Metropolitan Macarius, mentioned this, in particular, in an interview with the LigaBusinessInform news agency. Answering the question about which denomination will be the largest after the unification of the autocephalous church and the “Filaretites,” he said: “In terms of the number of real parishes or paper ones? These are different numbers, so it is difficult to name them. Paper ones - I’ll tell you for myself. In the Tauride diocese we have 54 parishes on paper, but 32 active ones. Because there are no priests, no premises. These are huge funds. There are villages where parishes are registered, but there is no money even for a chapel. It is clear that the Kyiv Patriarchate will have more parishes. Although their situation with paper receipts is no better.”
To fully understand this, it is necessary to refer to the statistics of the State Department of Nationality and Religious Affairs, which date back to January 1, 2015.
They recorded the following balance of forces.
The data presented is very interesting. Especially in terms of the following two indicators.
As can be seen from the table, in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church there are 207 monasteries and 4869 monastics.
In the so-called UOC Kyiv Patriarchate - 62 monasteries and (please pay special attention!) 221 monks.
There are 4869 monastics in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church; the Kyiv Patriarchate has 221
Just compare: 4869 and 221.
At the same time, the number of parishes of the UOC exceeds the Kiev Patriarchate by almost three times. If we draw a rough analogy, one would expect the same proportion for monastics (it is interesting that in terms of the number of monasteries the proportions are almost identical - 3.3 times).
Let's assume that the number of so-called monks The UOC-KP is evenly scattered among the monasteries existing there. It turns out that there are 3-4 people for each monastery (if there are more of them somewhere, it means that in certain monasteries there are fewer of them; therefore, one should not exclude the existence of monasteries in which one monk can theoretically work). In general, these numbers are still amazing: only 3-4 people.
Why is this moment so important? It's simple. Recently, the media has repeatedly raised the question of the advisability of transferring the Kiev-Pechersk and Pochaev Lavra into the hands of the “correct patriotic confession.”
If the Laurels are transferred to the Kyiv Patriarchate, will there be monks for them?
In light of the above, the question arises: if the Laurels are transferred to the jurisdiction of the Kyiv Patriarchate, will they simply find people to take the place of several hundred monks of the UOC who are now asceticizing in the mentioned shrines? After all, during all the years of its “independence,” the Kiev Patriarchate managed to promote only a little more than 200 monks from its ranks. And this is a very unpleasant indicator for them. After all, the approximate strength of Churches should be determined not by the number of supporters, who are often determined by their confessional affiliation during opinion polls, but by other indicators. First of all, by the number of monks.
This point cannot be underestimated. I’ll give just one example that explains everything very eloquently and unambiguously. The Monk Theodore the Studite called the monks “the nerves of the Church,” since they are its center, foundation and main driving force.
Based on this, it becomes scary for Laurel’s potential fate. Monastic prayer can simply fade away there.
Another option is quite possible.
“Yoga of the world.
We are located in the very heart of ancient Kyiv, in the Vydubitsky Monastery (belongs to the so-called UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate. – M.K.), next to the Botanical Garden. An atmosphere of peace and tranquility, clean air, a beautiful garden, cozy halls and rooms will help make your classes as effective as possible.
Also for you:
- Individual lessons and consultations
- Thematic seminars
- Qi gong
- Mini groups
- Meditations
- Esoteric travels
- Esoteric literature
- And much, much more!”
It is possible that texts of this kind are a consequence of the shortage of monks in the monastery. And that this forces the monastery to hand over its buildings for use to various structures, some of which, as certain practice shows, may profess far from Orthodox values in a place under the omophorion of the Kyiv Patriarchate.
In general, everything said above is a serious reason to think for those Ukrainians who consider themselves Orthodox believers. To the question: “What is more important: statistics and polling data or spirit and grace?”– everyone must answer for themselves. Frankly and impartially. After all, our entire future life depends on the answer we receive...
About the church schism, its harmful essence and inevitable consequences.
What is the difference between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the “Kiev Patriarchate”? Secular journalists, PR specialists, art critics and priests answer this question.
“They have a completely different point of view.”
Arina Kontonistova, journalist, parishioner of the temple in honor of John of Kronstadt, Vinnitsa:
“There was a family and it split. Someone has gone in the other direction, says the same prayers, but thinks completely differently. But God is love, and everyone must make peace. A split has occurred: they read prayers in Ukrainian, they have a completely different point of view regarding today's events in Ukraine. They are for Europe, they are for the fact that everyone is to blame. In our churches they didn’t give blessings to go to the Maidan, but there, on the contrary, everyone lived by the Maidan.
And my point of view: if there is a dispute, then both sides did something wrong. I was told many times about the split from our side, but I can never remember this essence, the reason for it all. It seems that Filaret wanted to create a Ukrainian Church, but they didn’t let him. And not one of the Local Orthodox Churches in the world recognized the “Kiev Patriarchate”. But for me the most important thing is when all people live peacefully, amicably and fruitfully.”
“The service was conducted in a language I understood”
Evgeny Frolov, editor-in-chief of the weekly RIA:
“What I noticed for myself during the baptism of my niece in the Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate was that the service was conducted in a language I understood. Unlike the service in the “Moscow Patriarchate”, where they speak Church Slavonic, which to me sounds exactly the same as Latin or any other language unfamiliar to me.
In general, I don’t go to church. But when I hear the service of the “Moscow Patriarchate,” I don’t understand a word—I rarely catch any words. At the services of the “Kyiv Patriarchate” everything is clear. This is a defining moment for me."
“This is not a Church, but a gathering of mummers”
Sergei Baranchuk, journalist, parishioner of St. Nicholas Church, town. Strizhavka, Vinnytsia district:
“The so-called UOC-KP differs in that it is not a Church, but a gathering of mummers - a fake “church.” There is no grace there, because it is self-made - it did not receive legal autocephaly from the Mother Church of the Russian Orthodox Church. Therefore, this is a schism, an arbitrary gathering of mummers, for whom it is not Christ who is God, but the personal ambitions of the false patriarch Denisenko and “nationalist itch.” This is a sect - this pseudo-church is not recognized by the entire Orthodox world. For in this so-called “church” of the UOC-KP, pride and lust for power rule the roost, there is a graceless desert, there salvation is impossible. All the Sacraments there are invalid: people who were baptized there were not actually baptized, those who got married there were not married, those who confessed there did not receive absolution, etc.”
“I am very far from all this”
Oksana Nestorovich, art critic:
“I can’t answer this question, because I don’t follow the life of either church. I am very far from all this. Of course, there is probably some difference, but I don’t know what it is. In addition, one church belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate, and the other to the Kyiv Patriarchate. Well, probably, there is the Kyiv Patriarchate. Doesn’t Kyiv have its own patriarchy?!”
“I don’t have any blatant stereotypes”
Olga Yurkova, journalist, magazine "Kraina", Kyiv:
“The UOC, after all, is strongly influenced by Russia. The UOC-KP has a clearly pro-Ukrainian position on issues of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. The UOC often conducts services and sermons in Russian. The UOC is intolerant of other faiths (I don’t know if this is actually true, but there is such a stereotype). I, after all, am a parishioner of the UOC, so I don’t have any blatant stereotypes.”
“For me there is no difference, but the “Kiev Patriarchate” is closer”
Natalya Tarnopolskaya, PR specialist, Kyiv:
“The Ukrainian patriarchy is closer to me. I understand that according to the canonical laws of the Church they are not recognized anywhere, but who wrote the laws is not clear to me. Because there is the Bible, and I, as a believer and student of the Bible, can use it to guide my faith and actions. And the laws written somewhere there by priests are incomprehensible to me. Moreover, in the Bible Jesus says that the assembly of priests is becoming obsolete, because there are a lot of sins among the priests. Faith and God are one, and the assembly of priests needs to be liquidated. This is not accurate, this is how I understood it, I read the Bible in the Ukrainian version - the way I see it for myself. For me, as a believer, there is a law - this is the Bible. But I consider the non-recognition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to be wrong - for me it is recognized. Because if Kirill and the Synod gather there and argue, for me this is not an indicator of whether it is legal or illegal.
I come to the Orthodox Church of the Kyiv or Moscow Patriarchate - for me there is no difference. I come to a prayed place and pray. And all these rules are unacceptable to me. But it’s unpleasant for me when in the church of the Moscow Patriarchate at the end of the service they praise Kirill. Because I listen to his various statements and it’s unpleasant for me. And the “Kiev Patriarchate” is closer to me, because when I stand at the service, I understand what is being said, I hear the speech and understand the meaning of the prayer.
Of course, I have no knowledge, and I myself cannot understand where it is better and where it is worse. So it would be interesting to read what priests have to say about these differences.”
“There is no grace of the Holy Spirit and no apostolic succession”
Priest Alexander Lapko, rector of the temple in honor of the High Priest Martyr Stephen, p. Chernyatyn, Vinnytsia region:
“The Church in society does not take on any particular role as a charitable organization or body providing assistance. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and governed through the Holy Sacraments.
The Church is the Body of Christ the Savior, and the head of the Church is Jesus Christ Himself, and we are living members of this organism. In addition, there is apostolic succession in the Church, and grace was transmitted from Christ to the apostles, and from the apostles to their disciples, bishops and priests, who are followers.
Christ said: “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven; on whomever you leave it, it will remain on him.” And again: “And I say to you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
According to the definition of the Ecumenical Councils, which through apostolic succession have the grace of the Holy Spirit, everyone who rejects the unity of the Church through schism, through disobedience to a higher hierarchy, becomes excommunicated from the unity of the Ecumenical Church.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is one of 15 canonical Churches. And whoever leaves unity with the Universal Church completely loses the grace of the Holy Spirit, which guides all service and the performance of the Sacraments. The sacraments lose their power because there is no grace on them. Therefore, the services of schismatics are graceless and blasphemous.
This is the main difference between the so-called. “Kyiv Patriarchate” from the canonical churches - they do not have the grace of the Holy Spirit, and there is no apostolic succession. This is the most basic thing. Apparently it looks like a church-wide service - there are even schismatic communities in which they serve in Church Slavonic, but they commemorate not the Patriarch, but schismatic hierarchs. These services are not valid, canonical, because these churches are not in communion with the Universal Church. There are Apostolic Canons that regulate these concepts. For an ordinary person who has never come into contact with church laws, this can be very difficult.
Therefore, it is important to understand that there is a canonical Church, legally inherited from Christ the Savior, and there are churches that have taken the path of schism and disagreement.”
“Filaret simply repeated the fall of Satan”
Archpriest Sergius Belyanov, cleric of the St. John the Useknovensky Church in Kharkov, editor-in-chief and publisher of the children's Orthodox magazine “Droplets”:
“You need to look at the root. Our Church originates from the depths of centuries, having its legal continuity from Christ Himself and the apostles. The UOC is part of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy. Our Church is more than two thousand years old, and its task is to preach the gospel of Christ and serve God and people.
The UOC-KP arose only 23 years ago, and the beginning of their so-called. The church is facing a scandal. Filaret Denisenko, the former head of the UOC, being one of the contenders for the patriarchal throne, was not elected by the Holy Synod to this post.
Denisenko, not submitting to such a decision, in 1992, with part of the clergy and laity, left the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, forming his own, appointing himself Patriarch of Kyiv. It is important to know: this “church” is still not recognized by the entire Christian world as legitimate!
From the very beginning of the formation of the UOC-KP it has been a dirty scandal. But there cannot be clean water from a dirty source. Filaret wanted to be the first, became an opponent of the will of the Church, organized his own in order to become the main one in it. Analogy: Dennitsa (Satan), who wanted to be God, fell away from God, becoming his opponent, created his own kingdom, appointing himself first in it. Filaret simply repeated the fall of Satan - he opposed the Council, which is moved by the Holy Spirit and which is the voice of God.
And the title simply “Patriarch of Kiev” was not enough for him. In 1995, he added “All Rus'-Ukraine” to his title. And I would call myself higher, but there is nowhere higher. In general, the foundation of the formation of the UOC-KP lies in the self-esteem of the human personality.
That’s the difference – we are different from the start! Our desire is to bring the gospel of Christ to the whole world, without limiting ourselves by national identity, languages and borders. We are part of the Ecumenical Orthodox world.
A priori, they cannot behave the way the Universal Church, to which we also belong, acts. They came out of it to behave distinctively. Hence the ideas about a national church. And this is the path of self-isolation, the path that cuts them off from world Orthodoxy.”
Rustle chestnuts. Green Dnieper slopes. The splash of fish in Slavutich. Paving stones half-hidden under the snow. Unique buildings that remember the century before last. The richest museums and exquisite theaters. Slender Obolon skyscrapers, squat Podolsk houses and the most beautiful churches in Kyiv.
But is it possible to imagine the City of Kiya without the golden domes of churches burning in the rays of the sunset? Arrows directed upward, connecting the earthly and heavenly worlds? Their shiny domes, cool walls, ancient frescoes and mysterious icons?
Absolutely unrealistic!
St. Elias Church, Pochaininskaya, 2
The first Orthodox church of Kievan Rus.
Holy Ascension Florovsky Convent, Frolovskaya, 6/8
Holy Intercession Convent, lane. Bekhterevsky, 15
One of the little-known highlights of Kyiv. , hidden in the depths of the block formed by Artema, Pimonenka, Glybochitskaya and Kudryavsky Spusk streets.
Founded in 1889 by Grand Duchess Alexandra Romanova, it was conceived primarily as a hospital for the poor.
In 1911, St. Nicholas Cathedral, built in the pseudo-Russian style, was consecrated here.
Nowadays, after repairs and the return of fifteen domes removed by the Bolsheviks to their place, the cathedral again pleases the eyes and souls of Kiev residents and guests of the capital.
How to get there: Art. metro station "Maidan Nezalezhnosti" or "Lukyanovskaya", trolleybuses 6, 18, stop. "Poltavskaya".
St. Cyril Church, O. Teligi, 12
One of two (the second is Sofia) temples of Kievan Rus, the walls of which have survived, not in their original form, but still.
It was built in 1139 by Vsevolod of Chernigov as, on settlements that were distant for the then Kyiv - Dorogozhychi.
It became a place of eternal rest for the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and several Chernigov Olgovichs.
In 1734 it acquired the features of Ukrainian Baroque, preserving the unique frescoes of the 12th century and the magical works of Vrubel.
A leading place in the list of the most soulful sacred places in the capital.
How to get there: Art. metro station "Lukyanovskaya", trolleybuses 6, 18, stop. "Kirillovskaya".
Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, I. Mazepa, 21-25
The first calling card of our country, an indispensable place of pilgrimage for millions of tourists (regardless of religious affiliation).
One of the oldest monasteries of Kievan Rus was founded in 1051 by the monks Anthony and Theodosius. Over the 964 years of its existence, it has known cosmic ups and stunning downs. The most severe blow was the destruction in 1941 of the Assumption Cathedral, which, according to legend, was erected by order of the Mother of God herself.
In 2000, on the occasion of the 950th anniversary, the revived Cathedral opened its doors to parishioners. The interior painting of the temple continues to this day.
How to get there: Art. Arsenalnaya metro station, trolleybus 38, stop. "National Museum of the Great Patriotic War."
Vydubitsky St. Michael's Monastery, Vydubitskaya, 40
Founded in 1070 by Vsevolod, son of Yaroslav the Wise. It became famous as the family monastery of the Monomakhovichs and the center of political life of that time.
Today, within the boundaries of the monastery there are three beautiful, unique churches, a bell tower, a well with holy water and a necropolis.
It is located on the territory of the city, a favorite walking place for city residents. Especially during the lilac blossom season.
How to get there: Art. m. "Friendship of Peoples", trolleybus 43, stop. "Paton's Bridge"
Holy Intercession Cathedral, Prirechnaya, 5A
One of the youngest and at the same time the largest temples in the City. Construction began in 1997 and has not been completed to this day. The highlight of the cathedral is the mosaic icon of the Intercession of the Mother of God on the facade, with an area of 122 square meters. m.
How to get there: Art. metro station "Minskaya", trolleybus 24 stop. "Riverside".
Behind the scenes there are still many magnificent temples that decorate our City. But no one will stop you from continuing to get to know them on your own. Discovering a lot of new and interesting corners of your beloved Kyiv.
It doesn't matter how you feel about religion and faith. are more than places of worship. This is an integral part of the Great City above the Dnieper. One of the beauties that make up the unforgettable, beautiful and majestic organism called Kyiv.
Churches, cathedrals and temples of Kyiv. All about holy places and pilgrimage to Kyiv.
- Tours for the New Year all over the world
- Last minute tours all over the world
Any UNESCO Museum Card
For centuries, among the hilly streets of Kyiv, ancient temples and churches full of grandeur have stood, adorning the city with sacred beauty, gold domes reflecting the sun's rays. Thematic excursions are dedicated to Kyiv churches; Kiev residents get married and baptize children in these churches. Guests of the city are often surprised by how many golden domes glitter in the sun on the hills of the right bank of the Dnieper, on the old streets of Podol, the Upper Town, and the Latin Quarter. Built in difficult terrain, Kyiv churches and monasteries organically fit into the appearance of the city. There are not only beautiful churches of traditional architecture, but also truly pearls of Orthodox architecture.
The oldest of the stone churches of Ancient Rus' - Desyatinnaya - was built in 996, and St. Sophia Cathedral with its magnificent mosaics, dazzling white walls and golden domes is the oldest temple in Kiev, built in the first half of the 11th century. Another very interesting temple can be called the St. Cyril Church, built in the 12th century and still retaining the most ancient frescoes of those times on its walls.
The unique complex of monasteries of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra is one of the most important Orthodox shrines of the city. However, this magnificent architectural ensemble itself can easily pass for a small city: it includes fourteen Orthodox churches, a monastery, seven museums and many other buildings, looking at which milestones in the history of architecture of Kievan Rus and Ukraine flash before your eyes. In 1990, the Kiev Pechersk Lavra and St. Sophia Cathedral were included in the UNESCO World Heritage List.
Opposite St. Sophia of Kyiv stands the strikingly beautiful St. Michael's Golden-Domed Cathedral - a brilliant work of ancient Russian painting, famous for its elegant colorful mosaics.
One of the most beautiful churches in Kyiv - St. Andrew's Church - rises majestically on the hilly bank of the Dnieper. This is one of the outstanding buildings in the Baroque style, which is characterized by pomp, color, magnificent decoration and contrasting colors.
The main temple of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is considered to be the Vladimir Cathedral, which was built over twenty long years, from 1862 to 1882, and is an unsurpassed masterpiece of Kyiv architecture and painting. Magnificent artists, including the famous Vasnetsov, worked on the painting of the interior of the cathedral.
The Holy Intercession Convent is one of the newest monasteries in Kyiv, and its main temple, St. Nicholas Cathedral, is the largest of the Kyiv churches. At the beginning of the 20th century, the St. Nicholas Church was built in Kyiv - a stunningly beautiful building in the Gothic style. Its design seems light like lace, the towers reach to the sky, and the stucco decoration of the walls amazes with its brightness.
From Kyiv, Christianity spread throughout Kievan Rus; it was here that it was born, and this is fully felt by everyone who happens to see the amazing churches of this city. For centuries, their walls and vaults have preserved people's prayers, requests and doubts - appeals to God, creating a unique sacred atmosphere. Even if you are an unbeliever, it is impossible to refuse to visit Kyiv churches: the elegant towers and domes attract the eye, and the splendor of the interior decoration is mesmerizing.
- Where to stay: in more than 1000 accommodation options in Kyiv: there are “Hiltons” with “Hyatts”, and affordable “three rubles”, and apartments - the choice of most tourists, and hostels with a spartan atmosphere. The historical center will be convenient for lovers of attractions, but it will not be cheap. The outskirts lure with attractive prices, but you need to get to the city center by metro.
- What to see: First of all, take a walk along Khreshchatyk and Andreevsky Spusk, not forgetting to try borscht and dumplings in any of the many restaurants. Then visit
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate(ukr. Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate), Also Kiev Patriarchate(ukr. Kiev Patriarchate); abbreviated UOC KP) is a canonically unrecognized Orthodox church in Ukraine.
As of the beginning of 2015, 44% of Ukrainians consider themselves to be members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, 21% of the population called themselves believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), 11% - of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. As of November 2016, 25.3% of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine are parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC MP - 39.4%, UGCC - 21.3%, UAOC - 4.6%) or 39.5% of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine they are parishioners of the UOC-KP (25.4% consider themselves “simply Orthodox”; 23.3% - UOC-MP; 4.8% - UAOC; 1.3% - directly the Russian Orthodox Church)
Story
Late 1980s Aggravation of the church-political situation in Ukraine
At the end of the 1980s, on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR, as a result of the policy of “perestroika” and the general liberalization of political life, a sharp aggravation of the church-political situation occurred. This especially affected the western Ukrainian regions, where, in the wake of growing national-separatist sentiments, the revival of Greek Catholicism (UGCC) and autocephalist religious communities (UAOC) began. In this situation, the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate was unable to find an acceptable solution to the Uniate problem, and the hierarchs of the Ukrainian Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church abandoned attempts at dialogue with the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and preferred to take an uncompromising position, which led to a massive transfer of clergy and laity from the canonical Orthodox Church to the UGCC and the UAOC, the spontaneous seizure of property and property of the Russian Orthodox Church in Western Ukraine. Acute inter-confessional confrontation led to the destruction of the Orthodox dioceses here.
In an effort to prevent the deepening of the schism of Orthodoxy and the spread of Uniatism in Ukraine, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on January 30-31, 1990 decided to grant broader autonomy to the Ukrainian and Belarusian exarchates, which received financial independence, the right to be called the Ukrainian and Belarusian Orthodox Churches, respectively, and have their own Synods , to whom the highest judicial, legislative and executive ecclesiastical power in the dioceses located on their territory was transferred. The autonomy of the Ukrainian Exarchate, however, only aggravated the matter - Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia Filaret (Denisenko), who held the post of Exarch of Ukraine for 25 years, began to rule it almost uncontrollably, and his ill-considered actions in the new conditions contributed to the discrediting of Orthodoxy in the western regions of Ukraine.
That same summer, Metropolitan Filaret, under the pretext of the need to normalize church life in Ukraine, began to strive for an even greater expansion of the autonomy of the UOC. On July 9, the Ukrainian episcopate, on the initiative of Metropolitan Philaret, adopted the “Appeal of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to grant it independence and independence in governance”, at the Council in Kyiv elected Metropolitan Philaret as its primate, and on July 10, the Synod of the UOC adopted a resolution on measures aimed at expanding the autonomy of the Ukrainian Exarchate , which was again motivated by the difficult religious and political situation in Ukraine. Due to the fundamental importance of this issue, it was submitted for discussion at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on October 25-27, 1990.
On November 22-23, 1990, in Kyiv, in connection with the granting of independent and independent governance status to the UOC, by decision of the Synod of the UOC, its First Local Council was held, at which the new Charter of the UOC was adopted.
1991-1992. The struggle for the autocephalous status of the UOC
By mid-1990, the process of dividing Ukrainian Orthodoxy into canonical (UOC) and autocephalist (UAOC) had largely stopped. By this time, about 1.5 thousand parishes, previously under the jurisdiction of the UOC, had gone to the UAOC, but in the second half of 1990 - the first half of 1991, the situation actually stabilized - about 5 thousand communities remained under the jurisdiction of the UOC.
The issue of granting autocephaly to the UOC was considered at meetings of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in December 1991 and February 1992, but each time the members of the Synod stated that this issue, which is of exceptional importance for the Ukrainian Church, should be comprehensively considered at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. In February, Metropolitan Filaret refused to take part in a meeting of the Synod, saying that he was ill and could not come.
Back in December 1991, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church decided to send out the appeal and determination of the Council of the UOC to all bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church for careful study. At the same time, Metropolitan Filaret sent a circular to Ukrainian dioceses about holding meetings of the clergy in support of the decision of the Council of the UOC to grant it independence.
On January 22, 1992, Metropolitan Philaret convened the Ukrainian Bishops' Conference, at which he insisted on granting autocephaly, addressed to His Holiness the Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. Three bishops who declared their disagreement and refused to sign the appeal - Bishops of Donetsk and Slavic Alipy (Pogrebnyak), Bishops of Chernivtsi and Bukovina Onufry (Berezovsky), Ternopil and Kremenets Sergiy (Gensitsky) - were deprived of their posts the next day. On January 29, the appeal of the UOC episcopate was delivered to Moscow. At the same time, Patriarch Alexy II was delivered an open letter from the Council for Religious Affairs under the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which also contained an urgent request to grant autocephaly to the UOC.
At a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 18-19, the “Message of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church to Metropolitan Philaret of Kyiv and All Ukraine and the episcopate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church” was adopted, which indicated that the request of the Council of the UOC to provide “ full canonical independence" goes beyond the competence of the Holy Synod and can only be responsibly considered at the conciliar level. In addition, the message pointed out the need to ensure the free expression of the clergy and laity of Ukraine in accordance with the norms of the canonical tradition of Orthodoxy. At the meeting of the Holy Synod, it was stated for the first time that if Metropolitan Philaret takes actions aimed at obtaining autocephaly of the UOC through non-canonical means, the Moscow Patriarchate intends to accept the Ukrainian flock into its direct jurisdiction.
On March 31 - April 5, 1992, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church took place, in which 97 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church took part, including 20 bishops from Ukraine (18 of them with voting rights). Four days out of six were devoted to discussing the church situation in Ukraine and the status of the UOC. This discussion, conducted in conditions that excluded pressure on the Ukrainian bishops, made it possible to obtain an adequate understanding of church life in Ukraine. The opinions expressed by the bishops were divided, but the result was unexpected: not only Russian hierarchs, but also the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian bishops spoke out against granting full independence to the UOC, mainly because with full independence, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine would be forced to single-handedly resist “Uniate aggression” “, and the schismatics from the UAOC will still not stop their destructive activities. Most of the bishops of the Ukrainian dioceses disavowed their signatures on the petition for the granting of autocephaly, explaining that they acted under duress, fearing oppression from Metropolitan Philaret and the Ukrainian authorities.
The discussion began with a report delivered by Metropolitan Filaret, who continued to defend the line of complete independence of the UOC, justifying the need for this step by the collapse of the USSR and the formation of an independent Ukrainian state. The majority of bishops took part in the discussion of the issue - 58 people spoke. Even some of those who initially supported the idea of granting autocephaly to the UOC were forced to admit that the independence granted to the UOC in 1990 gave only negative results for a year and a half and did not in any way contribute to eliminating the schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. The speakers laid the blame for this on Metropolitan Philaret, who used the broad autonomy granted to the UOC as a tool for strengthening personal power and arbitrariness against all those who disagreed with his course. Ukrainian bishops reported a sharply negative attitude of their flock towards the possible separation of the UOC.
It was also suggested [ by whom?] to consider the issue of changing the head of the UOC, Metropolitan Philaret, since there are very few supporters of the independence of the Ukrainian Church, and the entire campaign for church independence is based solely on the personal ambitions of Metropolitan Philaret. A few supporters of autocephaly tried to prevent his resignation. The six bishops present who were adherents of autocephaly prepared an appeal in which they stated that, in view of the autonomy and independence granted to the UOC in 1990, they consider it anti-canonical for the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to consider issues relating to the internal life of the Ukrainian Church, namely the activities of its primate. This appeal did not receive support from the majority of Ukrainian bishops, who, on the contrary, considered it acceptable to freely discuss the issue of Metropolitan Philaret’s activities in Moscow, where the primate of the UOC himself and the Ukrainian authorities did not put pressure on the episcopate. As a result, the discussion of the problem of autocephaly gradually grew into a discussion about the immoral behavior of Metropolitan Philaret and his gross mistakes in governing the Ukrainian Church.
Summing up the discussion, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Alexy II, said:
We are assured that granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will resolve all issues, just as we were previously assured of the need for independence in governance and the granting of the title of His Beatitude to the metropolitan. But the title of His Beatitude did not save the situation; granting independence and “independence” also did not produce results. The parishes that went into non-canonical autocephaly did not return, and the schism became stronger. Will we take responsibility for the division, do we have confidence that this will bring good to the Holy Church? Neither the Ukrainian episcopate nor the entire Council has such confidence. In order to talk about autocephaly, a calm environment is needed. But in our time - a time of destruction of economic, national, human ties, division and confrontation, of which the people are so tired, the desire to preserve the unity of the Church is the voice of God. We are all responsible for what is happening in Ukraine, but there is a special demand from the Primate of the Ukrainian Church. We ask Bishop Philaret, for the good of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, for the sake of our unity, in the name of the salvation of the Church in Ukraine, to resign from his post and to give the bishops of Ukraine the opportunity to choose a new primate .
Many other hierarchs also insisted on Metropolitan Philaret leaving his post. Metropolitan Filaret refused to fulfill this demand, but agreed to hold a vote on this issue at the Council of Bishops, making a counter request:
I feel that a prophet Jonah is needed, and I am ready to be one. But I ask that this Jonah be abandoned so that the sea does not rage in Ukraine, therefore I ask that the Ukrainian episcopate be allowed to hold elections for the new primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Kyiv. I give my archpastoral word that such a Council will be held, that no pressure will be exerted. Patriarch Alexy will approve a new primate by his decree. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church must fully exercise its rights given to it by the 1990 Council of Bishops. I also ask that you give me the opportunity to continue serving at the throne of God and not send me to rest .
The Patriarch thanked Metropolitan Philaret for his willingness to resign as head of the Ukrainian Church, and also promised that he would be able to continue his archpastoral service in one of the sees in Ukraine. When the Ukrainian bishops expressed doubts about whether the words of Metropolitan Philaret could be trusted, he, at the insistence of the Patriarch, before the cross and the Gospel, confirmed his promise to resign as soon as the Council of the UOC convened; he also promised to immediately hold a meeting of the Synod of the UOC to restore the bishops he illegally removed to their sees.
In the Determination of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, it was noted that during the discussion, the ambiguous attitude of the clergy and believers of Ukraine to the issue of autocephaly was revealed: the idea of church independence is popular in the west of Ukraine, but does not find a response in the eastern Ukrainian dioceses, and therefore, to fully express the will of the UOC, the question it was decided to bring up its complete independence for discussion at the next Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.
1992. Creation of the UOC-KP
Meanwhile, having returned to Kyiv, Metropolitan Filaret, contrary to this promise, continued actions aimed at creating an independent church structure in Ukraine. On April 7, 1992, during a service in the Kiev Vladimir Cathedral on the day of the Annunciation, Filaret announced his refusal to resign as head of the UOC, and on April 14 he stated at a press conference that the Council of Bishops in Moscow was held in violation of the Charter of Management and Regulations ROC. Filaret said that his oath was forced and therefore invalid. He, according to him, was slandered and for this reason refused to resign. Filaret announced that he would lead the Ukrainian Orthodox Church until the end of his days, since he was “given by God to Ukrainian Orthodoxy.”
The administration of President Kravchuk provided every possible support for the anti-canonical actions of Metropolitan Philaret. Nevertheless, when Filaret called on the Ukrainian bishops to gather at his Kyiv residence, he was joined only by the vicar of the Ternopil diocese, Bishop of Pochaev Jacob (Panchuk), the vicar of the Pochaev Lavra, expelled by the brethren from the monastery as a supporter of Filaret. Even those Ukrainian hierarchs who spoke as advocates of autocephaly at the Council of Bishops in Moscow refused to support Filaret. Only a few months later, Bishop Andrey of Lvov (Gorak) joined Filaret, who at the beginning of July, with the majority of the clergy of his diocese, left the UOC and moved to the UAOC. The majority of believers also reacted negatively to the actions of Metropolitan Philaret. Almost all churches in Ukraine stopped commemorating the head of the UOC during services, and the Odessa diocese turned to Patriarch Alexy II with a request to accept her into the direct Patriarchal administration. On April 30, a meeting of bishops, clergy, monastics, representatives of Orthodox brotherhoods and laity of the UOC was held in Zhitomir, where Filaret was accused of slandering the Council of Bishops and perjury, demanding his immediate resignation.
On May 6-7, an extended meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church took place. Filaret did not respond to the invitation to take part in the meeting. The Synod ordered Metropolitan Philaret to convene the Council of Bishops of the UOC before May 15 and submit his resignation to it. In connection with the state of emergency that arose in the UOC due to the fault of its primate, the Synod prohibited Metropolitan Philaret from acting as its primate until the Council of Bishops of the UOC - convening the Synod, ordaining bishops, issuing decrees and appeals. The Synod warned Filaret that in case of failure to comply with the resolutions of the Council and this decision of the Synod, he would be brought before the church court. These decisions were brought to the attention of believers in Ukraine by a special Message from the Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod, which emphasized that these decisions are not an attack on the independence of the UOC, granted to it by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in October 1990.
In connection with Philaret’s refusal to submit to the decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Synod on May 21 instructed the oldest ordination among the Ukrainian hierarchs - Metropolitan Nikodim of Kharkov and Bogodukhovsky Nikodim (Rusnak) - to immediately convene the Council of Bishops of the UOC to elect its new primate. In response to this, Filaret sent a message to Patriarch Alexy that he considered the decisions of the Synod “unfounded and ineffective.”
On May 26, Filaret gathered his supporters in Kyiv for the so-called “All-Ukrainian Conference on the Protection of the Canonical Rights of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.” The conference, in which not a single Ukrainian bishop took part, rejected the May decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. A small group of Philaret’s supporters, seeking to involve the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I in the church conflict in Ukraine, addressed him with a message in which they rejected the act of 1686 on the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis from the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. On May 30, Filaret sent a message to Patriarch Bartholomew in which he accused the Moscow Patriarchate of “anti-canonical activities” and that it “actually caused a schism in the bosom of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.” Filaret asked Bartholomew I to accept him, along with his closest assistants, under his jurisdiction.
On June 11, 1992, to consider the activities of Metropolitan Philaret, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church was convened, and a statement from the Ukrainian episcopate, signed by 16 hierarchs, was presented to its court. As a result of the proceedings, during which all the charges brought were proven, the Council decided to deprive Metropolitan Philaret of church rank and all degrees of the priesthood.
Filaret, deprived of his priesthood, did not recognize his resignation, and in this he received protection from the Ukrainian authorities. The police, together with members of the UNA-UNSO organization, did not allow a delegation of representatives of the UOC, who came to take over the affairs of the deposed Filaret, into the metropolitan residence. The same thing happened at the entrance to the Vladimir Cathedral, when the newly elected primate of the UOC, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine Vladimir, arrived there. Members of UNA-UNSO blocked the approaches to the temple and barricaded themselves from the inside. To avoid bloodshed among the Orthodox, Metropolitan Vladimir called not to use force and went to the Kiev-Pechersk Assumption Lavra, which the militants from the UNA-UNSO could not take by storm, encountering resistance from the monks and believers, on whose side was the Berkut riot police unit that arrived to defend the Lavra from nationalists. The Vladimir Cathedral, however, remained in the hands of Filaret and his followers.
Government interference in church affairs continued. With the support of President Kravchuk, Filaret retained control over the funds of the UOC. The President, by his decree, removed the chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs N.A. Kolesnik and replaced him with A.L. Zinchenko, a supporter of Filaret. Kravchuk and Zinchenko declared the decisions of the Kharkov Council of Bishops of the UOC illegal. The Presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a statement in which the Kharkov Council was declared not only illegal, but also non-canonical.
Finding himself in complete isolation from canonical Orthodoxy, Filaret found the only way out for himself - to unite with the UAOC, which he had recently denounced as schismatic. On June 25-26, 1992, in the Kyiv reception of Filaret (Pushkinskaya St., 36), a meeting of several bishops of the UAOC, deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and service personnel of the metropolis was held, called the Unification Council of two churches - the UOC and the UAOC. By the decision of the “council,” the UOC and UAOC were abolished, and all their property, finances and funds were declared the property of the newly created organization called the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate.” It was decided to consider the 94-year-old Patriarch of the UAOC Mstislav (Skrypnyk), who lived in the United States, as its leader, Filaret (Denisenko) as the deputy, and Anthony (Masendich) as the business manager. In fact, all the activities of the UOC-KP were led by Filaret, which subsequently led to a conflict with the former hierarchs of the UAOC who joined the UOC-KP.
On June 30, 1992, a delegation of the UOC-KP took a trip to Constantinople. The delegation included Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko), Metropolitan Anthony (Masendich), Archimandrite Valentin (Dazhuk), Abbot Daniil (Chekaluk), and Deputy of the Supreme Council of Ukraine Vasily Chervoniy. After this, information was disseminated on Ukrainian television about the supposedly possible recognition of the new church by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Constantinople, however, denied this claim.
Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in July 1993, during a visit to the Russian Orthodox Church, officially stated that he recognizes only one canonical Metropolitan of Kyiv - Vladimir (Sabodan).
After the death of the elderly Mstislav in 1993, the UAOC left the union with the UOC-KP. It was headed by Dimitri (Yarema), who received the rank of patriarch in the UAOC, while Vladimir (Romanyuk) became the patriarch of the UOC-KP. In December 1993 - January 1994, five bishops officially left the UOC-KP: Metropolitan Anthony (Masendich), Archbishop Spiridon (Babsky), Bishop Roman (Popenko), Bishop Sophrony (Vlasov) and Bishop John (Siopko). The bishops issued a repentant appeal to the Ukrainian people, in which they called on their former flock to return to the canonical Church, for Philaret and his false church are “leading them to eternal destruction.”
In 1995, the head of the UOC-KP Vladimir (Romanyuk) died under unclear circumstances. In October of the same year, Filaret (Denisenko) became the patriarch of the UOC-KP.
In 1995, Filaret created a structure in Russia called the Russian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (ROC-KP) and the True Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (TOC-KP). The first bishops in Russia, Philaret installed Archimandrite Adrian (Starina) from Noginsk and Archimandrite Joasaph (Shibaev) from Oboyan, expelled from the ROCOR and defrocked on charges of schismatics, as well as Varukh (Tishchenkov) from Tobolsk. According to the representatives of the UOC-KP themselves, the “ROC-KP” was the most unsuccessful project, which undermined their positions even in Ukraine, and the “alternative” structure created in Russia showed its complete insolvency and uncontrollability.
In 1997, on the recommendation of the episcopate of the UOC (MP), Filaret (Denisenko) was excommunicated by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church (he was defrocked back in 1992) and anathematized for “schismatic activities.”
On March 25, 2000, the synod of the UOC-KP issued a “tomos” on the creation of a Greek exarchate headed by “Archimandrite” Timothy (Koutalianos), who was ordained “Metropolitan of Korsun” on March 26. Having ordained the new “Exarch of All Greece,” Filaret, through the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, addressed the Ukrainian Ambassador to Greece with an order to help strengthen the position of the “exarchate” in Greece. As a result of the actions of the Ukrainian ambassador, forced to comply with this order, the Holy Synod of the Greek Church made the following statement: “The Holy Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Apostolic Church, like all other Local Orthodox Churches with which it is in Eucharistic Communion, has never recognized the existence of Ukraine of the Autocephalous Orthodox Patriarchate, including the so-called “Kyiv Patriarchate”.
Current state and structure
As of January 1, 2010, according to data released by the State Committee of Ukraine for Nationalities and Religions, the UOC-KP had 4,281 parishes, united in 32 dioceses (for comparison, the UOC-MP has more than 11,000 parishes). The largest number of parishes is in western Ukraine - in Galicia and Volyn, as well as in the Kyiv and Cherkasy regions. In no region of Ukraine was the Kiev Patriarchate the dominant denomination in terms of the number of parishes: in the west of Ukraine it is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, in the southeastern regions - the UOC MP. At the same time, in the Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv and Ternopil regions, the UOC (KP) has more parishes than the UOC (MP).
As of January 2015, according to the results of a joint study by the Ilka Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation (Ukrainian) Russian and the sociological service “Ukrainian Sociology Service” commissioned by the International Center for Advanced Studies (Ukrainian) Russian, in most regions, 44% of Ukrainians consider themselves to be members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate), 21% of the population called themselves believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), 11% - of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Only in the Donetsk region 55% considered themselves to be members of the UOC-MP, and in Galicia the majority of the population considers themselves believers of the Greek Catholic Church - 67%. The study was conducted from December 25, 2014 to January 15, 2015. A total of 4,413 respondents were surveyed, and the survey was not conducted in the Lugansk region and Crimea.
The UOC-KP demonstrates an increase in the number of believers. Thus, according to the results of a study of religious identity in Ukraine in 2010-2016, the number of believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchate) increased by 14.5% over 6 years, and the number of people who consider themselves to be members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) over this the same period of time decreased by 5.8%. The analytical report was prepared based on the results of an all-Ukrainian survey (Ukrainian) Russian(KIIS) 2014 respondents aged 18 years and over from May 19 to May 31, 2016 in 110 settlements in all regions of Ukraine (except Crimea and territories controlled by the DPR and LPR) by personal interview using stochastic sampling.
In November 2016, the head of the sociological service “Ukrainian Sociology Service”, head of the department of socio-political processes, Doctor of Sociological Sciences A. I. Vishnyak and Candidate of Sociological Sciences, researcher of the same department O. R. Kozlovsky at the press conference “Results of sociological research “Religious life of Ukraine” (spring 2016)”, the UNIAN news agency reported that according to a survey conducted by the Ukrainian Sociology Service, 25.3 Orthodox Christians in Ukraine are parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC MP - 39.4%, UGCC - 21 .3%, UAOC - 4.6%).
According to a survey conducted by the sociological service of the Razumkov Center from November 4 to November 9, 2016, the majority of Ukrainians consider themselves Orthodox - 64.7%. 39.5% of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine identify themselves with the UOC-KP, 25.4% consider themselves “simply Orthodox”, 23.3% - with the UOC (MP), 4.8% - with the UAOC, 1.3% - directly with ROC. “2018 respondents aged 18 years and over were interviewed in all regions of Ukraine, with the exception of Crimea and the occupied territories of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, according to a sample representing the adult population of Ukraine according to main socio-demographic indicators. The survey sample was constructed as a multi-stage, random sample with a quota selection of respondents at the last stage. The survey was conducted in 118 settlements (67 urban and 51 rural). Theoretical sampling error (without taking into account the design effect (English) Russian does not exceed 2.3% with a probability of 0.95."
According to the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, as of May 2016, it owned 3,676 premises (of which 2,260 were places of worship), second only to the UOC (MP) among religious organizations. The largest number of premises of the UOC (KP) is located in the Kyiv (377), Ivano-Frankivsk (327) and Lviv (314) regions, the smallest - in the Lugansk (17) and Transcarpathian (18).
Sociologist of religion and historian, researcher at the Center for Eastern European Studies at the University of Bremen N. A. Mitrokhin in May 2016, in an interview with the Religious Information Service of Ukraine, based on his observations during a trip to the south of the country, noted that “the number of parishes of the UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate for outside Western Ukraine is approximately 50-70% less than officially registered”, while for the “UOC (MP) it is about 12-15%” [ the significance of the fact? ] . And also commenting on the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate, he said that “there is a complex dynamics of the growth of the pro-Ukrainian part, redistribution of forces, intellectual growth, revaluation of the theological heritage, etc.” [ the significance of the fact? ]
Dioceses Exarchates
- European Exarchate
- Russian Exarchate: Belgorod-Oboyan Diocese and Bogorod Diocese
- Greek Exarchate
Efforts to normalize canonical status
Since its creation in 1992, the UOC-KP has tried to regulate its canonical position, but has still not received any recognition from world Orthodoxy. All attempts by supporters of autocephaly of the UOC-KP to pass off wishful thinking were met with refutation from both the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates. According to the testimony of Metropolitan Gennady of Sasim (Limuris), a member of the Synod and representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the WCC, “in our Church we do not call the Kiev Patriarchate the Kyiv Patriarchate. We call them schismatics so as not to give the impression that we recognize them. They can call themselves whatever they want, but not a single Church recognizes them.”
Educational institutions of the UOC-KP cooperate with the Ukrainian Catholic University and the Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg.
Russian Orthodox Church
On January 12, 2007, the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko met with the Primate of the UOC-KP Filaret (Denisenko) and the highest hierarchs of the UOC-KP at the Denisenko residence. According to press reports, Viktor Yushchenko spoke in favor of creating a mixed commission of the UOC-MP and the UOC-KP to “overcome the schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy and create a single local Church,” which caused a sharply negative reaction from the Russian Orthodox Church. In fact, Prime Minister of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych took the side of the Russian Orthodox Church on this issue.
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
The Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, held at the end of January 2007, as part of the Moscow Patriarchate, expressed bewilderment regarding the proposal of the President of Ukraine to “sit down at the negotiating table with false shepherds.” The bishops of the UOC (MP) decided to create a commission that will receive letters of repentance from representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate “who wish to return to the fold of the canonical Orthodox Church.”
In response to the decisions of the Council of Bishops of the UOC (MP) on January 29, 2007, the press center of the Kyiv Patriarchate issued a statement regarding initiatives regarding the restoration of the unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, which, in particular, said: “Such wording of the conditions and form of work of the commission of the UOC (MP) “to restore the unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy” deliberately humiliate representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate as a party to a possible dialogue. Representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate do not intend, through the mediation of this commission, to “repent” or “return to the fold” of the Moscow Patriarchate. Due to the fact that possible meetings of representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate with members of this commission can be assessed as a desire to “repent” before the Moscow Patriarchate and “enter its fold,” representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate are forced to refrain from cooperating with this commission on such conditions.” However, the Synod of the UOC-KP at a meeting on February 28, 2007 responded favorably to V. Yushchenko’s appeal regarding the possibility of dialogue with the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate and the legalization of the non-canonical UOC-KP.
On April 15, 2007, the Council of Bishops of the UOC-KP adopted the “Historical-Canonical Declaration” - a document that presented the main canons, dogmas and historical foundations for the existence of the independent Kyiv Patriarchate. Particular attention is paid to the problem of the schism of the Ukrainian Church and the relationship between the UOC-KP and the UOC-MP.
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
The negotiation process on the unification of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church has been going on intermittently since 1995. On June 12-14, 2001, in Istanbul, at the residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, a meeting of the participants of the Mixed Commission was held to study ways to achieve the unity of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, which was attended by representatives of the UOC-KP and UAOC, as well as Metropolitan of the UOC-in-USA Konstantin (Bagan). The meeting participants were received by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, after which agreements (“Συμφωνητικών”) were signed on the future unification of the UOC-KP and UAOC into a single church structure.
Negotiations intensified during the presidency of Viktor Yushchenko, who himself actively became involved in it, trying to enlist the support of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. During this period, a three-stage scheme for creating an independent Ukrainian church was developed:
- The first step is the unification of the UOC-KP and the UAOC;
- The second step is that the united church acquires canonical status by entering the Ecumenical Patriarchate;
- The third step is that the Ecumenical Patriarchate grants her autocephaly.
However, during the visit of the Ecumenical Patriarch to Ukraine on the occasion of the celebration of the 1020th anniversary of the baptism of Kievan Rus, which took place on July 25-27, 2008, representatives of the Ukrainian authorities and the UOC-KP failed to agree with Patriarch Bartholomew on the conditions for the creation of canonical jurisdiction in Ukraine. In turn, the Primate of the UAOC, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine Methodius (Kudryakov), put forward the resignation of the Primate of the UOC-KP Filaret (Denisenko) as the primary condition for unification, and the UOC-KP, in response to this statement, suspended the work of the commission for negotiating the unification on November 14, 2011. For these reasons, on February 9, 2012, the UAOC officially interrupted the negotiation process on the unification of the two churches.
The V Local Council of the UAOC, held on June 4-5, 2015, and the meeting of the Holy Synod of the UOC-KP, held on June 12 of the same year, decided to unite in the near future into a single Local Orthodox Ukrainian Church. On June 8, a joint meeting of the commissions of the UOC-KP and the UAOC was held in Kyiv, which was also attended by the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople - Bishop of the UOC in Canada Hilarion (Rudik) and Bishop of the UOC in the USA Daniil (Zelinsky), authorized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to take part in the meeting of the commissions. The final decision of the commission confirmed the intention and desire of the two churches to unite in the near future into a single Local Orthodox Ukrainian Church; the bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople also signed the document.
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
On May 3, 2003, in the St. Vladimir Cathedral of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate in Kyiv, Patriarch Filaret (Denisenko) and the Primate of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Supreme Archbishop of Kiev-Galicia Cardinal Lyubomir (Huzar) performed a joint ecumenical prayer service.
On May 7, 2011, the UOC-KP released a statement in connection with the surge of speculation around the cooperation of the Kiev Patriarchate with the UGCC, in which it noted that the cooperation of the UOC-KP and the UGCC is and will continue to be conducted exclusively with the preservation of the Kyiv Patriarchate’s loyalty to the dogmas, canons and doctrine of the Orthodox Church. This statement focused on the fact that as long as the Catholic Church in general or the UGCC in particular adheres to Latin dogmas, which distinguish it from the Orthodox Church, the unification of the UOC-KP and the UGCC into a single Church is impossible. In particular, it was pointed out that the Kiev Patriarchate does not consider Eucharistic unity with the UGCC possible, due to the fact that it firmly and invariably adheres to the tenets of the Orthodox faith and rejects those Latin dogmatic innovations that led to the Great Schism of 1054, including: teaching about the primacy of the Pope, about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and not only from the Father, about the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary and others.
In November 2012, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Svyatoslav (Shevchuk) stated that Greek Catholics “have no doubt about the authenticity” of the sacrament of baptism in the Kiev Patriarchate, despite the fact that this “Orthodox church community” is not “in full communion with world Orthodoxy.” .
Constantinople Orthodox Church
On June 12, 2007, the II All-Ukrainian Church-Public Forum “For the Ukrainian Local Orthodox Church” accepted a letter of appeal to the head of the Constantinople Orthodox Church, the Archbishop of Constantinople - New Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew with a request to “recognize Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate as a Local and Autocephalous Church Ukraine".